Levy is really damn good. I wish I had said as much as him in my own piece. It is really _so_ depressing that the reaction has been so stupid and knee-jerk almost everywhere.
Not exactly right at all. The piece rests on an assumed, unexplained, and indefensible dichotomy between "religious" and "political," which is really bad when you're talking about the Pope, who is possibly the best example in the entire world of a person straddling the line between the "religious" and "political" spheres. I love this blog & am not trying to be snarky, but I've just never been that impressed by Levy, he's a bit facile, really.
Guest: you think the Pope, today, is a better example of that than Muqtada al-Sadr or even the Dalai Lama? I know he's got the Swiss guards and all, and they have halberds; even so.
That's a legit disagreement, Guest, so no disclaimers necessary. But I think the distinction we need to make Levy's point work isn't between religious and political figures, but between those who act officially in a religious capacity, and those who don't. Of course the Pope is a political figure, but he is one because of his position as head of a religion, not as, say, head of a secular democracy. So he has certain avenues of argument open to him (and certain obligations) that a secular leader does not.
I really need to get some sleep, and will probably be offline tomorrow, so I apologize in advance for no follow-ups.
Precisely because the Pope is a figure whose role traverses religious and political lines, it should be controversial for him to declare that Judaism gets things theologically wrong. There's a pretty recent political event, which presumably does not need naming, that compels some attention there.
If that's true, then it's hardly uncontroversial for the Pope to be parroting phrases like "God is not pleased by blood" and pretending that the sequential order of ideas in the Quran amounts to only intepretation of the ideas in the Quran. He's able to natter about God and "rationality" only because latter Christian theologians rejected large swathes of the Old Testament -- including pretty significant sections that refute any notion of rationality and exhort believers to kill worhsipers of other gods -- but his argument rejects any such privilege to Muslims. This is profoundly dishonest and frankly Islamophobic.
That doesn't make him ipso facto a Nazia: except insofar as Islamophobia is the anti-Semitism of our age, complete with Muslim terrorists in the role of international Jewish Communists. If some Muslims are overreacting, I don't blame them. There are far worse sins, and Benedict is committing them.
Levy gets it half-right. While religious leaders should be all about taking their own theologies seriously, the specific distinction Benedict draws makes me raise my eyebrows. He talks extensively about the need for people to employ "logos" in embracing faith, as a prerequisite for that faith's validity. But, it seems to me at least, you can't employ reason as some theological pinch hitter, to be brought out when it is useful to draw distinctions attacking other religions, but then hurriedly cloistered lest he get too feisty about the foundations of your own faith. I stand with Adorno on this one: once you bring rationality on the team, it *is* the team. You can't say, as Benedict seems to here, "enlightenment for you, but not for me."
insofar as Islamophobia is the anti-Semitism of our age
This I don't buy. Anti-semitism is the anti-semitism of our age and the worst practitioners of it are found in the Muslim world. I hardly need to pull out quotes from Muslim religious leaders about the Jews, do I?
The world would be a better place if we took all the religious leaders, put them in a rocket, and shot it into the Sun. But that's not going to happen and so in the meantime, they're all going to explain how the others have it theologically wrong. It's their job, after all.
"No matter how politically serious the responses from the Muslim world, there is something morally unserious about many of them--a demand to unsay what was not said, an expectation to be immunce from criticism, and (again) an insistence that non-Muslims act with the same reverence toward Mohammed that is religiously demanded of Muslims themselves."
This is the crux of it for me. Muslims need to develop some thicker skin. This whole business of flooding the streets every time some figure says something negative about their faith (or, better yet, simply quotes somebody else) is fucking infantile.
For a religious leader to want a smaller, purer church rather than a larger one that gets watered down so as to not effectively constrain its believers seems to me, well, like what religious leaders ought to want.
Right, a little artisanal religion, handmade and intensely flavored. Not that mass-market crap religion you get at the Walmart.
I'm with Levy, the apostropher, et al on this one for the most part. The Pope, in his capacity as the Catholic surely believes that Islam is wrong, and that it is inferior to Christianity -- that's why he's the Pope. For him to say so should in no way be surprising.
And, as has been said many times, the invective spewed by Muslim leaders against the Jews makes this the rankest of hypocrisy.
On the other hand, I think we can criticize Benedict for being impolitic while at the same time wishing that Muslims would get over themselves. And don't we all wish that Muslim leaders would stop spewing invective against the Jews? If we can criticize them, why can't we criticize the Pope?
For a religious leader to want a smaller, purer church rather than a larger one that gets watered down so as to not effectively constrain its believers seems to me, well, like what religious leaders ought to want.
In a way I agree with this. This whole ordain the women and/or marry the gays is nice and inclusive and all, but are these people seriously reading the same Bible as the rest of us?
The desire for a smaller, purer church has always struck me as odd. It seems so un-catholic to me. (Not the small c.) I am not a Roman Catholic, but a bastard Anglican, and my churches orders are invalid, so it's not entirely my place to judge. I'm pretty much with Neuhaus in saying that Mormonism is not Christianity, but the Mormons will go on saying that it is. I suppose that their criticisms and arguments about their Christian-ness are as valid as my views on Roman Catholicism, i.e. not very.
Can anybody tell me why the pope is spending his spare time reading dialogues from a time and place where Muslims and Christians really were engaged in seemingly endless faith-based war? And why he would think, gee, I know how I can comment on what's happening today! Let's start talking about what happened in the years leading up to the fall of Constantinople!
Two thoughts. First, talk about pot-calling-kettle. I suppose Christians in that day and age weren't killing people to spread the faith, but they might very well kill you if were deemed a heretic. I mean, wtf? Second, is this dog whistle politics? I'm starting to see weird pieces on the web about how people should stop being defensive about the crusades because, after all, muslims were really mean to us too and christianity is worth fighting for. This is all where the white house blather about the epic struggle against islamofascism overlaps with a more historical right-wing existential wet dream about playing a role in an epic, centuries-old struggle against to defend the one true faith. Ironically, it's exactly the obverse of the overstated, thin-skinned sense of historical grievance we can hear from muslim spokesmen who make it into mass media.
A plague on both your houses.
Also, Glenn mentioned the Pope's comments on reason. You really should check them out - he's proved that you don't have to be on the deconstructionist left to spin yourself into a tizzy of meaningless nonsense. Here's a gem.
"We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons."
So, the "vast horizons" of "reason" may be found once we "overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable." What, then, bounds those vast horizons? Whatever the pope says, baby!
Posted by
dammitIhaven'tsettledonapseudonymyet |
Link to this comment |
09-16-06 7:41 AM
23
"This is a bit like the stance of many American lapsed Catholcic or many Israeli secular Jews, I incline to say, "I don't believe in God, but the God in whom I don't believe is a serious one!""
This is pretty much the position of this lapsed Catholic. There is a part of me that doesn't get Unitarian Universalism. It's nice, pleasant, and you can do whatever you want, but heck, I can do all those things without going to church.
Oh, come on, 22, it's not that hard of a statement. The Pope is saying don't equate reason with naturalism & science, that it can think about God & angels, too.
Levy has it mostly right. It is more ecumenical, I think, than Levy gives Benedict credit for. The speech is about the relationship between faith, reason & Greek philosophy in Catholicism, really, and he introduces the faith & reason topic by pointing to "an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both." I consider it a good thing that the Pope reads medieval discussions rather than dismissing them out of hand.
This pope is basically a philosophy professor at heart.
I suppose Christians in that day and age weren't killing people to spread the faith, but they might very well kill you if were deemed a heretic.
They were sure as hell getting ready to expel Jews from Christian lands. I'm not impressed with Christians talking about how their religion is superior to Islam because Islam used to be violent 'n'at, back in the days of the inquisitions.
On a trivial note, the official Vatican spokesman made the most dickish possible form of non-apology: The Holy Father is very sorry that some passages of his speech may have sounded offensive to the sensibilities of Muslim believers. Ew.
But, on Levy's point, I don't like the "Take your theology seriously" line. If you take your theology seriously, for many religions, you should conclude that unbelievers are going to h e double l, and that the most merciful thing to do is to convert them. By any means necessary. By hard experience, we've learned that this doesn't work, and that's why ecumenicism is so popular.
Levy did talk about theological argument being carried out with words and not swords, but that strikes me as taking your theology seriously only up to a point. In any case, peaceful proselytizing is controversial enough in and of itself; did Levy condemn the Jews for this?
I'm not impressed with Christians talking about how their religion is superior to Islam because Islam used to be violent 'n'at, back in the days of the inquisitions.
Fortunately, the Pope makes no such statement. I mean, really, go read it. His 'crime' here is quoting someone who said Muhammed was wrong when he said violence was a good way to convert people.
I wished he'd used a more politic example but the point of the example was just to say faith in general has to be tempered by reason, which should lead you not to do stupid things because you have faith in it.
But, on Levy's point, I don't like the "Take your theology seriously" line. If you take your theology seriously, for many religions, you should conclude that unbelievers are going to h e double l, and that the most merciful thing to do is to convert them. By any means necessary.
Conversion can go either way. It has led to horrific crimes (Inquisition). It's also led to great works of compassion (Mother Theresa). So I don't think the problem is so much with 'Take your theology seriously' as that plus 'Don't forget you're not supposed to kill people.' When your theology also says 'Don't kill people', taking it seriously includes that; I think the bigger problem is only taking the easy parts of the theology seriously.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul.
Maybe this is just in service of a theological point, but it just raises my hackles when I hear people talking about how Christianity pwns Islam because Islam is historically so violent and intolerant. (Maybe he's disclaiming this when he attacks Duns Scotus, I don't know.) Because historically, that's bullshit. And at this moment of history there are a lot of people going around talking about how Islam must be fought because it is essentially violent and intolerant, and so we must invade the country du jour to fight the Islamofascist menace. This shows profound ignorance of history. If Christianity can turn relatively benign after a long tradition of intolerance, Islam can certainly do the same.
The Pope's theological point about how faith and reason interact builds up to something about how science must be informed by faith. Since his actual science policy seems to involve a pushback against evolution, I think Glenn's comment in 12 is fair.
Benedict's argument relies on a number of fairly basic errors regarding Islam. To make them in a prepared speech about Islam in 2006 reveals a dangerous level of ignorance coming from one of the world's most visible religious leaders.
As for Levy, he's dead wrong on this:
It seems to me that if religion is meaningful it's serious business; if one is committed to divine truths then one is committed to the falsehood of rival claims... I don't think Unitarian Universalism is somehow a better religion than Catholicism or Mormonism or Orthodox Judaism just because its god seems to be so nice and inclusive; indeed, my sympathies for the aesthetic and moral-psychological experience of religious belief tends to run the other way. ... I want to say that if there is a point to religion and theology, then that point is undermined by the reluctance to draw distinctions and take them seriously.
This is crap. The appeal of religion has never been about adherence to the content of religious theology; it's always been about the practice of communal rituals and the bonding that communal ritual provides. Among all the devout Catholics I've known, I haven't met one that actually believes the priest turns the wafers into Jesus-meat, but they all still care about the eucharist because caring about that ritual and performing that ritual with other Catholics gives them a sense of identity. You could swap out God for the Great Pumpkin and in the end it simply wouldn't matter as long as you showed up to church every Sunday.
Obviously it helps to create a group identity by defining it in opposition to other groups, but only to the extent that those groups are visible and notable (you won't see Benedict giving speeches about the Seventh Day Adventists anytime soon, I don't think). If there were some Earth-J where everybody's Jewish, it wouldn't make the Jews of Earth-J less Jewish than our Jews just because they don't have other groups to contrast themselves to. The notion that ideological opposition to other groups is a necessary prerequisite to "good" religion is just silly.
Maybe this is just in service of a theological point, but it just raises my hackles when I hear people talking about how Christianity pwns Islam because Islam is historically so violent and intolerant.
Except that it's talking about a scholar of Islam disagreeing with violent conversion on Islamic grounds. No pwning involved; it was just an introductory paragraph that I, and I think Levy read as saying 'The idea that faith and reason inform each other isn't a uniquely Catholic notion. Here's a smart Muslim scholar who criticizes violence on the basis that it's against reason to believe your faith would command that. Now let's go talk about faith and reason.'
Catholicism hasn't had a serious problem with evolution since Pius said 'hey, this theory is pretty cool.'. I don't think Benedict's policy says 'no evolution', I think it says 'science hasn't proved God doesn't exist and it would be good for scientists not to make those claims.' That's just metaphysical naturalism versus theism, and that's an old debate.
I think Glenn's point is partially wrong, given that using philosophy to attack or create religious doctrine is pretty much the Catholic bag, so saying that it doesn't turn the sharp intellect in on itself sort of ignores, oh, pretty much everything written.
Cala, you're right about Catholic doctrine on evolution. Schoenborn had given a speech that seemed to support intelligent design but he later said that all he meant was that evolution doesn't preclude a creator, which is pretty unobjectionable to me.
I don't think this is right though: it's talking about a scholar of Islam disagreeing with violent conversion on Islamic grounds.
Isn't he talking about a polemic by a Byzantine emperor, who was Christian?
