The Kirk conference

It's going to require something deeper. It's going to require lots of thought, action and, yes, prayer. It's going to require, I think, institutions like ISI. It's going to require -- literally -- a miracle. Because history is not on our side. Very rarely do decadent societies turn things around, and even more rarely, if ever, when said societies are aggressively secular. Personally, I feel like our society is a terminal cancer patient: All we can do is keep her comfortable until the inevitable occurs.
Things are, after all, converging rather quickly these days. As Peggy Noonan has asked, given the advanced state of mankind's weapons of mass destruction, what are the odds that a motivated individual or group will not take out at least one major city in our lifetimes? Almost nil. So even if we pull our culture from the gaping maw of the spiritual and moral abyss, how long before some jihadist blows it up? Conversely, if we succeed in holding off lil' Ahmed, how long before we choke on our own cultural vomit? More likely, both will get us more or less simultaneously. I'm beginning to think everyone sold their Cold War fallout shelters too soon. Yes, we have to fight the good fight. But at the end of the day, our hope must be placed in the power beyond this world, something of which I struggle mightily to remind myself. Read C.S. Lewis' "The Last Battle" and pray. Pray unceasingly.

Amen. Pray unceasingly. Prayer is spiritual warfare. "Thanks be to God, for He has given us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." Let us forgive all for the sake of the Resurrection. And remember that small is still beautiful; the mustard seed, for instance.

We talked, the professor and I, and one of his students, about the acute challenge of raising children to be virtuous in a culture informed by mass media to be contemptuous of the virtues. Rod Dreher I believe we have two obvious answers to this question. 1. Mirror. What I mean by the mirror is to look inside of ourselves to attempt to figure out why we value virtue so highly. If we can look inside and find tipping points or teaching moments that made a difference then we have a guidebook. 2. The credibility box. The credibility box is that great big package that comes with a child. The parent gets it. I'm referring to the fact that the parent has the most power as a source of information. The only person or thing that can destroy that box and it's contents is the parent. Armed with these two tools a parent has the power. All they have to do is recognize it and accept the responsibility for it.

"Multiculturalism," in the sense that John O'Sullivan was using it, describes the belief that all cultures are equal, and that no culture should be taught as better than another. It is a form of destructive equalitarianism that undermines confidence in our own cultural norms and traditions.

Actually, I think Mark Steyn is more correct about the true definition of multiculturalism: It's the belief that all cultures are equal and valid, except for Western culture, which is blundering and vapid and has only caused the world grief and suffering. Like communism, multiculturalism is a value system which is much better in theory than in practice. In practice, multiculturalism is little more than an barely disguised exercise in cultural self-loathing.

May be John O'Sullivan can give the same speech he might've given a decade ago because some basic conservative things don't change."Standing athwart history yelling stop!" ring any bells?
No matter. even as you go about setting up your own CC community you still expect an overarching philosophy of governance. All we really get is the lesser of 2 evils, and the last 2-Idiot I and Idiot the Dumber-have been pretty awful.They didn't understand or care about anything conservative Yet they were still preferable to their worse evils.
All you can really do is look out for you family, like seeing that they go to a school that teaches them not just academics, but inures them with values. And hope that this time around the lesser evil will at least understand and explain to American what "conservative" really is and govern as such.
Without intending to add to this food fight, all this Hayek/Kirk/Strauss/Oakshott stuff has gone too far. Recall Reagan gave the finger to Berkeley students during a strike. Nowadays seems like some "conservatives" want to pretend Reagan was a saint rather than a man(ROmney seems to mention him every 45 seconds, notwithstanding the fact that during the 1980s he was too cool to like the Gipper).Reagan was a man dealing with the wrold as it was, not how he would like it. And a man who's personal life probably fell short of msot ideals. Point being we have to deal with the world the way it is rather than the way the we or a think tank might like it.
Ideas and concepts are great, as far as they go. They give an underpinniug(may the next president will really understand it) the government does or should do what it does. But they aren't the be all, end all. For all of Kirk's dislike of Ford(and there are good reasons to dislike the man), Ford built the American auto industry.

