You just admitted the key word: transformed. That is exactly the point. A transformed identity is not the same as an unchanged, uninterrupted modern national identity. Kaldellis takes Byzantine Romanness seriously. So do I. But Byzantine Roman identity is not the same category as the modern Greek nation-state. Greek language, Orthodox Christianity, Roman political identity, Ottoman Rum millet, and modern Greek nationalism are connected historical layers. They are not identical. Asking for evidence is not “arbitrary”. It is the basic method of history. If you claim uninterrupted continuity, then show what kind of continuity you mean: linguistic continuity? religious continuity? political continuity? legal continuity? institutional continuity? ethnic continuity? modern national continuity? Because these are not the same thing. Kaldellis does not give you permission to collapse Roman identity into modern Greek ethnicity. He actually makes the opposite problem visible: identity transformed. So prove the chain. Do not hide behind the word “continuity”. Reference List Kaldellis, A. (2007) Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kaldellis, A. (2019) Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Roudometof, V. (1998) ‘From Rum Millet to Greek Nation: Enlightenment, Secularization, and National Identity in Ottoman Balkan Society, 1453-1821’, Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 16(1), pp. 11-48. doi:10.1353/mgs.1998.0024.

Academic sources do not “deconstruct” history. They test historical claims. Identity is a subject of history, and history is written through documents, chronology, and academic evidence. Nobody said Rum identity was a “geographical coincidence”. The point is different: Rum was not simply modern Greek ethnicity. It was a Roman, imperial, religious, political, and later Ottoman-confessional category. If you claim there was an uninterrupted Greek national core inside it, then show the primary evidence. Show continuous self-identification. Show continuous institutions. Show continuous literacy. Show continuous legal and political identity. Show where “Rum” meant the modern Greek nation-state before modern nationalism. Otherwise you are not proving continuity. You are projecting a modern national identity backward onto older Roman and Ottoman categories. Reference List Kaldellis, A. (2007) Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kaldellis, A. (2019) Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Roudometof, V. (1998) ‘From Rum Millet to Greek Nation: Enlightenment, Secularization, and National Identity in Ottoman Balkan Society, 1453-1821’, Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 16(1), pp. 11-48. doi:10.1353/mgs.1998.0024.

Historical definitions are different than political civil events I hope you are aware of that. In the broader historical-geographical sense, “Rum” also referred to the Roman/Byzantine world and its peoples. That world was multi-ethnic. Armenians, Syrians, Arabs, Slavs, Jews, Latins, Orthodox communities and others existed inside it. Roman/Rum identity was imperial, religious, political and geographical before it was ever turned into a modern national claim. Reference List Bromige, T. (2023) Armenians in the Byzantine Empire: Identity, Assimilation and Alienation from 867 to 1098. London: I.B. Tauris. Clements, H. (2025) ‘The “Millet” Paradigm: On Difference in the Late Ottoman Empire’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 67(1), pp. 97–127. Katsikas, S. (2009) ‘Millets in Nation-States: The Case of Greek and Bulgarian Muslims, 1912–1923’, Nationalities Papers, 37(2), pp. 177–201. Roudometof, V. (1998) ‘From Rum Millet to Greek Nation: Enlightenment, Secularization, and National Identity in Ottoman Balkan Society, 1453–1821’, Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 16(1), pp. 11–48.

I don’t have to know any language. We say Greek or Spanish do I need to know the languages to know their definition?? Rum Orthodox is the title and the definition. In the broader historical-geographical sense, “Rum” also referred to the Roman/Byzantine world and its peoples. That world was multi-ethnic. Armenians, Syrians, Arabs, Slavs, Jews, Latins, Orthodox communities and others existed inside it. Roman/Rum identity was imperial, religious, political and geographical before it was ever turned into a modern national claim. Reference List Bromige, T. (2023) Armenians in the Byzantine Empire: Identity, Assimilation and Alienation from 867 to 1098. London: I.B. Tauris. Clements, H. (2025) ‘The “Millet” Paradigm: On Difference in the Late Ottoman Empire’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 67(1), pp. 97–127. Katsikas, S. (2009) ‘Millets in Nation-States: The Case of Greek and Bulgarian Muslims, 1912–1923’, Nationalities Papers, 37(2), pp. 177–201. Roudometof, V. (1998) ‘From Rum Millet to Greek Nation: Enlightenment, Secularization, and National Identity in Ottoman Balkan Society, 1453–1821’, Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 16(1), pp. 11–48.