And if the Pope had hooked his speech on a similar attack on perceived Jewish doctrine, it would be pretty uncontroversial for Jewish organizations to condemn it; I don't think the situation is that much different for Islam.
That is to say, if you're going to get incensed because people refer to your religion as violent, you may want to carefully consider the tactics you employ in response to that slur.
There's a difference between condemning and rioting. And the polemicist doesn't argue by saying 'Islam is wrong 'cause Christianity says so' but 'This interpretation is contradicted by an earlier interpretation.' But wasn't this 'Islam really doesn't say that, this is Islam hijacked by bin Laden whackjobs' a fairly sensible line right after 9/11?
The Cole post is excellent. I don't think it contradicts the Pope, exactly, as the 'imagining it as a young Muhammed' seems to be reading in a lot to a throwaway introduction. But it would have been better if some of the faith & reason intro had drawn from those Muslim sources.
I guess I'm just surrounded by this a bit more. The traditional examples for 'what does God command? how much are we supposed to think?'' are a) should Abraham have tried to kill his son just because God said so? b) Should Hosea really have taken a whore as a wife just because God said so? c) Should the Israelites have stolen all the gold from the Egyptians just because God said so? In teaching this old debate to students, we often update it because the examples haven't always aged well. d) If God told you to hijack a plane and fly it into a building, would you have a duty to do so? e) If God told you to kill your roommate, would you have a duty to do so? f) If God told you to torture people, should you?
28:Even if it is all tribal, it can be pretty difficult to separate out the internally accepted explanations of tribal rivalries. What was the Thirty Years War about? I think it is condescending for we seculars to say it was an economic war;or simply derived from a charismatic brilliant general (Gustavus Adolphus).
The content of the rivalries is important. Israel vs Palestine is mostly about land. Sunni vs Shia in Iraq is about control of Baghdad, ancient tribal structures, sectarian differences, control of oil revenue, and many other things, each of which is pretty important.
The appeal of religion has never been about adherence to the content of religious theology; it's always been about the practice of communal rituals and the bonding that communal ritual provides.... You could swap out God for the Great Pumpkin and in the end it simply wouldn't matter as long as you showed up to church every Sunday.
... Except you couldn't. Oh sure, starting from scratch, you could create a Great Pumpkin religion and maybe attract some adherents, and annoint yourself the Chief Pie Baker or some such thing, but it's a bit blithe to claim that the content of religious theology isn't important to a member of the religion. After all, the content of religious theology is what separates the Sunni from the Shi'a, the Catholics from the Protestants, etc.
If the Pope didn't vigorously assert the correctness -- and even the preferability -- of Catholicism over Islam on the basis of the beliefs of each, he would be a pretty crappy Pope.
Of course, speaking as a not-particularly-religious person, the whole exercise seems like a waste of time and energy. And it certainly seems like a less-than-opportune time to open a wider rift between Christianity and Islam.
36: I don't think it's all tribal at all, Bob, and in fact I get pretty irritated when people put an overly simplistic religious gloss on Israel/Palestine when issues of colonialism and imperialism seem much more relevant. I was responding specifically to Levy's bizarre contention that strict adherence to/belief in the specific theological quirks of one's religion - and the definition of one's religion in opposition to other religions - makes one's religion "good" or "real."
I took Levy's position to be more that there's something conducive to forming a ritual if it's presented as strict rather than optional, and that there's nothing wrong with saying 'We believe this and we don't believe that.'
I think I do understand a lil bit of Kierkeggaard. And I think he said Abraham should cut Jacob's throat; and that it is not a rational or ethical decision.
Not that I am justifying the Crusades or suicide bombers;but I do think it is hard to take their own justifications from them without throwing out the "Smile on Your Brother" bathwater along with the "It's Alive" baby. Modern ecumenism is very weak tea, tasting of lavender salts and violet soaps.
OK, fine, a political comment. Sure, I condemn violent riots over this sort of thing, but there's a big distance between that and "What the Pope said was fine because religious leaders are all about distinguishing their religion from other religions." Levy, I take it, is saying the latter.
Cala, I don't get this: Islam really doesn't say that, this is Islam hijacked by bin Laden whackjobs out of the sentence quoted in 27. In fact Benedict seems to say that the earlier interpretation, the one he agrees with, isn't authentic Islam because it comes from when Mohammed was powerless.
Sure you could. By "swap out" I don't mean right this minute with a Vatican II of the Pumpkins, I mean exchange for an alternate historical version. There's nothing intrinsic to the notion of "God turns into carpenter who dies two thousand years ago and comes back so we can eat him as a cracker" that's intrinsically reasonable and compelling to Catholics; it's the persistent belief in shared gobbledygook that (1) provides a sense of community among believers and (2) lends legitimacy to said gobbledygook. The specific content of Catholic theology didn't necessarily have to be the triple-godhead and the virgin birth and the blood that turns into wine; it could've been Xenu and the body thetans for all that the actual theology matters.
If the Pope didn't vigorously assert the correctness -- and even the preferability -- of Catholicism over Islam on the basis of the beliefs of each, he would be a pretty crappy Pope.
And a salesman who admits that his product is no better than his competitor's is a pretty crappy salesman, but I've no reason to respect the good salesman for being a dishonest huckster, either. And while I expect the pope to shill for his religion since that's his job, most Catholics are not professional Catholics like Benedict, and are simply not as invested in the vagaries of church theology as they are in the shared experiences Catholocism provides.
43: Did anyone else read the article in the last New Yorker about Mahmoud Taha, who preached that the original, non-violent "Mecca revelation" is in fact the authentic Islam, and that the later, coercive "Medina Revelation" should be discarded?
35: There's a big difference between God personally telling me to kill my roommate and the pope or my parish priest telling me God wants me to kill my roommate. Because of the "next time you see me coming you better run" aspect of the thing. If there really is a god who is involved enough in the affairs of the world to go about issuing such disagreeable instructions, is the instructee really able to make a moral choice? He's acting under compulsion, since presumably such a god would enforce his wishes.
How does a believer discriminate between the voice of God on the one hand, and hallucination, wishful thinking, or the devil on the other?
If there really is a god who is involved enough in the affairs of the world to go about issuing such disagreeable instructions, is the instructee really able to make a moral choice?
If a deranged maniac broke into your house and ordered you to kill your son at gunpoint, wouldn't the choice you'd have to make - the decision between dying at the killer's hands or killing your son - still be a moral choice? The Abraham scenario makes the deranged maniac much bigger and scarier, but it doesn't change the ethics of the situation.
How does a believer discriminate between the voice of God on the one hand, and hallucination, wishful thinking, or the devil on the other?
That's one question. How could we be sure? (My response to the prof's question on what would you do in the roommate-killing case was 'Begone foul spirit?') And the usual first argument would be, okay, first thing you gotta do is make sure you're not insane.
But the second question is, 'What if you were sure?' And I think my response still leans towards 'Oh, come on' rather than 'Okay, yay murder!', and there are some smart people who agree with me.
Thanks to bob mcmanus and others for correcting me - it was even worse than I put it. Depending on which order of knights, inquisitors, petty tyrants or princelings you ask, you may hear something different about whether the goal was to convert or just kill those who believed the wrong way. Jesus may not have killed anybody, as some have pointed out, but an awful lot of people got killed in his name by people who were pretty damn sure he'd understand what they were doing -- and in fact, that that was a ticket to heaven (no word on the virgins thing, though, so I guess they really were superior).
Why, exactly, would we turn to a Byzantine emperor from the end of the 14th c. for insights into the merits of the muslim faith -- you know, the dominant faith of the empire that was kicking his ass and would in a few decades end his family's rule altoghether? Somebody hopelessly modern and secular might think, hey, this guy really didn't find a great solution to interfaith conflict in his time, and maybe, given that they were, you know, hostile to one another he might be inclined to focus on the warlike aspects of his enemy (while, conveniently, omitting the way religion justified christian violence). You know what, maybe I'll look somewhere else altogether for insights.
Posted by
dammitIhaven'tsettledonapseudonymyet |
Link to this comment |
09-16-06 11:37 AM
52
15: Anti-semitism is the anti-semitism of our age and the worst practitioners of it are found in the Muslim world.
Or at least, its loudest and frankest practitioners. Fair point.
What I was getting at is not that the old form of anti-Semitism has ceased to exist -- either in the Muslim world or in the West -- but that in the West Islamophobia has eclipsed it in terms of mainstream fashionability, while reproducing a great many of its tropes and habits, in an extremely scary way. This isn't to say that the old-style anti-Semitism has gone anywhere; indeed, it's one of the crowning ironies of history that many of its Western practitioners now try to masquerade as philo-Semites and "friends of Israel."
While some of the more over-the-top responses irritate me, I just don't think that all or even the majority of Muslims taking serious offense at Benedict's slander are crazy for doing so. It's easy for those of us in less fraught circumstances to talk about thicker skins, but in the era that brought us Hajji Girl and the war that made it possible, this seems a little on the glib side.
49:The Abraham scenario presumes belief; in fact in the case of braham, I think it presumes direct revelation, as in Cala's 50.
44:For some reason, this has been practically difficult;the Enlightenment Project or Reason Project been going on a long time with middling success. I fear we are in another damned "Great Awakening" as the Prophet of Crawford sayest. Those are not always restricted by sect or geography;e.g. early 20th century America and Arabia. They might be reactions to scientific paradigm shifts.
This is not restricted to religion:e.g. identity politics, post-enlightenment philosophy. I do not understand the need for identity, although I would myself be hesitant to change my name to "Ben Wolfson."
49, 50: I agree. But isn't the whole question a paradox? To someone who is a believer, I mean. If God is all good, then what's he doing coming around telling me to kill my son and my roommate? So it can't be him. Unless he has a really bad sense of humor. But God should be able to tell the funniest joke.
Not to a believer. It's sort of up for debate whether God can be held to an external, reasonable standard ('murder is bad because it's bad') or not ('murder is only bad because God says it's bad')
51:"Why, exactly, would we turn to a Byzantine emperor from the end of the 14th c."
That is a good question, I do think it was deliberate. Quite possibly flattering to Islam in that the Last Crusaders got their butts kicked at Nicopolis. Maybe the Pope was begging for mercy. Maybe he is preparing another Crusade. I should read the whole speech
60: re 44, making the content of religion a matter of indifference? Secularizing society?
IIRC, the Lithuanians converted to Christianity from Paganism just before the battle of Grunwald largely to prevent the Teutonic Knights from having Crusading reinforcement. So I don't know how closely religious and other identities are held. So I also don't know how important abortion and Intelligent Design are to the Christian Right and their identities, and how to get them to abandon their positions or become more tolerant.
As the Lithuanians above show, it may be useful to approach them indirectly, or give them compelling reasons to change not based on rational persuasion from error.
re 44, making the content of religion a matter of indifference? Secularizing society?
My point in 44 is that the specific content of a given religion is already unimportant to its adherents - again, in response to Levy. I said nothing about "secularizing society."
I sort of quit reading when Levy explained how he didn't prefer Unitarians to the various religious groups that would persecute him. Let the Cossack have the bastard.
The guys who do pograms, stone adulterers, hang queers, and burn heretics -- unlike the wimpy Unitarians -- have authenticity. Spare me.
64:I kind of like that argument. I have seen too many on the Left look at opposition to evolution and ask:"Where does this shit come from?" Religion, at root and in most authentic form, is an extreme and dangerous thing. I suppose this is akin to conflating the minimum wage and Stalin. But that strategy has had a lot of success in American politics.
hey I admit I have not as smart as you guys on this blog but I was hoping you could help. I dont understand everything you are saying, or what somebody named Benedict has to do with the pope and muslims, but you all seem to know a lot about religions. I am thinking about converting to Muslim but I need to know more about the religion and how to do it. could someone tell me the name of the muslim pope so I could write him or his office. please help because I cant find anything about muslim pope on the internet.
Levy's point is--I think--that if you really believe in the metaphysical truth of christianity's various claims, then you better get with the persecutin. The fact that most western christian's don't is evidence that they don't really believe what they claim to believe. Rather, their actual core beliefs are simply those of a christ-flavored liberalism(liberalism concieved very broadly, of course).
Cala, I wasn't claiming that religion doesn't use reason, I was commenting on the ridiculousness of a "reason to here, but no further" position. So yeah, there is a long history of catholic's making extensive use of rationality to argue doctrinal points, but a lot of those arguments ended up in angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin territory, for obvious reasons.
All versions of Christianity or any other religion are heavily edited and have to ignore or misinterpret enormous areas of scripture. The Unitarian editing has a LOT to say for it.
Levy was speaking, presumably, from an imbecile kneejerk hatred of secular liberals, dogooders, pacifists, and the like. (I use the words "imbecile" and "kneejerk" in a non-judgmental, descriptive, value-free sense.)
He did not actually want the Cossacks to come after his sorry Jewish ass. Good thing, too, because there ain't no Cossacks no more.
And he's not actually afraid of the Muslims, because who is, really? So he can still talk shit about how he respects the really sincere, really authentic, fanatical, murderous religions.