Multiculturalism is about respect, one of those things your grandma taught you came with giving faster than it did with demanding. As I said, it's much better in theory than in practice. Harvey gives an excellent summation of the theory, but in practice, it's quite a different story.

Corruption in the judiciary?? Is this code language for tort reform? If it is, you realize there is nothing conservative about tort reform, don't you? What about fighting corruption in the other two branches? Two words--special interests...

So Rod, you don't think Saint Rupert and Fox has anything to do with your declining social norms? Life's tough when you're a reactionary who doesn't like civil rights, equal rights for women, human rights, and the Bill of Rights. You been on the wrong side of history for more than five decades and that will not change. Please, please, please, move to Montana (take Mark "Tourture Works" Davis with you) and home school your kids that way you can ensure that they will never have an original thought and can conform perfectly to your dogma. Maybe you should to seed your kids to a nice Catholic School here in Dallas, the last two decades they've been moral pillars. Right Rod? Contempt of public education has been a tradition among the the Right or more than a 100 years, not very original are we? At my church the public shool teachers are honored for their sacrifice and service. All you offer them is contempt.

harvey: "We can disagree with Islamic nations in the middle east, that's a given. But we need to respect that their culture is the result of their circumstances and it evolved into a successful entity for them as long as the circumstances that created it existed. " Sorry, as a woman I have a very hard time seeing the Islamic culture in the middle east as a "successful entity". I think it was here that I read a quote by an old english general dealing with the Indian custom of burning widows alive on their husband's funeral pier. When the locals insisted that it was their custom and should be left alone the general replied that his people had a custom of hanging those who kill women by burning them alive. He advised them that they could practice their custom and he would have his men build a gallows right next to the pier so that the english could then proceed with their own custom. Sounds about right to me. I agree with respect, but too often what it means in practice is deference to truely horrendous practices which should never be accepted by anyone, no matter how old the custom.

Bingo, rebeccat. But it is, if not forbidden, at least frowned upon in multiculti-land to point out that many of the world's "rich, vibrant cultures" are actually brutal cesspools of human misery and oppression. But feel free to decry Western culture for its failure to provide twenty weeks of paid vacation per year or to extend government-funding sex-change operations to everyone. After all, we all know who the real theocratic bloodsuckers are.

Rebeccat, I think we're getting "success" confused with "good". No where have I said that Islamic cultures are good. I have admitted that they have worked successfully for those involved. As I recall from my school days forty five years or so ago Indian women of a certain faith were expected to and most did jump onto the furneral pyres of their husbands. It wasn't a government kind of custom. It was a faith thing. Success versus good is a continuing dilemma for us humans here on earth.

"I have admitted that they have worked successfully for those involved." Name one that "works".
The kleptocracies of the gulf emirates and Saudi Arabia? The strong man regimes of Epypt, Syria, and Pakistan? All those wonderful horn of Africa barely-states that are constantly at war?
The neo-Stalinists in the former Soviet "republics" of central Asia?
Qaddafi's Libya? Palestine? The perennial sick man of Europe, Turkey? All those south east Asian countries who's governments regularly violate or allow the systematic oppression of other religions?
You call any of that working governance, or do you have such a broad definition of "works" that it encompasses definitional dysfunction?

Dallas Christian condemns the Catholic Church for the sexual sins of an element in the priesthood, while failing to mention the sexual sins of some teachers in the public school system. DC also condemns homeschoolers for some supposed lack of original thought. Obviously DC has never been involved in organizing a homeschool dance, or a geography bee, or a sports team, etc. The plethora of original thought is breathtaking for those attempting to organize said events. :-)

It seems to me, that their are two extremes I wish to avoid. I do believe in community, and the call for us Christians to be salt and light in the world....so seperatism is not really an option. But the other extreme is acquiescence to the harmful culture around us.
So the answerer would seem to be, to "live in the middle." OK, how do I do that?