In the broader historical-geographical sense, “Rum” also referred to the Roman/Byzantine world and its peoples. That world was multi-ethnic. Armenians, Syrians, Arabs, Slavs, Jews, Latins, Orthodox communities and others existed inside it. Roman/Rum identity was imperial, religious, political and geographical before it was ever turned into a modern national claim. Reference List Bromige, T. (2023) Armenians in the Byzantine Empire: Identity, Assimilation and Alienation from 867 to 1098. London: I.B. Tauris. Clements, H. (2025) ‘The “Millet” Paradigm: On Difference in the Late Ottoman Empire’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 67(1), pp. 97–127. Katsikas, S. (2009) ‘Millets in Nation-States: The Case of Greek and Bulgarian Muslims, 1912–1923’, Nationalities Papers, 37(2), pp. 177–201. Roudometof, V. (1998) ‘From Rum Millet to Greek Nation: Enlightenment, Secularization, and National Identity in Ottoman Balkan Society, 1453–1821’, Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 16(1), pp. 11–48.

This is exactly the problem: You are turning a Roman imperial identity into a modern Greek ethnic identity. Modern Greece was created when one part of Orthodox/Rum world separated from the Ottoman imperial order and formed a new nation-state. That new state had its own government, borders, army, law, diplomacy, and later its own autocephalous Church of Greece. If “Roman” simply meant “Greek,” then why was the modern Greek state created as a new nation-state through rebellion against the Ottoman Empire, instead of being treated as the direct continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire? Why did the Church of Greece declare autocephaly in 1833, separating itself from the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Ottoman Constantinople? Why was modern Greece internationally recognized as a new sovereign state in 1830, instead of being treated as the continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire? The issue is not whether Greek language and Orthodoxy were important in the Eastern Roman world. They were. The issue is that you are using them to erase the difference between: Roman imperial identity, Ottoman Rum Orthodox identity, and the modern Greek nation-state. These are not the same thing. Reference List Britannica Editors (2026) ‘War of Greek Independence’, Encyclopaedia Britannica. Available at: Britannica Academic. Britannica Editors (n.d.) ‘Church of Greece’, Encyclopaedia Britannica. Available at: Britannica Academic. Katsikas, S. (2009) ‘Millets in Nation-States: The Case of Greek and Bulgarian Muslims, 1912–1923’, Nationalities Papers, 37(2), pp. 177–201. Roudometof, V. (1998) ‘From Rum Millet to Greek Nation: Enlightenment, Secularization, and National Identity in Ottoman Balkan Society, 1453–1821’, Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 16(1), pp. 11–48. doi:10.1353/mgs.1998.0024.

"successfully achieved secularization"

fact by the intellectual gatekeepers, of ‘free-thinkers’ and ‘men of reason’ looking to make a name for themselves following the footsteps of the preeminences of the Age of Enlightenment—of secularization and condescension towards the Church’s tradition and hold over the broader