For what it's worth: In any case, peaceful proselytizing is controversial enough in and of itself; did Levy condemn the Jews for this? [A 1999 press release, "ADL Outraged by Southern Baptist Statements Rooting Jewish Conversion Appeals in Theology "]
While that was from pre-blogging days, and "the ADL" =/= "the Jews" (really!) the answer happens to be yes. I argued with friends about that at the time. My view was and is that, given that people are evangelical Baptists, it's no mark of respect for them not to try to evangelize us. Despite the creepiness factor, that's also my view of Mormons posthumously baptizing Holocaust victims-- given the theology that makes sense of posthumous (and ipso facto involuntary) baptism at all, it makes sense.
I'm happy to see someone arguing that people shouldn't be Baptists. But-- even acknowledging the historical reasons Jews have to be nervous about Christians taking too keen an interest in the state of our souls-- I don't think we're somehow entitled to demand that Baptists or Mormons (or Muslims!) bend their religious commitments around a "but not the Jews" exception. We're entitled to demand that we not be coerced or killed-- but not that our neighbors refrain from religiously believing that we're of the wrong religion, and from speaking accordingly.
Maybe we could get the last laugh by arranging for a Unitarian pogrom.
There are, in fact, some pretty rough Unitarians in a Hungarian-speaking part of Romania: the Szekely, who've been Unitarian for at least four centuries. (Unitarianism / Socinianism originated in Central Europe.)
The leading Moroccan daily Attajdid, etc., =/= "the Muslim world," either, I'd say. It was kind of a one broad brush deserves another thing.
I'm glad to see you apply these principles consistently, in any case, but I still disagree. I think one of history's lessons is that when religions don't show a certain degree of respect for each other, everyone's in trouble. (Where deserved, obviously. This doesn't mean special respect for religiously based homophobic or sexist views, etc.)
Cala, I wasn't claiming that religion doesn't use reason, I was commenting on the ridiculousness of a "reason to here, but no further" position.
I'm not seeing that as the position. I'm seeing the overall position being 'don't claim that science can prove the non-existence of things it can't put in a lab', but that's not the same thing, and not a ridiculous position. (One that Lawrence Krauss holds, for one, as an atheist scientist.)
Part of the problem seems to be: does the religion have an explicit evangelical component* or doesn't it? Christianity does; Judaism doesn't.
Obviously no one's advocating torture or imprisonment, but saying 'Be Christian, but don't pray for others' conversions' isn't a religiously neutral statement.
*I almost wrote 'missionary commandment' and then thought better of it.
Perhaps I missed the point where this was addressed before, but wouldn't it be a good idea to ask cui bono? I guess bringing up the Banco Ambrosiano and John Paul I and all that stuff is just so, so trite nowadays, but let's remember that the Pope is, after all, a foreign prince, and while he may claim to be most interested in religious life, he lives in the material world just like the rest of us. He knows which side his bread is buttered on, is what I'm trying to say.
All of this religious shuck, whether it's the really absurd stuff, or the stuff that educated, secular people can talk about with a straight face, is all designed to keep the same groups and individuals in power, century after bloody century, and keep the rest of us beguiled. Robertson, Gyatso, Foxman, Benedict, al-Sadr, Falwell and the whole bunch of them are just bunko artists. That's it. There's no underlying truth or meaning to their slick spiels -- it's all in the service of the wealthy and powerful. The rest of us would be wise to take our dogs out of this fight and concentrate on building a world where none of this God nonsense can get any traction.
83: As the author of a book called The Multiculturalism of Fear (that's all I know about it) I'd expect Jacob knows more about this than I do, but I don't think so. I'm saying that it's harmful for religions to emphasize contempt for other religions and the desirability of getting people to stop conforming to them. Jacob, it seems, is saying that respect for other religions requires recognizing that they will want to convert people, and will preach their superiority to other religions, and that no outsider can criticize the religion for that.
I interpret "I'm happy to see someone arguing that people shouldn't be Baptists" to mean that it's essential to Baptists that they try to evangelize Jews and to argue that they shouldn't is to argue that they shouldn't be Baptists, or should be replaced by such an argument. (Though there are Baptists who aren't Southern Baptists, and it seems that the Southern Baptists laid off the conversion of the Jews before bringing it back in the late 90s, so I doubt the essentialism.) I think it's much more respectful to argue for a kinder, gentler Baptistism rather than the end of it per se.
Cala, I don't think an explicit evangelical commitment gets a religion off the hook any more than an explicit commitment to sexism does. Prayer for someone's salvation is not necessarily benign; check the first block quote here. I certainly don't object quiet prayers, and I don't even mind LDS knocking on my door so long as they go away when I ask them and they don't have some master list of Jews to bug, but proselytization often gets more intrusive than that.
87: What I mean is that you're both saying religions should respect other religions, but you mean that bigger religions should respect smaller ones by not aggressively proselytizing to them (etc.) and Jacob means that smaller religions should respect bigger ones by not trying to limit their ability to practice even if it involves doing things they don't like. I don't actually know which version I agree with more; 1 was a response to the linked post alone, not this larger issue.
Also, my sympathies for the aesthetic and moral-psychological experience of religious belief also run more toward people being serious about their religion; but it doesn't have anything to do with doctrinal rigidity or proselytization (81-85).
I don't think an explicit evangelical commitment gets a religion off the hook any more than an explicit commitment to sexism does. Prayer for someone's salvation is not necessarily benign
96: I originally had it as stronger/weaker, but I'm not sure that's necessarily the distinction I'm going for. I do think there is one, though. Maybe it's just importance of proselytization.
I think I actually agree more with you than with Levy.
Weiner, I take this to be the meat of your argument: I'm glad to see you apply these principles consistently, in any case, but I still disagree. I think one of history's lessons is that when religions don't show a certain degree of respect for each other, everyone's in trouble.
Isn't all the work being done by "certain degree of respect"? I'm sure you could come up with methods of proslytizing that Levy would find objectionable, but the Pope's speech seems at least not at the outer boundaries of that continuum. It seems that you and Levy are disagreeing about whether the Pope showed the appropriate amount of respect. Insofar as we're worried about the effects of the Pope's speech on the specific actions of other people, that seems like an empirical question about which we're guessing the answer. If you're saying that the speech was harmful, and he's saying that it wasn't, I'm not sure it's clear that you have the more convincing case.
Cala, I don't think an explicit evangelical commitment gets a religion off the hook any more than an explicit commitment to sexism does.
Not parallel exactly, but I wasn't trying to argue that it was a get out of jail free card for criticism. Just that when Jews -- or anyone else--- say 'don't prosyletize us as a group' it's not a neutral claim, because it's not optional, really.
It's unfortunately never going to be part of Christianity for it just to be a religion of a small tribe or ethnic group that doesn't bother anyone else.
This isn't to say that one shouldn't complain about prosletyzing if it feels threatening. It's just not going to yield much other than maybe making the prosyletizing less annoying.
Cala, it sounds like you're saying that a religion without aggressive proselytization couldn't be Christianity. I seriously doubt that; Christianity has gone through a lot of changes in two thousand years. (88, again.) But if that's true, then I am saying Christians should give it up and become Unitarians. (I don't think it's true. I'm saying if it is.) And Muslims, and adherents of other religions, have cause to be very concerned about aggressive noises from major Christian leaders.
"Be more ecumenical" doesn't mean "become the religion of a small tribe or ethnic group," either, there's already a couple billion of you.
See, this is where I kind of side with Levy (and Cala). You may think Christianity without proselytization would still be Christianity, but that's not for you (or me or Jacob Levy) to decide; we're not Christian, and what we think about what Christianity is or should be is essentially meaningless to someone who is.
When I hear the word "religion," I reach for my gun -- particularly when a secular liberal is talking about how we should understand how this weird species thinks.
Actual existing Christianity has, by and large, been a bad thing. I am still of the opinion that the life of Christ is the most important event in the history of the universe and that if it had never happened, and more importantly if people hadn't found ways to bear witness to it (often in contradiction to the official church), then we wouldn't have the slightest idea what hope means -- hope in the strongest and broadest sense.
But of course I would believe something like that, because I'm a religious person! Pat me on the head and give me a cookie.
104 seems wrong to me. Belief systems are not hermetic -- it's perfectly possible for people of any faith to respond to the ethical questions of their day whether or not those questions come from outside their faith-group. Dismissal can be tempting, of course, but that doesn't mean that what non-Christians think about Christianity is morally irrelevant -- especially not when the question at hand is Christian conduct toward non-Christians.
That's why I said "essentially" rather than absolutely meaningless. I grant that the input of outsiders can be useful to members of the group in question, especially reformist-minded ones who see problems with the structure of the religion as it is and are looking for solutions. I do, however, think that when it comes to bedrock questions of what is necessary to believe in (or practice) to belong to a given religion outsiders don't get any say; members of the group need to define it for themselves.
Hey! I like Unitarians! Oh shit, that's appeasement, isn't it.
104, I see your point, that's why I'm phrasing it hypothetically. To put it as tendentiously as possible, I'm saying, "Behavior X is dickish. If X isn't essential to your religion, then you should practice a version of that religion that doesn't involve X. If X is essential to your religion, then you should get a less dickish religion. But the important thing is that you should stop doing X, because it's dickish. [And I suspect that X isn't essential to your religion, but that's your call.]"
There are some complications here because our X kind of has the religion itself in its description; it's not a narrowly circumscribed practice like human sacrifice or even refusing to ordain women. But still, "it's essential to the religion" doesn't serve as an excuse for behavior that's otherwise bad; and that's why all the religions that have lasted have proved quite flexible, as I understand it.
Religion is always internally negotiable. Large areas of the Bible and the tradition have to be ignored. It's justs aquestion of which parts.
The ignoring part seems to be a tacit admission that it's all made up. Which is fine, I think it's all a big fabrication too. But then let's all just stop this weak ass "I'm ok, you're ok" cherry picking, and go atheist already.
It's not that the fundies are more authentic, it's that they're the ones who seem to be actually reading the entire manual.
82: Doesn't that position immediately fall victem to the pink-elephants argument? I.E., scientist's can't get the pink elephants in the lab, so how can they prove they don't exist? Or rather, presupposing "God" or spirituality or whatever, as "something" which can't be examined in the lab already gives the game away and is thus not relevent.
113: The fundamentalists just say they're reading the whole thing and taking it all literally. In reality, that's just empirically impossible. Thankfully for them, the mainstream secular media takes the fundamentalists to be the most authentic and serious representatives of Christianity, apparently just because funadmentalists are more likely to aggressively present themselves in that way.
Or it could be that secular liberals think that what is most "authentically" religious is strongly believing arbitrary things, so on that scale, fundamentalists are the most truly religious Christians out there -- plus the secular liberal can than congratulate himself on his refined taste, for admiring the conviction of this very authentically religious person (despite abhorring the content of his views). A taste for true conviction is like a taste for wine -- a sign of refinement and culture.
"Behavior X is dickish. If X isn't essential to your religion, then you should practice a version of that religion that doesn't involve X. If X is essential to your religion, then you should get a less dickish religion. But the important thing is that you should stop doing X, because it's dickish. [And I suspect that X isn't essential to your religion, but that's your call.]"
My position is pretty much this, except without the parenthetical. In some ways I'm actually taking a harder line than either you or Levy; you're saying "I don't think objectionable practice X is actually essential to your religion, so knock it off" and Levy's saying "I find X objectionable but I believe you when you say it's essential to your religion, so I guess I'd better accept that you're going to do it," both of which are attempts to accomodate the feelings of the religious practitioners in question, whereas I'm saying "I'm willing to believe that X is essential to your religion but I still find it objectionable, so I think you should cut it out even if that means you end up practicing something other than your current religion." I admit that this is kind of dickish of me, and I don't generally go around saying it out loud, but it is how I feel.
Proselytizing is indeed a tricky issue because it's so closely tied to religious faith in general, but the argument works for plenty of other religious practices as well.
Who said anything about admiration? "believing arbitrary things" is pretty much a core aspect of any religion. Or do you think your religious beliefs are less arbitrary than anyone else?
I happen to enjoy and approve of Kotsko's Pauline Marxism or whatever. I expect it to remain a minority position within Christianity. I suspect a committment to caritas might survive the removal of its justificatory logic, but I am not certain.
I am fairly certain that the point of attack should not be bad behavior but bad justification systems.
the title of this post should have been "next you're going to tell me a wild bear shits in the woods!" I think the best thing about being pope would be that you can wake up in the middle of the night and say, hey, I want to go hang out in the sistine chapel. but you would have to catholic as well.
103: The 'aggressive' is your addition, not mine. I don't think proselytizing in and of itself is any more threatening than listening to bad political arguments; and anything that is threatening is something against which one would have a valid complaint. (With 'threatening' being relative to the group & aware of history, &c.)
I guess I'm not making the argument that 'Practice X is justified by religion Y, therefore X must not be challenged', but the far narrower claim that it's not just as simple as saying 'Give up proselytizing, you can still be Christian without it', and when you say something like that, it's probably going to fall on deaf ears.