"Look down the road a few years, folks. Can you have the rule of law in a true multicult environment?" Of course, we don't live in the UK and our experience with multiculturalism is very unlike the experience in the UK. All this "sky is falling" among conservative elites about the Mulsim (and Spanish-speaking) hordes needs to be put into perspective of the American experience. I know U.S. Conservatives are obsesses with the UK, for some reason, but we aren't like them and they are not like us. "when did it become liberal for liberals to attack conservatives for speaking out to defend the human rights of liberals? " When "defending the human right of liiberals" was really just a cover for being anit-Muslim and isolationist?

Multiculturalism," in the sense that John O'Sullivan was using it, describes the belief that all cultures are equal, and that no culture should be taught as better than another. It is a form of destructive equalitarianism that undermines confidence in our own cultural norms and traditions. I don't know that you can look at cultures and say, "My culture is better than your culture." You need to be more specific because of the many factors that go into making up a culture. What would the perfect culture look like? 1. Members would treat each other with love and respect. 2. Members would care about each other and care for each other. 3. Members would care about and for those outside of it's national boundaries. 4. Members would show respect and care for self. If we look at cultures across the world & the culture within our own community, we see where we are meeting those objectives and areas where we fall short. I see nothing wrong with making judgments about those things. But we need to be clear about the criteria we're using to judge. We look at the Islamic world through the lens of the media and can't believe that they can treat women with such disrespect. They look at our culture through a similar lens and come to the same conclusions.
We all could do better. I think that this is a good time for conservatives(because that's who this thread is about) to go back to basics and identify goals/outcomes that they'd like to acheive, and make a better plan to get there. It seems to me that the current plan consists of more of the same (whining about the others and blaming the others for the areas where our culture falls short)rather than taking a more positive approach. Liberals have come up with ways to improve upon our culture. Things like making policies in schools(& enforcing those policies)that prohibit bullying and being mean to others. My school district enforces those policies, and our community meets the cultural objective of showing respect for each other. Conservatives favor putting God & prayer back in the classroom. That's fine, but you need to find a way to value and respect students who aren't Christian, or we still fall short on meeting the cultural objective of valuing and respecting all members. Liberals have come up with plans that permit Americans to care for Americans who can't care for themselves. They aren't perfect. They've been abused. If you don't like it, that's fine, but you need to come up with another plan that meets the cultural objective of caring for the least. I can't jump on the bandwagon to keep Muslims out of America without any evidence that American Muslims aren't fitting into our society. I do think that it's prudent to look very closely at the people from that area of the world before handing out VISAs or authorizing immigration, but that's just common sense.

Rod: Sorry to repeat this if you've announced this, but I see you have a new interview on the Web via Ancient Faith Radio: Webpage: The Illumined Heart Actual Link: Rod Dreher on The Challenges of Modern Islam and What the Media Aren t Telling Us

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that pre-Victorian England was a very decadent place. Yet eventually society became what we would consider "conservative," with a respect for morality, civility, and virtue. (Nowadays the Victorian Era is mocked for those very reasons.) My impression, but I've never studied it, is that this was the result of prevailing Christian evangelism and influence on society, via the Methodists and various dissenting and congregationalist groups. I certainly hope that something can change American culture and society (which has impact across the world - even in Nepal teenage kids know gangsta rap; that's horrifying). But I will say, Rod, that your blog really does "keep hope alive." I read your posts - and relish classic posts like this one - because it reminds me that I'm not alone. The culture today is do dark that it's easy to give in to despair. Thank you for providing a forum for the like-minded to reflect on overcoming what we're up against.

wildwest, I think that conservatives have a point when they say that we've taken being politically correct too far. Sometimes I think that people permit others to disrespect them because they are afraid of being called a racist, or more often, they are afraid to point out behaviors that aren't right for fear of being called a racist. There's nothing wrong with people pointing out to a 12 year old & his parents that what he said is not respectful. This boy crossed the line. His teacher needs to set limits. I would have to know why a teacher would think that she couldn't set limits to solve that kind of problem.