Here’s a mirrored version of your argument, swapping in comparable (often far larger) Christian involvement in the exact same outcomes you listed. This puts the burden on you to defend “Christianity” the same way you’re demanding Jews defend “Judaism” as a collective force undermining America/Christianity. Individual everyday Christians aren’t “personally involved,” of course, Just as you said about Jews, but the religion/institutions/leadership patterns are what matter, right? Let’s apply your logic evenly. 1. Hart-Celler Immigration Act 1965 (the big demographic shift) You highlighted Emanuel Celler and Jewish orgs (AJC, ADL, HIAS, etc.) pushing to end national-origin quotas. Christian parallel: Major Catholic leadership and organizations drove hard for this reform. The National Catholic Welfare Conference (NCWC, now USCCB) and groups like the American Committee on Italian Migration (ACIM) lobbied aggressively, calling the old quotas “iniquities and prejudices.” Catholic bishops and agencies coordinated grassroots campaigns, press outreach, and testimony throughout 1965. Protestant voices (including some mainline and evangelical-adjacent) also backed reform or stayed neutral. Catholics had huge skin in the game because prior quotas hurt Southern/Eastern European Catholic immigrants.25 Your logic applied: Catholicism (and broader Christianity) fundamentally transformed U.S. demographics away from Northern/Western European Protestant roots. This “destroyed” the prior Christian character of the country. Why does your faith’s institutional push for chain migration get a pass while Jewish support doesn’t? Defend how this wasn’t an attack on the old Protestant America you seem to prefer. 2. Nostra Aetate 1965 (Vatican II shift on Jews/deicide) You credit Jewish lobbying (AJC, ADL, Heschel, etc.) for pushing the Catholic Church to drop collective Jewish blame for Jesus’ death and condemn antisemitism. Christian parallel: This was a Christian document from a Christian council (Second Vatican Council), overwhelmingly approved by Catholic bishops and promulgated by Pope Paul VI. It was internal Church theology reform, driven by Christian leaders like Cardinal Augustin Bea. Jewish input was advocacy; the decision, votes (2,221-88), and implementation were fully Christian.14 Your logic applied: Christianity (specifically Catholicism, the largest branch) voluntarily rewrote its own 1,900-year theology on Jews. This “theological earthquake” undermined traditional Christian justifications for separation or criticism of Judaism. If Jewish advocacy = collective Jewish attack on Christianity, then Christian bishops enacting it = Christianity undermining itself (or caving). Why defend this as benign when parallel Jewish involvement is sinister? 3. ACLU School Prayer/Bible Cases (1962-63: Engel v. Vitale, Schempp) You note ACLU (with Jewish leadership/support), Jewish orgs filing briefs, and Jewish plaintiffs helping remove official school prayer/Bible reading. Christian parallel: The broader secularization trend had deep roots in Protestant “non-sectarian” public schooling efforts from the 19th century onward (Horace Mann et al.), which diluted explicit Christianity to accommodate different Protestant sects while sidelining Catholics. Many mainline Protestant denominations and liberal Christians supported or didn’t fight the mid-20th-century Court rulings. Post-ruling, plenty of Christian legal/advocacy groups engaged the new framework rather than fully reversing it. The Supreme Court (with Christian-majority justices and a Protestant-heavy legal culture) issued the decisions.36 Your logic applied: Christianity’s own internal divisions and liberal/mainline branches helped push explicit Christian practice out of the public square. This “systematic removal” damaged traditional Christian America. If a few Jewish plaintiffs/orgs = Judaism destroying Christianity, then dominant Christian cultural/legal shifts and acquiescence

Kevin Flatt’s new book, “Secularization, Social Order, and World History” argues that the decline of religion is not an inevitable quasi-Hegelian phenomenon, but a particular @drpaulmarshall

No offense, but when the Church ruled, Europe was in the “Dark Ages”. Western civilization only thrived after secularization. The Church blamed diseases on bad spirits or sins lol, and any scientist who proved them wrong using biology was labeled a heretic and locked up.

I agree, the Jewish religion is a religion, therefore it is degenerate Aisha was also 9 years old however, and Muslims are more resistant to secularization

@CardinalDolan Dear Cardinal, In a time when doctrinal differences between the Churches particularly between the Catholic and Orthodox traditions often revolve around issues such as the Filioque and papal infallibility, one could argue that these distinctions are relatively secondary in nature. Yet at the same time, it is evident that the Christian world is increasingly facing pressures of assimilation and secularization. In this context, what concrete efforts are being undertaken to address and, where possible, reconcile theological differences between the Churches? Do you share the view that the Eastern and Western Churches are in genuine need of renewed unity under the framework of ecumenism? Considering also the instances of ambition and power struggles within ecclesiastical hierarchies, one may ask whether there is a deeper need for unity not only between Catholic and Orthodox believers, but across the entire Christian world. Would a new ecumenical council, in the spirit of the Council of Nicaea, be necessary in our time to reaffirm and strengthen the common foundations of the faith? Personally, my deepest aspiration is to pursue my academic journey in Türkiye in a way that contributes, even in a modest sense, to this broader vision of spiritual unity and dialogue. It is my conviction that Christianity, rather than erasing its differences, would benefit from re-centering itself on the shared faith in Christ. For what unites us in Christ is far greater than the doctrinal details that divide us.

hes kind of overrated, his secularization was more driven by the need to carve out a turkish nation out of the ottoman empire/caliphate. his govt promoted "turkish" islam. his kangers and detractors both pretend it was some kind of liberal project