I'm saying that's really not for an outsider to decide whether it's important to the faith or not, any more than it's my place to decide that the Jewish holidays don't honor anything really meaningful and demand that my students write an exam on Yom Kippur and to defend myself by saying that I know a lot of secular Jews so it can't really be part of being Jewish to follow certain rituals on a day that inconveniences my section schedule.
114: A pink elephant would leave pink spoor all over the place.
I happen to enjoy and approve of Kotsko's Pauline Marxism
Hey, if Christianity can be liberalized, great. But the whole "I ran the Bible through my liberal decoder ring and now God loves the women and the queers 'cause Jesus is all about hope and loooove" strikes me as a bit delusional.
And yes, I don't doubt Kotsko's stuff has more to it than that.
125: I remain unclear about what Weiner's arguing. I assume he's not talking about illegal acts. Is the only question whether or not your are, for example, allowed to call the Catholic Church cruel names because of its position on the ordination of women?
I think the question is not whether namecalling is allowed (one doesn't ask permission before insulting), but what sort of restrictions or permissions an outsider can reasonably demand of a religion. So it's probably not "calling the Catholic Church cruel names" as much as it would be "insisting that it's not real Catholicism because it's an arbitrary rule anyway" or "it's not a real dietary restriction because not all Jews follow it."
I don't know if he's saying that objectionable practice X means that religious group Y isn't practicing "real" religion Z, but he is saying that not doing X wouldn't make Y's Z any less real than doing it. I'm saying that judgments like that can only be made in a useful way from within the group in question.
Huh, I thought I'd posted something. I'm certainly not saying X means Y isn't practicing real Z. I'm saying that probably not-X wouldn't make Y's Z any less real, but I'm not wedded to that. What I am wedded to is that for many X, X sucks and Y should stop doing X even if (as I suspect it doesn't) that means abandoning Z. Insofar as the Catholic Church doesn't ordain women, that gives people a reason not to be Catholic.
Of course I'm not saying "You must stop being Catholic now!", no institution is perfect. Just the "there is some reason etc." with a little bit of "and reform is probably possible."
The dietary laws, you know, I think it's pretty much a proof that such laws aren't essential to Judaism that there are whole Jewish denominations that don't obey/enforce them. (Levy seems to dance up to the view that, mutatis mutandis, such denominations aren't as Jewish as others, which I think is as nosy as anything I say.) But an interesting case: Orthodox Judaism has all sorts of sexist rules. If you don't follow them you're Traditional Egalitarian. (As I understand it, I'm not either.) Are these rules essential to Orthodoxy, such that if you don't follow them you're not Orthodox? I guess I'm not one to say, but I'm happy to say that if that's true everyone should be Traditional Egalitarian instead of Orthodox, because those rules are sexist.
(oh, and in the comment I thought I wrote I said something about how I'm drawing a distinction between proselytization like "I have a very nice religion, hope you like it" and "we are going to convert the Jews!")
So are we disagreeing at all? I guess I'm just not as willing to argue that a given practice isn't essential to someone's religion if they say it is. Otherwise I'm on board with everything in 133.
I guess I'm saying that there is a lot of inductive evidence that things which might seem essential to a religion are later abandoned by that religion. So when the current adherents of the religion say "If we stop doing X we might as well stop practicing Z!" I'm more skeptical. Then again I'm no historian of religion.
Usually when I talk about religion here I'm talking about something more on the level of a church than of one person's religion -- it may be essential to someone's Judaism that they not use electricity on Saturday, but it's not essential to Judaism (though maybe to some denominations).
So, Teofilo, if someone comes up to you and tells you it is essential to their religion that they strap you down on an altar and divest your body of its blood and internal organs, you'd say "OK"? Somehow, I think not.
The bottom line, as 24 alludes to, is simply this: every religious leader goes to bed at night and wakes up in the morning absolutely convinced that they are the keepers of the One and Only Way to Salvation, and that all other religious leaders are not simply mistaken, but fundamentally Wrong. And that said Wrongness will condemn the followers of these Wrong leaders to feel the wrath of God. And that said Wrath can be spared these people if only they can be shown the Truth, by whatever methods necessary. Otherwise, what's the point?
Of course, as 126 points out, some Truths are more important than others. I must say I haven't noticed any Operation Rescue-style picketing at Red Lobster, much less the immolation of facilities that engage in such "abominations" and the targeting of the cooks there for assassination.
133: "The dietary laws, you know, I think it's pretty much a proof that such laws aren't essential to Judaism that there are whole Jewish denominations that don't obey/enforce them"
Those laws *are* essential to the Jews that follow them, and those Jews do not, in general, consider those who do not follow them to be "real" or "proper" Jews, any more than Catholics consider Anglicans, Baptists and Presbyterians (much less Mormons) to be "real" Christians (and vice versa, of course). That's the point: We're right, you're wrong.
Paisley, teo is saying that he wouldn't dispute the claim that religion x includes a duty to strap virgins to the altar and divest them of their blood and internal organs, not that he'd add, "And that's ok."
I hardly need to pull out quotes from Muslim religious leaders about the Jews, do I?
I would like to see these quotes, please. So that I can compare them with Islamophobic and Arabophobic suggestions I see in newspapers and hear on TV and radio every day. And that's just the FM radio!
So, you may be right, but I would like to see some evidence. Yeah, and avoid anything from MEMRI, please.
As far as the essentials of Christianity: Christianity began with a period of oncontrolled diversity (with Herbrew, Greek, Persian, Judeo-Persian, Judeo-Greek, and Roman elements), which was gradually normalized by a series of councils which expelled the Eastern churches (Ethiopia, Armenia, and others) and accomodated itself to the Roman Empire. After the fall of Rome Catholic Christianity was reconstituted in the North: "The Germanization of European Christianity". During th Reformation and counter-Reformation everything was redefined again, and then during the XIX-XXc came liberalization, accompanied by the rise of fundamentalism and dispensationalism (Armageddon Christianity) which were also new.
So while it's true that most of the thousands of Christian sects probably do claim exclusivity, for their sect which for them represents Christianity as a whole, their claims to representing Christianity as a whole are all weak. So we have a swarm of parochial traditions claiming to be catholic, and Levy endorses this.
The situation is quite different with Judaism, where the Karaites are obviously right, and all other branches wrong.
I call bullshit. The Pope opens up with a statement about how Islam doesn't add anything, then goes on for pages about "hellenism" ignoring the Muslim philosophers who were primarily responsible for transmitting hellenism to Europe? I don't give a shit about the offensiveness of it; It's dishonest, ahistorical, and that offends me.
136: Catholicism does consider Anglicanism, etc, to be real Christians (though Mormons aren't); the easy way to tell, generally is whether baptism is required for a convert.
It's not always reciprocal, especially with megachurches: 'You're Catholic, but are you Christian?' I heard too many times. 'Didn't your church come into existence here last Wednesday when you dedicated the new basketball-court-cum-community discussion area?'
Basically what I'm saying is that Christianity was already in intense dialogue with hellenistic thought before Islam even arose. Relatively few of the actual texts made it to Europe before the high middle ages, but Augustine definitely transmitted neo-Platonic thought to the West.
Islamic philosophy was obviously decisive for Aquinas and what came after, but the Byzantines also deserve some credit for transmitting the Greek heritage to the West -- and it was a Byzantine Christian, not a Muslim, who first taught Westerners Greek after centuries of total ignorance of the language in the Latin world.
Wikipedia classes them as Jewish (and seems to indicate that Israel does the same). The article also says:
"During the 18th century, Russian Karaites spread many myths externally which freed them from various anti-Semitic laws that affected other Jews. Avraham Firkovich helped establish these ideas by forging tombstones in Crimea which bear inscriptions stating that those buried were descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel. Other deflections included claiming to be among those Jews with a Khazar origin, or claiming that Karaites were otherwise not strictly Jewish descended. These actions were intended to convince the Russian Czar that Karaite ancestors could not have killed Jesus; that thus their descendants were free of familial guilt (which was an underlying reason or pretext given at that time for anti-Semitic laws). Because of the above, and/or a rulings by Rabbinic Jewry intended to save the Karaites, the Nazis of World War II generally left the Karaites alone during the Holocaust."
cite
I don't actually have a strong opinion on the Jewishness of the Karaites. They are now apparently generally considered Jewish, which is good enough for me.
Coming in late to this one -- I haven't been online since Friday -- but I think Ogged and Levy are both right. For most religions, thinking adherents of all other religions are wrong is not optional -- it's just what it means to hold a religious belief. And while it may be tactless to harp on the rightness of your religion and the wrongness of everyone else's, it's not worse than tactless, and particularly for someone whose entire reason for being a public figure is his religion, like, say, the Pope, it's not really even tactless.
With respect to "while it may be tactless to harp on the rightness of your religion and the wrongness of everyone else's, it's not worse than tactless, and particularly for someone whose entire reason for being a public figure is his religion, like, say, the Pope, it's not really even tactless..."
I think it is, in fact, worse than tactless. And some think I speak with some authority on matters like these.
May I tell you a story? About a guy who came to me asking questions a whole lot of years ago?
"Rabbi," he said--I think he was, like you, a lawyer. "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?
And I said back to him,: "What is written in the law? how readest thou?"
And he answering said: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself." And I told him that he had gotten it right, and that he would inherit eternal life. But he wasn't satisfied. He asked me: "And who is my neighbour?" So I told him this story:
"A certain [man] went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded [him], and departed, leaving [him] half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked [on him], and passed by on the other side.
"But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion [on him], And went to [him], and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave [them] to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
"Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?"
And the lawyer answered me: "He that shewed mercy on him."
Then I said: "Go, and do thou likewise."
LizardBreath: The theology is not the point. The Pope, as much as anybody else, should know that the theology is not the point--that harping on the rightness of your religion and the wrongness of everyone else's is really not the point.
What is the point? I've gotten it down into four planks:
1. Love God.
2. Love your neighbor.
3. Try as hard as you can to return good for evil.
I'm extremely pissed at Pope Rat (and doesn't that seem like a China Mieville invention) for his little intervention, not so much because I think he's been uncharitable in his judgment of Islam, as because he's refused to accept the responsibilities inherent in his position. As pope, like it or not, he is the tribal leader of a substantial number of people who still live in countries where that is significant. There are, of course, times when a religious leader must speak out on a topic regardless of the repercussions for his flock - I don't hold it against that Benedict that he's spoken about the "Christian culture" of Europe as a reason to exclude Turkey (although I think he's wrong). But in this case, the only reason he seems to have had to quote that Byzantine emperor was to demonstrate what a 31337 SkolR he was. He either knew and didn't care, or else should have known, that as Pope his words would be held against him (and against his followers in other countries, as well as against other non-Catholic Christians), and given that there was no good reason for him to speak out on this issue (whatever it was), his decision to go ahead and use that Paleologus quote can be seen as intellectual wankery, about which I think the Catholic Church has certain teachings.
Re: "It does bug me when someone calls himself 'rabbi' and then preaches doctrine that's not really Jewish."
Hey! Rabbi was what they called me back then in 31 A.D. And I, at least, that it was Jewish doctrine when I preached it. Cut me some slack!
But whether the doctrine is theologically sound is the wrong question to ask. The priest--his theology was impeccable. I know. And I *know* theology. (Trust me on this.) The Levite--he had every single ritual and prayer down stone cold. The Samaritan: a despised heretic with muddled and incoherent theological errors, and he was none too clean either.
But what mattered was that the Samaritan loved his neighbor as himself. That's the question. Not "is this church's theology correct?" but "does this church teach people to love God and love their neighbors?" If so, it is one of My churches, and its people are part of My flock no matter what theology they preach.
After all, in My Father's House are many mansions...
Yeah, 161 is pretty much right. Take 159 as a puzzlement over whether I'm entitled to be as annoyed as I am at people who call themselves "Jews for whatsizname."
You're talking about my little conversation with the Pharisees? The one that went like this?:
"And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, 'Is it lawful for a man to put away [his] wife?' tempting him.
"And he answered and said unto them, 'What did Moses command you?'
"And they said, 'Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put [her] away.'
"And Jesus answered and said unto them, 'For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.'"
That's what you're asking about?
Let me say that community property makes a difference. Divorce is a very different animal in a modern legal jurisdiction like California than it was in Roman-occupied Judea.
Nevertheless, it is only because human hearts are hard--that people are cruel and uncharitable--that my colleague Moses laid down the law allowing divorce in the first place. And we won't need it in the New Jerusalem, after Heaven and Earth have passed away...
But Rabbi, are the parables you tell us not, themselves, theology? How can you ask us to do what you say, and at the same time tell us not to listen to your words?
Boy oh boy, I never thought I'd be typing this, but I'm really gonna have to agree with Rabbi ben Yosef on this one. As an atheist who grew up in a VERY liberal mainline Protestant denomination (but not the UniUnis -- see if you can guess which) the idea that it is sweet and fitting to believe that everyone else's theology is incorrect, Hell-bound apostasy just sticks in my craw.
In fact, if we disregard the Romish church for a moment and look at the mainline Protestants, we see that in fact, most of them take a pretty ecumenical view on the same theological questions that are still gettin' mu'fuckas killed all over the damn place. So how can we reconcile the idea that it is theologically viable (and, as some commenters above have argued, theologically essential) for the true adherent of a particular religion to regard other religious views as False with the fact that there are millions of Christians in the U.S. who very sincerely embrace a theology which claims just the opposite? (Not even going to start with the Hindus here.)