I agree with the minority of the posters here, opposed to some kind of social withdrawal from the cultural influences of modern America. One of the main reasons I do so is because of the degree to which it forces arbitrary divisions on individuals, families, and small groups of people.
Who is in the ghetto, and who is out? What about the couple who embrace traditional parenting but still loves to go out on dates at dance clubs for drinks and raucous dancing, or steamy R-rated movies? Or the mixed-race couple that is working to blend two very different cultural affiliations due to upbring, or even different religious faiths, and works towards a compromise position that does indeed draw a kind of equivalency between the two? Or the close friends or extended family members whose friendships or warm relations are enduring despite vastly different cultural preferences? Yes, I m quite biased because of the presence in my own life of many of these kinds of issues. But, I don t think my experience is unusual. We raise our kids within a particular home culture, and then they hang out with friends at the karate dojo, for example, who live from a very different set of ideas. Or, they go visit their granddad and watch shlocky football broadcasts. Perhaps one of my main gripes against how CC ism has been formulated so far is its tendency to speak in terms of absolutes. Perhaps this is because Rod s own personal/familial relationships seem to skew towards only having close bonds with folks who share his preferences, and his modern tendency to go out of his way to cut himself off from ties that don t match his preferences and to form ones that do.
I m not faulting this I do it myself. Perhaps because I ve been doing it consciously and intentionally since my college-aged, hippie-wannabe days almost 20 years ago, I can step back and see it, and its consequences, better. I also have seen it dramatically within the Orthodox Christian convert population that has been at the center of my professional and personal life for over a decade. This is primarily a group that, to stereotype, is attempting to flee the world for just the reasons Rod advocates. I m not criticizing Rod personally, I hope. What I m attempting to do is articulate why I don t think Rod s ideas in this general area can be universally applied. Most folks relationships are mix-and-match, and are a powerful force against group segregation. To use a gross example that I think only the regular CC ers might get as an illustration, most of us can t or won t dismiss the Jonah Goldbergs of our lives, while embracing the friendly Russian bishops and the folks of a semi-rural Louisiana upbringing. Two concepts seem to guide me here. The first, from my very secular and very beloved stepmother, who believes that one doesn t have to believe in the core doctrines of Christianity to be a good Christian, but only try to be a good person : You try to raise your kids to make good decisions, and then you let them go and hope that they do. IOW, don t get hung up on what cultural preferences they embrace. Trust the basic character and common sense you ve instilled in them. The second was well summed up by Derbyshire today in an article on race: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzliMzA1YTFkNmJiY2Y1MDYxODA3OThhMzNjZjM3MDQ=
In the world of politics, acceptable discourse about black-white disparities is all conducted in terms of Social Science explanations. There are many reasons for this, not the least of them being that politicians get our attention by promising to fix things. If the Folk Biologists are right, the thing is unfixable, and politicians are left saying: You ll just have to make the best of it, I m afraid. Nothing I can do. This is not a thing that politicians say.
Rod, God bless him, sounds like a politician on this issue. His inclination is to always want to fix things. I m with the Folk Biologists here. Culture isn t primarily about social influences. It s deep-seated. And it doesn t return to earlier forms no matter how much folks try. The kind of culture that much of CC seems to advocate left the station a long time ago. I think we need to shrug, accept the various elements we find around us including those that we find repulsive and try to make the best of it. Personally, I think we need to chill out about the grim portent of obnoxious 12 year olds propositioning their teachers (I remember grooving with my valedictorian and Princeton-bound cousin to Van Halen s Hot for Teacher 25 years ago), and try to have fun together, as long as no one s getting hurt. And being offended is not the same as being hurt. We just need to learn how to love each other. It s the core work of each of our lives. Oh well, enough. I don t feel like I m articulating my thoughts here all that well, so I ll give up for now! As always, I apologize for my long and windy posts. Bless, Doug

I hear you, watsy. I call myself "liberal," but definitely *not* "politically correct." Many cons conflate the two, and liberals who see the difference would do well to underscore it frequently!

tovart, Your question is an excellent one. Tolerance is preferable, and it became a part of our culture only with the enlightenment. Christianity had been around for hundreds of years before tolerance in the west, regardless of what conservatives claim. The west fought endless religious wars in the centuries leading up to the enlightenment. Tolerance is a product of the enlightenment, and I do not want to give it up.
And no, not the "reverse tolerance" of the PC crowd. That's a post-modern construction.