@HarrisonHSmith Chabad-Lubavitch functions as a real-world analogy to the Foundation in Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, particularly through its global network of emissaries (shluchim) and Chabad houses. This parallel stems from both conceptual similarities and a reported direct inspiration. Core Elements of the Analogy In Asimov's series, mathematician Hari Seldon uses "psychohistory" to predict the Galactic Empire's collapse into a 30,000-year dark age. He establishes the Foundation on the remote planet Terminus as a small, dedicated outpost to preserve scientific knowledge, technology, and culture. The goal is to shorten the interregnum to just 1,000 years and lay the groundwork for a new, enlightened empire. The Foundation operates as a cultural and intellectual beacon amid surrounding barbarism, using subtle influence, strategic actions, and hidden mechanisms (like the Second Foundation) to guide history. Chabad-Lubavitch, a Hasidic movement within Orthodox Judaism, mirrors this through its post-Holocaust strategy under the seventh Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902–1994). Facing assimilation, secularization, and the devastation of Jewish communities, the Rebbe expanded a network of shluchim (emissaries)—couples and families sent to cities, campuses, and remote areas worldwide. They establish Chabad houses as local hubs for Jewish education, prayer, rituals (e.g., tefillin, Shabbat meals), outreach, and support. Preservation and seeding of knowledge/culture: The Foundation hoards encyclopedic knowledge to restart civilization. Chabad houses serve as outposts preserving and transmitting Jewish Torah study, mysticism (Chabad philosophy emphasizes intellect: Chochma, Bina, Da'at), traditions, and observance in the "diaspora wilderness" or secular environments. Strategic dispersion and influence: Just as the Foundation influences neighboring worlds without direct conquest (through trade, religion, or psychology), Chabad emissaries focus on kiruv (outreach) to reconnect unaffiliated or lapsed Jews, promoting mitzvot and Jewish identity one person at a time. They operate independently yet remain loyal extensions of the central vision. Long-term messianic/redemptive vision: Seldon's plan aims for a restored golden age. Chabad's work is tied to hastening the Messianic era through widespread Jewish awakening and "perfecting the world" (tikkun olam) via acts of goodness and education. Reported Direct InspirationAnecdotal accounts (from a woman named Nechama Cohen who knew the Rebbe as a child in 1940s Crown Heights) describe how she introduced young Rabbi Schneerson to Asimov's Foundation. He reportedly read it, corresponded with Asimov, and later told her he was implementing a similar "foundation" idea—explicitly linking it to Chabad and his shluchim. He preferred Asimov over Heinlein and saw the vision of a secret, purposeful foundation to "perfect the Universe" as actionable in real life for Jewish continuity. This story, while oral/traditional in Chabad circles, aligns with the Rebbe's documented emphasis on global outreach starting in the 1950s–1980s, which grew Chabad into one of the most widespread Jewish movements with thousands of emissaries today.Broader Jewish Interpretations of FoundationEven without the specific Chabad link, some Jewish thinkers view the Foundation itself as metaphorically Jewish: a scattered people maintaining ethical/intellectual "light" amid surrounding cultural decline (e.g., during exiles or Dark Ages), much like monasteries preserved classical learning. Asimov (a secular Jew) may not have intended this, but parallels to Jewish survival strategies—like establishing academies (Yavneh after the Temple's destruction) or dual structures for resilience In short, Chabad embodies the Foundation's model in a spiritual rather than sci-fi context: decentralized outposts, visionary leadership, preservation through education, and proactive influence to ensure continuity and renewal amid challenges. It's a striking case of fiction inspiring lived religious strategy.

What doesn’t honestly. I’ve almost never met someone from that region with a positive or constructive view of the world, even post-secularization. They just choose to become America-hating Marxists instead of America-hating Islamists. And pre-secularization… I’ve literally seen women in burqas in Alabama. I’m not okay with this.

No. Monotheism lost the West and the West tamed Christianity - Enlightenment, age of Reason, secularization - and forced it to become a nice and moral religion. Islam remains untamed. Judaism in Europe was tamed too. But parts are back sliding.

Yes. Metaphysics is the philosophical understanding of humans position in relation to truth, reality, and nature; but it also focuses on things "beyond the physical" that cannot be directly observed or replicated. Gender identity ideology is a type of metaphysics. It is literally speaking about humans realtion to reality; and that humans can construct reality through speech acts. Ah! So you are speaking of nature and natural law as in relation to traditional power structures and ways of understanding. This whole natural law thing is really just a secularization of God's authority. You're literally saying that you're different from leftists, but here you are appealing to a natural law, that might or might not exist. Your understandings are also Metaphysical. Also, James Lindsey is a sophist hack. He deliberately misunderstand theory to push his personal bias.