Also, to my point far, far above, I hardly think it's indicative of an irrational belief in conspiracies to argue that publicly avowed hierarchical organizations which have a stated ideology and access to the resources necessary to effect change in the larger society may in fact have an agenda which is not fully disclosed; and that that agenda is determined by the people at the top of the hierarchy; and that those people often consider their own personal interests before their stated responsibilities (or act to make their interests and their responsibilities coincide.) That's what I mean by cui bono?
You know, those of us who are arguing that believing in the falseness of other religions can be essential to a given faith aren't necessarily saying that's a good thing...
Huh. I was just reading other blogs and found out who the esteemed Rabbi appears to be.
167: Don't you (or, rather a current adherent of an ecumenical-type Protestant church. Call them Episcopalians for the sake of argument) think that other religions that insist on the rightness of their own theology, and think it's important, are wrong to do so? You don't have to believe they're going to hell for it, but I think you have to think they're mistaken. And you think they're wrong because you know what God wants, and he doesn't want people to be insistent about the rightness of their theology.
It seems to come to the same thing -- your denomination may be nicer about it, but no less convinced of its own correctness than any other.
Teo's got a strong point in 116:
"I'm willing to believe that X is essential to your religion but I still find it objectionable, so I think you should cut it out even if that means you end up practicing something other than your current religion." I admit that this is kind of dickish of me, and I don't generally go around saying it out loud, but it is how I feel.
Just because believing in your own theological rightness is, I think necessary to be religious at all, and proclaiming it is required by many religions, doesn't mean that it may not be incredibly obnoxious.
believing in the falseness of other religions can be essential to a given faith
This wasn't the Levy/ogged position, though, was it? It was that those religions which aggressively assert the falseness of other religions, and strictly adhere to the odd particulars of their own individual religion, are more authentically religious than liberal, pluralistic religions. That seems patently unfounded, because the most important thing about religious experience is, well, the experience, not whether you experience the religion believing in Jesus or Buddha or Ganesh.
(And by "odd particulars of other religions," I don't mean the general moral laws of a religion, which are often broadly similar (some version of "be nice to other people" is accepted by pretty much every major religion on the planet), but the cosmology and theology (virgin birth, reincarnation, etc.), which really don't strike me as all that important in and of themselves.)
I don't know if ogged ever really explained what his position was. I think what you quote was part of Levy's position, along with the authenticity stuff. I don't really have a position on authenticity, but I am arguing that believing others are wrong can be (but isn't necessarily) an essential part of a given religion.
The rest of 176 puts forth a view of religion that, honestly, just isn't the way I see it. I don't deny that there are certain elements that are very common in religions around the world, but I do think the differences are important, at least to many of the members of those faiths.
I don't think that 'more authentically religious' is the ogged/Levy position. More that aggressive insistence that other religions are false is, for many religions, not optional bad behavior, but a central and necessary tenet of their religion.
the most important thing about religious experience is, well, the experience, not whether you experience the religion believing in Jesus or Buddha or Ganesh.
In your theology. An evangelical Christian would say that the most important thing is the relationship with Jesus, and Jesus only, growing out of the experience. If you say, "Who is he (the Christian) to tell me I'm wrong)?" an exactly parallel question is "Who are you to tell him he is?"
Re: "An evangelical Christian would say that the most important thing is the relationship with Jesus.... 'Who are you to tell him he is [wrong]?'"
Yeshua ben Yosef, of course. I have some standing here, I think. And I tell him that--in Mark, Matthew, and Luke at least; John is a different story--he is wrong.
Remember my story: The priest had an excellent relationship with YHWH. The Samaritan had a flawed and heretical one. Yet which was neighbor to the one who fell among thieves?
My theology? I have no theology. I'm not making a theological point here; I'm making a point about what gives religion its appeal and its potency, and as I said several times upthread, it has nothing to do with whether the Holy Spirit procedes from the Father or from the Father and the Son. It does, however, have a lot to do with the sense of community provided by shared rituals and shared beliefs. It doesn't matter what those beliefs actually are, it only matters that you share them with members of your community.
An evangelical Christian would say that the most important thing is the relationship with Jesus, and Jesus only, growing out of the experience.
As a former evangelical Christian, I can tell you that I never once met Jesus or talked to him - the man never even left a message on my machine - but I met dozens of other evangelical Christians, went to church with them, prayed with them, etc. They might have called that "talking to God" or having a "personal relationship with Christ," but that doesn't make it so.
It does, however, have a lot to do with the sense of community provided by shared rituals and shared beliefs. It doesn't matter what those beliefs actually are, it only matters that you share them with members of your community.
This is just your opinion, though. Plenty of people disagree.
Plenty of people are wrong. Do you think the set of Catholics that regularly performs the eucharist is larger or smaller than the set of Catholics who believes that the wafers actually, literally transform into the body of Christ?
184: So there's a sizable chunk of religious people who consciously perform a ritual for the sake of the ritual itself, and not because of the mystical significance the Church attaches to that ritual. This is not an anomaly; it indicates that the power of the ritual is in the ritual, not in the theology behind it.
Adam at 147: You're right, of course. But the context is the Pope's citation of Islam as anti-rational, the antithesis of hellenism, when that's unjustified.
It doesn't matter what those beliefs actually are, it only matters that you share them with members of your community.
I think this is correct, but I don't think it support the claim that ecumenism doesn't diminish a sense of community (which is where I thought you were going with it). It's true that we can be Catholics or Jews or Reformed Cultists of the Ichor God Bel-Shamaroth and gain a sense of community through ritual.
What doesn't follow from that is that the community itself could adopt a formal 'this ritual is meaningless/just as valid as not doing the ritual' and survive. Even if most Catholics can't explain transubstantiation, the ritual takes a lot of its meaning from the fact that it means Something fixed and Not-Something is rejected.
187: I don't think Unitarians (to pick the group Levy bashed) believe their rituals mean "nothing" (or "not-something"). They just don't think they represent something that excludes the things that Catholic and Muslim rituals represent.
I have some of sympathy for what stras is saying about where religions actually get their meaning from (Durkheim!), but I don't know that it actually helps my ecumenical argument. It seems to me that a religion that encourages shaming non-believers and trying to get everyone else around you to join you could create an even stronger sense of community. This is kind of the problem with Durkheimian views; see Barbara Ehrenreich's review of Habits of the Heart (in The Worst Years of Our Lives I think) for a non-religious example. (On further review, maybe not non-religious.)
OTOH my favored brand of Judaism has pretty explicitly Durkheimian underpinnings while remaining open to ecumenicism. But it may help that Judaism is ethnic as well as religious, and doesn't proselytize anyway.
On the side, and I apologize for the "evangelicals are weird" tone of this, but it seems to me that "it's all about your personal relationship with Jesus" is in tension with "you must try to convert others." Maybe the thread that ties this in is this: There's nothing about a personal relationship with and sincere belief in God, or about community-binding rituals, that requires shaming people who don't conform to your belief. [There's an anecdote here that's not mine to tell.] If someone's particular kind of belief does require or encourage that, then I think they should get a new kind of belief.
181, 188: See, this argument makes me crazy, and I'm a lifelong atheist/agnostic/whatever. Sure, if no religion is true, if it's just people getting together for coffee, donuts, and charitable work, then the doctrinal differences are unimportant. And for anyone who doesn't particularly think their own religion is true, but is in it for the coffee, donuts, and charitable work (and this describes a fair number of people -- my aunt's one), they'd be complete twerps if they got hostile about correcting other people about how their beliefs are wrong. But that's because they aren't really religious.
If you're going to talk about religion as a social force, don't you have to accept that a sizable group of people aren't just going through the motions? That they're doing what they think a God that genuinely exists actually wants them to do? I think you do, and that you have to accept that such people will have specific beliefs about what the God that actually exists in fact wants, which will contradict other people's specific beliefs in this regard.
I'm actually pretty broadly in agreement with stras as a normative matter; I think religion is essentially community-based and ritual is a better foundation for that community than theology. But I do think he's wrong descriptively. I just don't see how you can say that the people who hold that their religion is based on belief are wrong, even if there are other people in the same group who are more attached to ritual. Who are we (assuming we're not part of the group ourselves) to say which group of people is "correct" about what their religion means? Also:
It seems to me that a religion that encourages shaming non-believers and trying to get everyone else around you to join you could create an even stronger sense of community.
This strikes me as a pretty good summary of how religion actually works in a lot of cases. I don't think it should work like this, but I think it often does.
193 was curt, but I don't think it's the place of the non-religious to define what other people's religion must involve if it's to count. Or of religious people either.
192: See, I'm desperately annoyed by anyone who's just in it for the ritual (in real life, I keep a lid on it -- I get along fine with my aunt). Religion seems to me to be such a powerful force for hostility and exclusion that there is no excuse for it unless you believe that an all-powerful being with the right to direct your actions actually wants you to do stuff. Even, on some level, the atheist-compatible denominations like Unitarianism seem to me to give credibility and social cover to people who do bad stuff.
I have nothing against plenty of theists other than thinking they're wrong. The kind of church-goer who's in it for the social ritual and bonding but thinks atheists are vaguely questionable and untrustworthy I despise.
thinks atheists are vaguely questionable and untrustworthy
OK, I'm against that. But I don't think religion has to be a force for hostility and exclusion, and to say that it excludes ecumenicism is counterproductive in this respect.
193: Fair enough, I'm being presumptuous. But generally I'd say that they aren't religious by the standards they formally purport to accept.
To take Catholics as an example: it's an organization, with a series of creeds, that requires members to affirm beliefs in a number of truths about the universe. I am fairly sure that if you asked the Pope whether someone who did not accept this was a Catholic in good standing, he would say no. They are purporting to belong to an organization that requires specific beliefs, while not having those beliefs.
The same could be said of Muslims, (much less so of Jews who I find less annoying in this regard) that a 'Muslim' who did not believe in the existence of one God of whom Mohammed was a prophet would be not actually a Muslim, but rather purporting to be one.
If there's no belief, there's no point or validity to the professions of belief that form a central part of many religions.
But--for Christians at least--the idea that there's an all-powerful being with the right to direct your actions actually wants you to do stuff provides no excuse for hostility and exclusion.
The people who say they actually met the all-powerful being and passed down what he said tell us that said all-powerful being (a) preached the Gospel of Bill and Ted: "Be excellent to each other!", (b) told people that he had very good news--that they should rejoice, for the Kingdom of God is at hand--and (c) repeatedly said "Don't sweat the theology and ritual. They're not the most important things."
Every hostile and exclusive Christian church should be subject to a devastating internal critique...
I don't think it's the place of the non-religious to define what other people's religion must involve if it's to count. Or of religious people either.
But surely there's some kind of standard, like actual belef or something. If I'm an atheist who happens to hang out at the local Uni church for the conversation and because the coffee rules, I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim I'm religious just because of some minimal participation.
I have nothing against plenty of theists other than thinking they're wrong. The kind of church-goer who's in it for the social ritual and bonding but thinks atheists are vaguely questionable and untrustworthy I despise.
196: I've been mostly following this interestedly but staying quiet, but this seems really wrong to me. If you have a quiet, non proselytizing, ecumenical religion, and you don't really believe that fervently, but are just practicing a ritual, you're transforming religion into something less exclusive.
Also, I kind of didn't know belief wasn't actually required, and now feel somewhat cheated, because I've thought about attending church or synagogue, because I like singing and praying and dancing and thinking about what value words might have even if I didn't believe in their literal truth, but never have because I was worried about hypocrisy. Actually, I had a sense from my Episcopal school days that belief might not be required for that. And actually, my aunt simultaneously claims she's an athiest and at times has expressed an interest in rabbinical school. So maybe I did know.
201: repeatedly said "Don't sweat the theology and ritual. They're not the most important things."
I would argue with this, at least with regard to theology rather than ritual. Isn't the message of the parable of the Good Samaritan not that 'theology', taken to mean the intellectual process of figuring out what God wants and then doing it, is unimportant, but that the priest's theology was wrong (or he, personally, failed to understand it) because it didn't lead him to help the guy who fell among thieves. And the Samaritan, while simpler and less intellectual, had a better understanding of theology, because it led him to know, and therefore do, what God actually wanted.
202: I think participating in religious ritual without belief is silly. I am less annoyed by it in Jews than in Christians, because it is my understanding that believing Jews believe that there is value to Jewish ritual even when performed by an unbelieving Jew, so the ritual observance of atheist Jews makes some sort of sense as non-hypocritical service to a community.
If you have a quiet, non proselytizing, ecumenical religion, and you don't really believe that fervently, but are just practicing a ritual, you're transforming religion into something less exclusive.
It just seems to me that minus the belief, you're transforming it into something that's no longer a religion. Once the belief is gone, what's to differentiate it from a gathering at the gun club?
Someone should say something hostile if I'm being too obnoxious about this. I'm stalled on something for work and I'm in a terrible mood. (I'll probably keep arguing, but I can be politer if I need to.)