Two millennia ago, fewer than a hundred people at the outset changed the entire known world in less than three centuries. So, I don't believe for an instant that all we can do is shrug our shoulders and make the best of things. Still, the Apostles didn't do it by shunning the world and cutting themselves off--remember that "apostolos" literally means "one sent out" in the first place, and there's also the little matter of the Great Commission. They may have had their refuges within the local churches, but the early Christian communities first and foremost engaged the world. I believe this is still possible. As an Orthodox Christian, my local parish is where the community principally comes together as a worshipping body and receives the Mysteries, but as soon as the community sees itself as "us" and everybody else as "them", we've missed the point. Intentional Christian communities are a great idea--but they have to be continually calling others to exist in that community. We can't just flee into a fortress--we must find ways of living our lives that invite the world in so that it may be transformed. Richard

Ratiocination, I don t mean to downplay your struggles (we face similar ones with our boys), but it does seem like you re setting up a false choice:
They watch TV and eat junk food all day long, and they never come outside unless they see our kids out there, and then all they want to do is one of two things: tell my kids what to do, so they can watch (like some stupid television show...), or have my kids come to their house (inside) so they can all watch tv and eat junk food together. If I say no, I'm not just mean, I make them wonder why I'm so stuck up. If I say yes...I might as well give up all the excruciatingly hard work we put in to feeding these kids properly and keeping the garbage at bay.
What about inviting the neighbor kids over to watch cool TV and eat healthy food? It would depend on your preference, of course, but we find that the no-adults-around WWF and potato chip crowd are perfectly happy to chill out with parents and kids who together eat fruit salad and watch Lord of the Rings. Bless, Doug

Various people asked me if I was working on another book, and I told them yes, that I was intending to investigate MacIntyre s Benedict option that is, the idea of intentionally separating to some degree from an irreformable mainstream society, and constructing new communities where it s possible to live a life of moral virtue in community. I not only want to investigate the sociological genius of the Benedictine order of the Dark Ages, but I want to look into diverse traditionalist lay communities today who are managing to do this sort of thing in a balanced and sustainable way, without succumbing to an oppressive spirit of separatism I would be deeply, deeply, deeply interested in such a book, especially if it somewhat more above the fray than was CC. P.S. I don't see the malaise you diagnose as an indictment of conservatism. I see it as a vindication of the conservative principle that the political sphere is often subsidiary to the larger society, which will have problems that cannot be redressed solely through politics. Though a large part of the origin of the problem was political--without the Supreme Court we would not have the p*rn culture that we do--its probably too late now for a purely political solution. Some kind of cultural retrenchment seems to be in order, which is why a book along the lines you propose could be so interesting.

The Epistle to Diognetus sets out very clearly how the first Christians lived within an anti-Christian culture which in some many ways was brutalized, and hyper-sexualized. By contrast, the monastic project began only in the late 3rd century and accelerated in the 4th and 5th, leading in the West to the great achievements of both Irish and Benedictine monks. But monasticism responded to a professedly Christian society in which most people, despite affirming Christian faith, did not live up to the ideals of that faith very well. Monasticism gave to both the lukewarm Greco-Roman Christians of Late Antiquity and the largely uncatechized barbarian converts an image of the ideal Christian society, in which a handful of men (or women) were striving for Christian perfection. Without in any way denigrating the spectacular achievements of monasticism (Eastern and Western), which are still very much needed today, I think Christianity's greater need is for a critical -- but optimistic -- engagement with the world along the lines described in the Letter to Diognetus.

The shocking thing is that a 12-year-old said something like that to a teacher. The more shocking thing is her "whaddaya gonna do?" shrug.
Am I crazy for seeing that as a "canary in the coal mine" moment? My first reaction to this, Rod, was "Yes, you are crazy. As a parent, you should understand the efficacy of not giving attention to attention-getting behaviors." It's a good thing I had the weekend between that reaction and today. While that reaction remains true and valid, I must balance it with this: too many are giving up the fight to maintain courtesy and respect (as a conceptual pair) as a societal, cultural or personal value. I've long thought the canary has been gasping for breath. I now see it on the floor of the cage, barely alive. :(

So, okay. Chesterton got one thing wrong. He was human, ya know.