216: I'm not one to take it upon myself to define religion. But I was responding to LB's specific argument that those people were somehow providing cover for the forces of exclusion and intolerance.
220: Oh, it's not just the 'providing cover' argument. I'm also just annoyed by the whole Durkheimian idea that there's something terribly valuable for society that we can only have by playing a collective game of bullshit 'let's pretend'. If that's so, I don't care how valuable it is, I don't want it.
That noted theologian and moral philosopher Isaac Asimov says somewhere that 2000 years of repetition have robbed the Parable of the Good Samaritan of its meaning. In its first century context, a Samaritan is:
--Culturally other
--A member of a despised ethnic group
--And a schismatic heretic as well
To get the right charge out of the word "Samaritan" today, you would have to replace it with, depending on context...
...An Orangeman
...A Provisional IRA supporter
...A Hindu fundamentalist
...An Islamofascist
...A follower of Jerry Falwell
...A San Franciscan
The parable of the advanced-in-theology-who-do-not-understand-it vs. the simple-in-theology who do is the Parable of the Publican and the Pharisee.
Well, it is Christian-centric, and I nodded to what I understood to be a Jewish perspective in 215. And Buddhists don't necessarily care what you believe, as far as I understand Buddhism.
But even for religions that don't require faith as part of their practice, for someone to be able to define whether or not faith is important, that person has to either (a) genuinely believe in the actual truth of the religion themselves, or (b) be spinning bullshit stories to entertain the masses.
Religion seems to me to be such a powerful force for hostility and exclusion that there is no excuse for it unless you believe that an all-powerful being with the right to direct your actions actually wants you to do stuff.
Do you really think that religion works this way - that religious conservatives hate gay people because God told them to stone sodomites back in the days of Leviticus? Or do you think that religion provides a convenient excuse for already-existing hostility and bigotry?
It seems silly to say that liberal Unitarians are providing cover for the prejudices and hatreds of right-wing fundamentalist Christians. Right-wing fundamentalists are fundamentalists because they're right-wing; they're not right-wing because they're fundamentalists.
201: Jesus expected a cataclysmic event that would permanently destroy the power structures of this world, which he took to be thoroughly sinful. (This is basically the single most agreed-upon thing in biblical scholarship today.) I don't think that's quite the same as hippy liberalism.
The way people responded to his message, his death, and his (reported) resurrection was to form communities and to live together as best they could as though the post-apocalyptic circumstances already obtained, with the full knowledge that such a life could lead to death in certain circumstances (viz., Jesus). Again, not a real feel-good message.
That's my critique of liberal Christians -- they don't take the apocalyptic seriously. On the other hand, the conservative Christians make the apocalyptic into some kind of esoteric (and ultimately meaningless) code, a mental puzzle that is impossible to relate to anything like an actual way of life.
I'm not crazy about the argument in 215 because it presumes that there have to be Jewish theists for Judaism to work, but we've had that argument before and it's not worth going over again. I don't really understand the second paragraph of 226.
atheist-compatible denominations like Unitarianism
I cannot understand this as a religion. (188: I heard it described as 'we just believe in being tolerant.') I don't agree with all of Catholicism; I'm not practicing currently. But I can figure out where they stand on things, and with what I agree and disagree and the like.
But this 'A is true, but not to the exclusion of not-A' boggles the mind. What's the difference between it and the gun club? The gun club is more fun and doesn't try to argue that really, what end you put the bullets in is just a matter of choice.
I don't think it provides cover for anything, but I'm also sure it's compatible with both providing cover and not-providing cover.
"cover for the forces of exclusion and intolerance"
This underlying assumption irks me a bit. Sure, the religious have done awful things. But so have the atheists. Lots of religious people of all faiths are hypocritical. But the very fact of hypocrisy requires that there is something of value that people aren't living up to, or are betraying, or whatevs.
The codes of ethics, in of themselves, are good things. I don't see an argument against a person adopting such a code, following a ritual based on the code, though he or she has insufficient belief.
Back then, the Pharisees were the theological liberals. (I'm not trying to make a polemical point here, but it's just ironic given the connotation it now has.)
Also, in the New Testament "faith" means something more like "faithfulness" or "loyalty" -- specifically, to Jesus. At least in the letters of Paul and in the Gospels it does -- in some of the later writings it might drift toward meaning "a set of beliefs with no supporting evidence."
224: But isn't part of the point that the priest's theology is false, or misunderstood -- that it doesn't led him to act as God wants?
That is, if you tell the story with a Baptist chaplain in Afghanistan passing by, while a Good Taliban member helps the person who's fallen among theives, you can say that the Baptist isn't a good Christian, because he doesn't love his neighbor. I think you can only say that the Good Taliban is a good Christian (or sufficient equivalent) to the extent that he consistently acts in accordance with God's will, which (I think most believing Christians would say) is unlikely without an understanding of what God's will is, aka theology.
If you define "religion" as a belief system which assumes the existence of a god, then yes, it's hard to accept Unitarian tolerance for atheism. But this is a silly definition, as well as a sloppy one.
Are we all coming to the point where we're starting to wonder if "religion" is a useful category? (I came to that point long ago, I'm just wondering if anyone else is feeling it -- it slips and slides everywhere, one minute it appears to be nothing other than Christianity, the next minute it contains a wide range of contradictory meanings....)
téo: Judaism has an ethnicity or sense of shared history that isn't quite the same in a lot of Christian sects. You'll be Jewish even if you don't practice because your parents were, &c. An evangelical who leaves the church just isn't Christian any more. (Catholicism's a bit closer to Judaism in this regard.) So faith becomes more important because it's what ties an otherwise disjoint group together.
But isn't part of the point that the priest's theology is false, or misunderstood -- that it doesn't led him to act as God wants?
Lizardbreath, you keep using the word "theology" in ways I don't really understand. "Ethics" or "moral code" is a better fit for what you're describing in that sentence.
I can understand a religion without a godhead, sj. I can't understand one that says godhead is okay and not godhead is okay and claims to be Christianity.
Christ, we have higher standards for political affiliations.
229: Let me try 226 again, although it's really the same argument as 215, so it may be annoying.
You, I understand, are an atheist Jew. So, probably, are other members of the congregation you're a member of. Imagine all the atheists in your congregation are stranded together on a desert island. Do you hold services? Probably not. If I get you all in a room and ask in terms of your own beliefs, rather than appealing to the beliefs of someone else not present, whether belief in God is necessary or important, I think you have to answer no. If I ask whether proper observance of Jewish ritual is necessary or important, I think you also have to answer no.
The person who can credibly say that belief is not important, but correct observance of particular ritual (rather than any old ritual that creates a feeling of togetherness) is important, has to themself believe in order to have a basis for calling the particular ritual important.
Are we all coming to the point where we're starting to wonder if "religion" is a useful category? (I came to that point long ago, I'm just wondering if anyone else is feeling it -- it slips and slides everywhere, one minute it appears to be nothing other than Christianity, the next minute it contains a wide range of contradictory meanings....)
JZ Smith wrote an essay about the genesis of the modern sense of "religion", called "Religion, Religions, Religious", collected in Relating Religion, which is good, and whose title I used for the title of this Tuesday Hatred.
I can't understand one that says godhead is okay and not godhead is okay and claims to be Christianity.
Unitarian Universalism does not identify itself as a type of Christianity. There are Unitarians who are Christians, but Unitarianism itself does not "claim to be Christianity" any more than it claims to be Buddhist.
One good thing I will say about UU: it has become a very nice place for people who for whatever reason don't fit in in other places but still want to worship.
I still can't understand it. Must. put. things. in. proper. boxes.
Levy does indeed get it exactly right.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 12:42 AM
Yep.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 12:50 AM
1 and 2 get it exactly right.
Posted by nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 12:55 AM
Levy is really damn good. I wish I had said as much as him in my own piece. It is really _so_ depressing that the reaction has been so stupid and knee-jerk almost everywhere.
Posted by Andrew Brown | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 1:32 AM
Not exactly right at all. The piece rests on an assumed, unexplained, and indefensible dichotomy between "religious" and "political," which is really bad when you're talking about the Pope, who is possibly the best example in the entire world of a person straddling the line between the "religious" and "political" spheres. I love this blog & am not trying to be snarky, but I've just never been that impressed by Levy, he's a bit facile, really.
Posted by Guest | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 2:11 AM
Guest: you think the Pope, today, is a better example of that than Muqtada al-Sadr or even the Dalai Lama? I know he's got the Swiss guards and all, and they have halberds; even so.
Posted by Andrew Brown | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 2:47 AM
I suppose, if commenting here becomes a habit, that I'll have to do this.
Posted by werdnA nworB | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 2:49 AM
That's a legit disagreement, Guest, so no disclaimers necessary. But I think the distinction we need to make Levy's point work isn't between religious and political figures, but between those who act officially in a religious capacity, and those who don't. Of course the Pope is a political figure, but he is one because of his position as head of a religion, not as, say, head of a secular democracy. So he has certain avenues of argument open to him (and certain obligations) that a secular leader does not.
I really need to get some sleep, and will probably be offline tomorrow, so I apologize in advance for no follow-ups.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 2:49 AM
Precisely because the Pope is a figure whose role traverses religious and political lines, it should be controversial for him to declare that Judaism gets things theologically wrong. There's a pretty recent political event, which presumably does not need naming, that compels some attention there.
If that's true, then it's hardly uncontroversial for the Pope to be parroting phrases like "God is not pleased by blood" and pretending that the sequential order of ideas in the Quran amounts to only intepretation of the ideas in the Quran. He's able to natter about God and "rationality" only because latter Christian theologians rejected large swathes of the Old Testament -- including pretty significant sections that refute any notion of rationality and exhort believers to kill worhsipers of other gods -- but his argument rejects any such privilege to Muslims. This is profoundly dishonest and frankly Islamophobic.
That doesn't make him ipso facto a Nazia: except insofar as Islamophobia is the anti-Semitism of our age, complete with Muslim terrorists in the role of international Jewish Communists. If some Muslims are overreacting, I don't blame them. There are far worse sins, and Benedict is committing them.
Posted by Doctor Slack | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 2:59 AM
It should be (must be!) controversial to think that Israel or America is "against" Islam as such
And for that matter, what's with the "must be!" there?
Posted by Doctor Slack | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 3:09 AM
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 3:09 AM
Levy gets it half-right. While religious leaders should be all about taking their own theologies seriously, the specific distinction Benedict draws makes me raise my eyebrows. He talks extensively about the need for people to employ "logos" in embracing faith, as a prerequisite for that faith's validity. But, it seems to me at least, you can't employ reason as some theological pinch hitter, to be brought out when it is useful to draw distinctions attacking other religions, but then hurriedly cloistered lest he get too feisty about the foundations of your own faith. I stand with Adorno on this one: once you bring rationality on the team, it *is* the team. You can't say, as Benedict seems to here, "enlightenment for you, but not for me."
Posted by Glenn | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 4:04 AM
Also, 9 gets it right.
Posted by Glenn | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 4:09 AM
Frankly I'm with 11.
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 4:45 AM
insofar as Islamophobia is the anti-Semitism of our age
This I don't buy. Anti-semitism is the anti-semitism of our age and the worst practitioners of it are found in the Muslim world. I hardly need to pull out quotes from Muslim religious leaders about the Jews, do I?
The world would be a better place if we took all the religious leaders, put them in a rocket, and shot it into the Sun. But that's not going to happen and so in the meantime, they're all going to explain how the others have it theologically wrong. It's their job, after all.
"No matter how politically serious the responses from the Muslim world, there is something morally unserious about many of them--a demand to unsay what was not said, an expectation to be immunce from criticism, and (again) an insistence that non-Muslims act with the same reverence toward Mohammed that is religiously demanded of Muslims themselves."
This is the crux of it for me. Muslims need to develop some thicker skin. This whole business of flooding the streets every time some figure says something negative about their faith (or, better yet, simply quotes somebody else) is fucking infantile.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 5:23 AM
For a religious leader to want a smaller, purer church rather than a larger one that gets watered down so as to not effectively constrain its believers seems to me, well, like what religious leaders ought to want.
Right, a little artisanal religion, handmade and intensely flavored. Not that mass-market crap religion you get at the Walmart.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 6:18 AM
I'm with Levy, the apostropher, et al on this one for the most part. The Pope, in his capacity as the Catholic surely believes that Islam is wrong, and that it is inferior to Christianity -- that's why he's the Pope. For him to say so should in no way be surprising.
And, as has been said many times, the invective spewed by Muslim leaders against the Jews makes this the rankest of hypocrisy.
On the other hand, I think we can criticize Benedict for being impolitic while at the same time wishing that Muslims would get over themselves. And don't we all wish that Muslim leaders would stop spewing invective against the Jews? If we can criticize them, why can't we criticize the Pope?
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 6:19 AM
mass-market crap religion you get at the Walmart.
That stuff's all made by godless Chinese, anyhow.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 6:21 AM
For a religious leader to want a smaller, purer church rather than a larger one that gets watered down so as to not effectively constrain its believers seems to me, well, like what religious leaders ought to want.
In a way I agree with this. This whole ordain the women and/or marry the gays is nice and inclusive and all, but are these people seriously reading the same Bible as the rest of us?
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 6:34 AM
"but are these people seriously reading the same Bible as the rest of us?"
Of course! They're simply resolving the causal overdetermination of their actions in a different direction, that's all.
Posted by arthegall | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 6:56 AM
The desire for a smaller, purer church has always struck me as odd. It seems so un-catholic to me. (Not the small c.) I am not a Roman Catholic, but a bastard Anglican, and my churches orders are invalid, so it's not entirely my place to judge. I'm pretty much with Neuhaus in saying that Mormonism is not Christianity, but the Mormons will go on saying that it is. I suppose that their criticisms and arguments about their Christian-ness are as valid as my views on Roman Catholicism, i.e. not very.
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 7:11 AM
Can anybody tell me why the pope is spending his spare time reading dialogues from a time and place where Muslims and Christians really were engaged in seemingly endless faith-based war? And why he would think, gee, I know how I can comment on what's happening today! Let's start talking about what happened in the years leading up to the fall of Constantinople!
Two thoughts. First, talk about pot-calling-kettle. I suppose Christians in that day and age weren't killing people to spread the faith, but they might very well kill you if were deemed a heretic. I mean, wtf? Second, is this dog whistle politics? I'm starting to see weird pieces on the web about how people should stop being defensive about the crusades because, after all, muslims were really mean to us too and christianity is worth fighting for. This is all where the white house blather about the epic struggle against islamofascism overlaps with a more historical right-wing existential wet dream about playing a role in an epic, centuries-old struggle against to defend the one true faith. Ironically, it's exactly the obverse of the overstated, thin-skinned sense of historical grievance we can hear from muslim spokesmen who make it into mass media.
A plague on both your houses.
Also, Glenn mentioned the Pope's comments on reason. You really should check them out - he's proved that you don't have to be on the deconstructionist left to spin yourself into a tizzy of meaningless nonsense. Here's a gem.
"We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons."
So, the "vast horizons" of "reason" may be found once we "overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable." What, then, bounds those vast horizons? Whatever the pope says, baby!
Posted by dammitIhaven'tsettledonapseudonymyet | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 7:41 AM
"This is a bit like the stance of many American lapsed Catholcic or many Israeli secular Jews, I incline to say, "I don't believe in God, but the God in whom I don't believe is a serious one!""
This is pretty much the position of this lapsed Catholic. There is a part of me that doesn't get Unitarian Universalism. It's nice, pleasant, and you can do whatever you want, but heck, I can do all those things without going to church.
Oh, come on, 22, it's not that hard of a statement. The Pope is saying don't equate reason with naturalism & science, that it can think about God & angels, too.
Levy has it mostly right. It is more ecumenical, I think, than Levy gives Benedict credit for. The speech is about the relationship between faith, reason & Greek philosophy in Catholicism, really, and he introduces the faith & reason topic by pointing to "an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both." I consider it a good thing that the Pope reads medieval discussions rather than dismissing them out of hand.
This pope is basically a philosophy professor at heart.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 8:18 AM
I suppose Christians in that day and age weren't killing people to spread the faith, but they might very well kill you if were deemed a heretic.
They were sure as hell getting ready to expel Jews from Christian lands. I'm not impressed with Christians talking about how their religion is superior to Islam because Islam used to be violent 'n'at, back in the days of the inquisitions.
On a trivial note, the official Vatican spokesman made the most dickish possible form of non-apology: The Holy Father is very sorry that some passages of his speech may have sounded offensive to the sensibilities of Muslim believers. Ew.
But, on Levy's point, I don't like the "Take your theology seriously" line. If you take your theology seriously, for many religions, you should conclude that unbelievers are going to h e double l, and that the most merciful thing to do is to convert them. By any means necessary. By hard experience, we've learned that this doesn't work, and that's why ecumenicism is so popular.
Levy did talk about theological argument being carried out with words and not swords, but that strikes me as taking your theology seriously only up to a point. In any case, peaceful proselytizing is controversial enough in and of itself; did Levy condemn the Jews for this?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 8:23 AM
Levy's bit is long and wrong. Or at least disingenuous and not very satisfactory.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 8:29 AM
I'm not impressed with Christians talking about how their religion is superior to Islam because Islam used to be violent 'n'at, back in the days of the inquisitions.
Fortunately, the Pope makes no such statement. I mean, really, go read it. His 'crime' here is quoting someone who said Muhammed was wrong when he said violence was a good way to convert people.
I wished he'd used a more politic example but the point of the example was just to say faith in general has to be tempered by reason, which should lead you not to do stupid things because you have faith in it.
But, on Levy's point, I don't like the "Take your theology seriously" line. If you take your theology seriously, for many religions, you should conclude that unbelievers are going to h e double l, and that the most merciful thing to do is to convert them. By any means necessary.
Conversion can go either way. It has led to horrific crimes (Inquisition). It's also led to great works of compassion (Mother Theresa). So I don't think the problem is so much with 'Take your theology seriously' as that plus 'Don't forget you're not supposed to kill people.' When your theology also says 'Don't kill people', taking it seriously includes that; I think the bigger problem is only taking the easy parts of the theology seriously.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 8:36 AM
I'm looking at this point:
Maybe this is just in service of a theological point, but it just raises my hackles when I hear people talking about how Christianity pwns Islam because Islam is historically so violent and intolerant. (Maybe he's disclaiming this when he attacks Duns Scotus, I don't know.) Because historically, that's bullshit. And at this moment of history there are a lot of people going around talking about how Islam must be fought because it is essentially violent and intolerant, and so we must invade the country du jour to fight the Islamofascist menace. This shows profound ignorance of history. If Christianity can turn relatively benign after a long tradition of intolerance, Islam can certainly do the same.
The Pope's theological point about how faith and reason interact builds up to something about how science must be informed by faith. Since his actual science policy seems to involve a pushback against evolution, I think Glenn's comment in 12 is fair.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 8:53 AM
Benedict's argument relies on a number of fairly basic errors regarding Islam. To make them in a prepared speech about Islam in 2006 reveals a dangerous level of ignorance coming from one of the world's most visible religious leaders.
As for Levy, he's dead wrong on this:
It seems to me that if religion is meaningful it's serious business; if one is committed to divine truths then one is committed to the falsehood of rival claims... I don't think Unitarian Universalism is somehow a better religion than Catholicism or Mormonism or Orthodox Judaism just because its god seems to be so nice and inclusive; indeed, my sympathies for the aesthetic and moral-psychological experience of religious belief tends to run the other way. ... I want to say that if there is a point to religion and theology, then that point is undermined by the reluctance to draw distinctions and take them seriously.
This is crap. The appeal of religion has never been about adherence to the content of religious theology; it's always been about the practice of communal rituals and the bonding that communal ritual provides. Among all the devout Catholics I've known, I haven't met one that actually believes the priest turns the wafers into Jesus-meat, but they all still care about the eucharist because caring about that ritual and performing that ritual with other Catholics gives them a sense of identity. You could swap out God for the Great Pumpkin and in the end it simply wouldn't matter as long as you showed up to church every Sunday.
Obviously it helps to create a group identity by defining it in opposition to other groups, but only to the extent that those groups are visible and notable (you won't see Benedict giving speeches about the Seventh Day Adventists anytime soon, I don't think). If there were some Earth-J where everybody's Jewish, it wouldn't make the Jews of Earth-J less Jewish than our Jews just because they don't have other groups to contrast themselves to. The notion that ideological opposition to other groups is a necessary prerequisite to "good" religion is just silly.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 9:05 AM
Maybe this is just in service of a theological point, but it just raises my hackles when I hear people talking about how Christianity pwns Islam because Islam is historically so violent and intolerant.
Except that it's talking about a scholar of Islam disagreeing with violent conversion on Islamic grounds. No pwning involved; it was just an introductory paragraph that I, and I think Levy read as saying 'The idea that faith and reason inform each other isn't a uniquely Catholic notion. Here's a smart Muslim scholar who criticizes violence on the basis that it's against reason to believe your faith would command that. Now let's go talk about faith and reason.'
Catholicism hasn't had a serious problem with evolution since Pius said 'hey, this theory is pretty cool.'. I don't think Benedict's policy says 'no evolution', I think it says 'science hasn't proved God doesn't exist and it would be good for scientists not to make those claims.' That's just metaphysical naturalism versus theism, and that's an old debate.
I think Glenn's point is partially wrong, given that using philosophy to attack or create religious doctrine is pretty much the Catholic bag, so saying that it doesn't turn the sharp intellect in on itself sort of ignores, oh, pretty much everything written.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 9:10 AM
Cala, you're right about Catholic doctrine on evolution. Schoenborn had given a speech that seemed to support intelligent design but he later said that all he meant was that evolution doesn't preclude a creator, which is pretty unobjectionable to me.
I don't think this is right though: it's talking about a scholar of Islam disagreeing with violent conversion on Islamic grounds.
Isn't he talking about a polemic by a Byzantine emperor, who was Christian?
And if the Pope had hooked his speech on a similar attack on perceived Jewish doctrine, it would be pretty uncontroversial for Jewish organizations to condemn it; I don't think the situation is that much different for Islam.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 9:35 AM
22:"I suppose Christians in that day and age weren't killing people to spread the faith"
Teutonic Knights vs Lithuania Until about 1410, Battle of Grunwald
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 9:58 AM
28:The Cole post has good comments
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 10:01 AM
it would be pretty uncontroversial for Jewish organizations to condemn it
Condemn it, sure. It's these sorts of things that I'm talking about.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 10:15 AM
That is to say, if you're going to get incensed because people refer to your religion as violent, you may want to carefully consider the tactics you employ in response to that slur.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 10:20 AM
There's a difference between condemning and rioting. And the polemicist doesn't argue by saying 'Islam is wrong 'cause Christianity says so' but 'This interpretation is contradicted by an earlier interpretation.' But wasn't this 'Islam really doesn't say that, this is Islam hijacked by bin Laden whackjobs' a fairly sensible line right after 9/11?
The Cole post is excellent. I don't think it contradicts the Pope, exactly, as the 'imagining it as a young Muhammed' seems to be reading in a lot to a throwaway introduction. But it would have been better if some of the faith & reason intro had drawn from those Muslim sources.
I guess I'm just surrounded by this a bit more. The traditional examples for 'what does God command? how much are we supposed to think?'' are a) should Abraham have tried to kill his son just because God said so? b) Should Hosea really have taken a whore as a wife just because God said so? c) Should the Israelites have stolen all the gold from the Egyptians just because God said so? In teaching this old debate to students, we often update it because the examples haven't always aged well. d) If God told you to hijack a plane and fly it into a building, would you have a duty to do so? e) If God told you to kill your roommate, would you have a duty to do so? f) If God told you to torture people, should you?
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 10:25 AM
28:Even if it is all tribal, it can be pretty difficult to separate out the internally accepted explanations of tribal rivalries. What was the Thirty Years War about? I think it is condescending for we seculars to say it was an economic war;or simply derived from a charismatic brilliant general (Gustavus Adolphus).
The content of the rivalries is important. Israel vs Palestine is mostly about land. Sunni vs Shia in Iraq is about control of Baghdad, ancient tribal structures, sectarian differences, control of oil revenue, and many other things, each of which is pretty important.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 10:29 AM
35:a,b, etc
I still don't really understand Euthyphro;so don't ask me.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 10:36 AM
I don't either. I think that's because the argument doesn't work.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 10:38 AM
The appeal of religion has never been about adherence to the content of religious theology; it's always been about the practice of communal rituals and the bonding that communal ritual provides.... You could swap out God for the Great Pumpkin and in the end it simply wouldn't matter as long as you showed up to church every Sunday.
... Except you couldn't. Oh sure, starting from scratch, you could create a Great Pumpkin religion and maybe attract some adherents, and annoint yourself the Chief Pie Baker or some such thing, but it's a bit blithe to claim that the content of religious theology isn't important to a member of the religion. After all, the content of religious theology is what separates the Sunni from the Shi'a, the Catholics from the Protestants, etc.
If the Pope didn't vigorously assert the correctness -- and even the preferability -- of Catholicism over Islam on the basis of the beliefs of each, he would be a pretty crappy Pope.
Of course, speaking as a not-particularly-religious person, the whole exercise seems like a waste of time and energy. And it certainly seems like a less-than-opportune time to open a wider rift between Christianity and Islam.
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 10:44 AM
36: I don't think it's all tribal at all, Bob, and in fact I get pretty irritated when people put an overly simplistic religious gloss on Israel/Palestine when issues of colonialism and imperialism seem much more relevant. I was responding specifically to Levy's bizarre contention that strict adherence to/belief in the specific theological quirks of one's religion - and the definition of one's religion in opposition to other religions - makes one's religion "good" or "real."
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 10:45 AM
I took Levy's position to be more that there's something conducive to forming a ritual if it's presented as strict rather than optional, and that there's nothing wrong with saying 'We believe this and we don't believe that.'