Doug, I have invited the neighbors over, but it s more than I can handle. I guess I didn t mention the ages of the children in question: Ours are 6 , 5, 3 , 2 and 6 months. Theirs are 8, 5, and 3. I am the only one here with them during the day. My kids know how to behave in order to make that work, especially when my hands are tied feeding the baby. When the neighbors are here, the youngest is very mischievous, and the other two are very hyper too, and I am far too busy with everything that must be done around here to keep them out of trouble. (We homeschool, and they love to get into our school materials and leave behind an ungodly mess.) When they get a smidge older (especially the baby, I can no doubt turn that into a learning experience, but for now, I just don t have the extra time and energy to spare on that As far as sharing healthy snacks, I would love to do that, but with 5 children on one income and the grocery bills for organic/grassfed produce and meats and the milk we drink, our budget is as tight as a drum. We can handle it, but we can t afford to feed the neighborhood.
Now let s look at the scenario if we had neighbors who agree that TV and video games are not good for young children, who understand just how really bad all the crap is that we feed ourselves and our kids, and whose first priority above all is raising respectful, moral kids who are a joy to be around. I could feel good about sending them to the neighbors house, because I d trust them. I could invite the kids over, and I wouldn t mind sharing our food, because I know the neighbors would do the same and I wouldn t be afraid it would be garbage. Now, there are doubtless people out there who think I m being a snob, but when Rod s book describes you as well as it does us, it is a daily challenge. You can never let your guard down, because like in The Matrix, the squiddies are always there, waiting to lay waste. Sometimes I do wish I d taken the blue pill

What would the perfect culture look like? 1. Members would treat each other with love and respect. 2. Members would care about each other and care for each other. 3. Members would care about and for those outside of it's national boundaries. 4. Members would show respect and care for self. The problem with this Platonic Form of "well-meaning vapidity" is not that it is wrong, but that it's so content-free that it's meaningless to call it wrong. Or right. Or anything else. The terms "respect" "care" and "love" do not have universally agreed-upon meanings, except the most abstract, general and therefore useless. The very reason cultural conflict occurs is precisely BECAUSE every culture defines these terms (and quite a few others) differently, and so necessarily sees every other culture as, to a greater or lesser degree, practicing "disrespect," "neglect" and "hate." Precisely when the Other sees itself as practicing "respect" "care" and "love" for self, each other and outsiders.

The terms "respect" "care" and "love" do not have universally agreed-upon meanings, except the most abstract, general and therefore useless. The very reason cultural conflict occurs is precisely BECAUSE every culture defines these terms (and quite a few others) differently, and so necessarily sees every other culture as, to a greater or lesser degree, practicing "disrespect," "neglect" and "hate." Precisely when the Other sees itself as practicing "respect" "care" and "love" for self, each other and outsiders. Victor Morton Are you saying there are not absolutes?

Rod and others,
I need to educate myself more with respect to the "Benedictine option," however, I am persuaded of a couple of things which (I am willing to bet) are utterly consistent wtih it: 1. The center of the Benedictine communities was the Eucharist. Eucharistic theology has all the resources needed to address the issue of how the church can "lead" in this individualistic, materialistic, consumeristic, narcissistic, nihilistic culture in which we live. Put another way, we must ultimately resist all secular means and tactics, including participation in "the culture wars." To the resources of the Eucharist is where we must look for answers, and for Christ's approach to civilization building. 2. I understand that there are wonderful metaphysical and moral roots in "paleoconservatism" (Burke's insistence that economic / political / social order rests on a fundamental moral / metaphysical order), however, I still think that at the end of the day "conservatism" and "liberalism" are both secular and therefore ideological (and perhaps even distinctively modern) half-truths. This is consistent with such theological thinkers as NT Wright and John Milbank (who, as the founder of "Radical Orthodoxy," interprets Alisdair MacIntrye in a way that is consistent with what I am suggesting here).
Why hold on to the (secular) label "conservative?" St. Paul's gospel, I am convinced, is a true tertium quid which defies the false dichotomy of liberal versus conservative.

You are welcome to share your own definition of the perfect culture ...
conservatives who like to write and think about these kinds of things ... are welcome to do better No, see ... asking that very question is the problem. First of all, in its programmatic and positivistic terms; second, in its presupposition that such a thing exists; third, in its presupposition that its details would be rationally determinable or achievable. I reject every one of those presuppositions. A culture is not created or designed. It simply is, and develops organically as the sum total of its members' experiences. There is no "City in Speech" or "best polity." Only better or worse ones relative to the extant culture. There is no "perfect culture" even *for me* because there is no "I" except what is created by and through existing culture. In other words, *I* am a late-20th-century Anglo-American. If I were raised in contemporary Iran or Saudi Arabia, early-20th-century Germany, 6th-century Sparta or 5th-century Athens I would not be *me* in any politically- or socially-meaningful sense.
Love and respect is really all about the Golden Rule. It's a culture that looks out for others, and isn't all about me. I hope that we haven't drifted so far away from that ideal that it's now impossible for us to know what that means. Outside a discourse community, the Golden Rule is all bone. No meat.

Here is a pretty good broad definition of what a discourse community is. I would say that article is a bit general, because it doesn't take into account the political meaning of "discourse community" -- all polities are that, and they have one "culture" or one (functional) religion, which also constitutes the basis for said polity's legitimacy. Religions are discourses also. None of this, I should add, speaks to the question of truth, merely to that of social praxis. Your other questions are, I'm afraid, quite meaningless. My whole point is both that all discourse communities practice that Golden Rule and that none agree on what it means, because the differences about what it means constitute the communities in the first place.

A culture is not created or designed. It simply is, and develops organically as the sum total of its members' experiences. To some extent, I understand what you are saying and agree with it. But I don't agree that a culture "simply is." I believe that a culture can be changed through intentional actions of individuals if individuals can get enough people to support their POV.
Look at how our culture has changed over the last 40 years. It didn't just happen. Leaders within the civil rights movement and feminist movement persuaded people to think in a different way, and when large numbers of people think and behave differently, culture changes. I'm not real familiar with discourse communities, but based on the link that you provided, I formed the conclusion that we all live in many discourse communities. Our nation is a discourse community. Evidence of this would be our use of politically correct language.

Sigaliris, While I certainly would not presume to answer for Victor, I do have strong opinions in this, and I offer these comments with the usual grain of salt... It is imperative to maintain a close scrutiny of context when we examine or discuss the general notions like community. Like Twain's Eve, we have an impulse to label the things we look at, to categorize for its own sake, as if that is the only way to approach a thing that is more complex than the things we've labeled. I hope you don't take that as condescending. My intention is to point out that we all, myself included, fall prey to labels as explanation, as if the meaning of a word can convey the meaning of a concept. One of the points of Victor's insistence on "discourse" as definitional is not that it stops there, but that it starts there. Community is a process, not an object. [Anyone reading this could say, "Ya coulda started with those final seven words, and saved us yet another lecture..." And that would have been superficially correct. My final point in this parenthesis is to illustrate the statement itself, not offer it as definitional. There is a Zen-like circularity in there; believe me, if there were another way to explain it, I'd have tried it. :) ]

Sigaliris, I don't think "naive" is a fair term here (I know, you are the one applying it); self-aware ignorance is closer to the mark, IMO, and the self-awareness is the important part. That's what makes dialogue important. Those who are not self-aware are naive, in my experience, and dialogue with them is difficult at best. That you value the dialogue, just by itself, disqualfies you... as it were. :) Your reiteration of Jesus "approach" to questions is, in my view, an excellent example of Victor's main point. You and I don't really get to impose our personal definitions at any given point (relating this to community). We are required (kicking and screaming, if necessary) to participate in the context of community. That, for me, is the core message imparted by Jesus in your text above. When He said "...let me tell you a story..." He was, to my eye and ear, inviting the questioner to join Him in a contextual partnership, a quest for consensus -- though that is not quite right either, because personal conclusions are severely constrained by the context. Perhaps a better way to state it would be "Come, there is an answer for this somewhere, let us look for it together."