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 11:01 AM
Lil' Bit of Euthyphro
I think I do understand a lil bit of Kierkeggaard. And I think he said Abraham should cut Jacob's throat; and that it is not a rational or ethical decision.
Not that I am justifying the Crusades or suicide bombers;but I do think it is hard to take their own justifications from them without throwing out the "Smile on Your Brother" bathwater along with the "It's Alive" baby. Modern ecumenism is very weak tea, tasting of lavender salts and violet soaps.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 11:02 AM
OK, fine, a political comment. Sure, I condemn violent riots over this sort of thing, but there's a big distance between that and "What the Pope said was fine because religious leaders are all about distinguishing their religion from other religions." Levy, I take it, is saying the latter.
Cala, I don't get this: Islam really doesn't say that, this is Islam hijacked by bin Laden whackjobs out of the sentence quoted in 27. In fact Benedict seems to say that the earlier interpretation, the one he agrees with, isn't authentic Islam because it comes from when Mohammed was powerless.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 11:08 AM
Except you couldn't.
Sure you could. By "swap out" I don't mean right this minute with a Vatican II of the Pumpkins, I mean exchange for an alternate historical version. There's nothing intrinsic to the notion of "God turns into carpenter who dies two thousand years ago and comes back so we can eat him as a cracker" that's intrinsically reasonable and compelling to Catholics; it's the persistent belief in shared gobbledygook that (1) provides a sense of community among believers and (2) lends legitimacy to said gobbledygook. The specific content of Catholic theology didn't necessarily have to be the triple-godhead and the virgin birth and the blood that turns into wine; it could've been Xenu and the body thetans for all that the actual theology matters.
If the Pope didn't vigorously assert the correctness -- and even the preferability -- of Catholicism over Islam on the basis of the beliefs of each, he would be a pretty crappy Pope.
And a salesman who admits that his product is no better than his competitor's is a pretty crappy salesman, but I've no reason to respect the good salesman for being a dishonest huckster, either. And while I expect the pope to shill for his religion since that's his job, most Catholics are not professional Catholics like Benedict, and are simply not as invested in the vagaries of church theology as they are in the shared experiences Catholocism provides.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 11:10 AM
Modern ecumenism is very weak tea, tasting of lavender salts and violet soaps.
And this is all to the good. Better-tasting than that old-time religion, at any rate.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 11:13 AM
44: We seem to more or less agree, in that case.
43: Did anyone else read the article in the last New Yorker about Mahmoud Taha, who preached that the original, non-violent "Mecca revelation" is in fact the authentic Islam, and that the later, coercive "Medina Revelation" should be discarded?
Posted by mrh | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 11:16 AM
35: There's a big difference between God personally telling me to kill my roommate and the pope or my parish priest telling me God wants me to kill my roommate. Because of the "next time you see me coming you better run" aspect of the thing. If there really is a god who is involved enough in the affairs of the world to go about issuing such disagreeable instructions, is the instructee really able to make a moral choice? He's acting under compulsion, since presumably such a god would enforce his wishes.
How does a believer discriminate between the voice of God on the one hand, and hallucination, wishful thinking, or the devil on the other?
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 11:18 AM
God brings real baked goods. The devil brings store-bought, "soft" cookies.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 11:20 AM
If there really is a god who is involved enough in the affairs of the world to go about issuing such disagreeable instructions, is the instructee really able to make a moral choice?
If a deranged maniac broke into your house and ordered you to kill your son at gunpoint, wouldn't the choice you'd have to make - the decision between dying at the killer's hands or killing your son - still be a moral choice? The Abraham scenario makes the deranged maniac much bigger and scarier, but it doesn't change the ethics of the situation.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 11:23 AM
How does a believer discriminate between the voice of God on the one hand, and hallucination, wishful thinking, or the devil on the other?
That's one question. How could we be sure? (My response to the prof's question on what would you do in the roommate-killing case was 'Begone foul spirit?') And the usual first argument would be, okay, first thing you gotta do is make sure you're not insane.
But the second question is, 'What if you were sure?' And I think my response still leans towards 'Oh, come on' rather than 'Okay, yay murder!', and there are some smart people who agree with me.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 11:25 AM
Thanks to bob mcmanus and others for correcting me - it was even worse than I put it. Depending on which order of knights, inquisitors, petty tyrants or princelings you ask, you may hear something different about whether the goal was to convert or just kill those who believed the wrong way. Jesus may not have killed anybody, as some have pointed out, but an awful lot of people got killed in his name by people who were pretty damn sure he'd understand what they were doing -- and in fact, that that was a ticket to heaven (no word on the virgins thing, though, so I guess they really were superior).
Why, exactly, would we turn to a Byzantine emperor from the end of the 14th c. for insights into the merits of the muslim faith -- you know, the dominant faith of the empire that was kicking his ass and would in a few decades end his family's rule altoghether? Somebody hopelessly modern and secular might think, hey, this guy really didn't find a great solution to interfaith conflict in his time, and maybe, given that they were, you know, hostile to one another he might be inclined to focus on the warlike aspects of his enemy (while, conveniently, omitting the way religion justified christian violence). You know what, maybe I'll look somewhere else altogether for insights.
Posted by dammitIhaven'tsettledonapseudonymyet | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 11:37 AM
15: Anti-semitism is the anti-semitism of our age and the worst practitioners of it are found in the Muslim world.
Or at least, its loudest and frankest practitioners. Fair point.
What I was getting at is not that the old form of anti-Semitism has ceased to exist -- either in the Muslim world or in the West -- but that in the West Islamophobia has eclipsed it in terms of mainstream fashionability, while reproducing a great many of its tropes and habits, in an extremely scary way. This isn't to say that the old-style anti-Semitism has gone anywhere; indeed, it's one of the crowning ironies of history that many of its Western practitioners now try to masquerade as philo-Semites and "friends of Israel."
While some of the more over-the-top responses irritate me, I just don't think that all or even the majority of Muslims taking serious offense at Benedict's slander are crazy for doing so. It's easy for those of us in less fraught circumstances to talk about thicker skins, but in the era that brought us Hajji Girl and the war that made it possible, this seems a little on the glib side.
Posted by Doctor Slack | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 11:38 AM
51 gets it right.
Posted by Doctor Slack | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 11:39 AM
49:The Abraham scenario presumes belief; in fact in the case of braham, I think it presumes direct revelation, as in Cala's 50.
44:For some reason, this has been practically difficult;the Enlightenment Project or Reason Project been going on a long time with middling success. I fear we are in another damned "Great Awakening" as the Prophet of Crawford sayest. Those are not always restricted by sect or geography;e.g. early 20th century America and Arabia. They might be reactions to scientific paradigm shifts.
This is not restricted to religion:e.g. identity politics, post-enlightenment philosophy. I do not understand the need for identity, although I would myself be hesitant to change my name to "Ben Wolfson."
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 11:45 AM
49, 50: I agree. But isn't the whole question a paradox? To someone who is a believer, I mean. If God is all good, then what's he doing coming around telling me to kill my son and my roommate? So it can't be him. Unless he has a really bad sense of humor. But God should be able to tell the funniest joke.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 11:46 AM
Not to a believer. It's sort of up for debate whether God can be held to an external, reasonable standard ('murder is bad because it's bad') or not ('murder is only bad because God says it's bad')
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 11:50 AM
52: Good points all and, as you say, none of this is occurring in a vacuum.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 11:51 AM
51: Why don't you just be "dammit!"? It's short, snappy, and lends a certain emphatic quality to whatever precedes it.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 11:53 AM
51:"Why, exactly, would we turn to a Byzantine emperor from the end of the 14th c."
That is a good question, I do think it was deliberate. Quite possibly flattering to Islam in that the Last Crusaders got their butts kicked at Nicopolis. Maybe the Pope was begging for mercy. Maybe he is preparing another Crusade. I should read the whole speech
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 11:55 AM
For some reason, this has been practically difficult
What is the "this" you're referring to?
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 12:05 PM
A little OT, I know, but the easiest way to get someone not to read a page like the one linked is for them to put one of those floating ads on it.
Posted by MBee | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 12:18 PM
60: re 44, making the content of religion a matter of indifference? Secularizing society?
IIRC, the Lithuanians converted to Christianity from Paganism just before the battle of Grunwald largely to prevent the Teutonic Knights from having Crusading reinforcement. So I don't know how closely religious and other identities are held. So I also don't know how important abortion and Intelligent Design are to the Christian Right and their identities, and how to get them to abandon their positions or become more tolerant.
As the Lithuanians above show, it may be useful to approach them indirectly, or give them compelling reasons to change not based on rational persuasion from error.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 12:21 PM
re 44, making the content of religion a matter of indifference? Secularizing society?
My point in 44 is that the specific content of a given religion is already unimportant to its adherents - again, in response to Levy. I said nothing about "secularizing society."
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 12:42 PM
I sort of quit reading when Levy explained how he didn't prefer Unitarians to the various religious groups that would persecute him. Let the Cossack have the bastard.
The guys who do pograms, stone adulterers, hang queers, and burn heretics -- unlike the wimpy Unitarians -- have authenticity. Spare me.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 12:47 PM
Mormons are too Christians. The fuckers.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 12:50 PM
Yeah!
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 1:02 PM
"pogroms"
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 1:07 PM
64:I kind of like that argument. I have seen too many on the Left look at opposition to evolution and ask:"Where does this shit come from?" Religion, at root and in most authentic form, is an extreme and dangerous thing. I suppose this is akin to conflating the minimum wage and Stalin. But that strategy has had a lot of success in American politics.
OK. It works for the assholes. Let's try it.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 1:08 PM
hey I admit I have not as smart as you guys on this blog but I was hoping you could help. I dont understand everything you are saying, or what somebody named Benedict has to do with the pope and muslims, but you all seem to know a lot about religions. I am thinking about converting to Muslim but I need to know more about the religion and how to do it. could someone tell me the name of the muslim pope so I could write him or his office. please help because I cant find anything about muslim pope on the internet.
thanks,
Geronimo
http://geronimoswanson.blogspot.com/
Posted by Geronimo Swanson | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 1:11 PM
51/58: What about Di H. Soapy?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 1:17 PM
Everyone who hasn't settled on a pseudonym yet should just take one of Standpipe's anagrams.
Posted by Pip Bigpart | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 1:20 PM
Levy's point is--I think--that if you really believe in the metaphysical truth of christianity's various claims, then you better get with the persecutin. The fact that most western christian's don't is evidence that they don't really believe what they claim to believe. Rather, their actual core beliefs are simply those of a christ-flavored liberalism(liberalism concieved very broadly, of course).
Cala, I wasn't claiming that religion doesn't use reason, I was commenting on the ridiculousness of a "reason to here, but no further" position. So yeah, there is a long history of catholic's making extensive use of rationality to argue doctrinal points, but a lot of those arguments ended up in angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin territory, for obvious reasons.
Posted by Glenn | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 1:24 PM
69:
Here ya go. Don't pay any attention to those Sunni heretics.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 1:25 PM
Islam question: Sunni consider Shia to be not actual muslim, while Shia just think the Sunni are wrong, right?
Posted by Glenn | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 1:28 PM
Jew, I may not know how to spell it.....
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 1:29 PM
All versions of Christianity or any other religion are heavily edited and have to ignore or misinterpret enormous areas of scripture. The Unitarian editing has a LOT to say for it.
Levy was speaking, presumably, from an imbecile kneejerk hatred of secular liberals, dogooders, pacifists, and the like. (I use the words "imbecile" and "kneejerk" in a non-judgmental, descriptive, value-free sense.)
He did not actually want the Cossacks to come after his sorry Jewish ass. Good thing, too, because there ain't no Cossacks no more.
And he's not actually afraid of the Muslims, because who is, really? So he can still talk shit about how he respects the really sincere, really authentic, fanatical, murderous religions.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 1:35 PM
74:Depends on the Sunni.
Sunni Shia Relations
also see "Shia"
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 1:38 PM
Thanks for all the commentary.
For what it's worth:
In any case, peaceful proselytizing is controversial enough in and of itself; did Levy condemn the Jews for this? [A 1999 press release, "ADL Outraged by Southern Baptist Statements Rooting Jewish Conversion Appeals in Theology "]
While that was from pre-blogging days, and "the ADL" =/= "the Jews" (really!) the answer happens to be yes. I argued with friends about that at the time. My view was and is that, given that people are evangelical Baptists, it's no mark of respect for them not to try to evangelize us. Despite the creepiness factor, that's also my view of Mormons posthumously baptizing Holocaust victims-- given the theology that makes sense of posthumous (and ipso facto involuntary) baptism at all, it makes sense.
I'm happy to see someone arguing that people shouldn't be Baptists. But-- even acknowledging the historical reasons Jews have to be nervous about Christians taking too keen an interest in the state of our souls-- I don't think we're somehow entitled to demand that Baptists or Mormons (or Muslims!) bend their religious commitments around a "but not the Jews" exception. We're entitled to demand that we not be coerced or killed-- but not that our neighbors refrain from religiously believing that we're of the wrong religion, and from speaking accordingly.
Posted by Jacob T. Levy | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 1:58 PM
Maybe we could get the last laugh by arranging for a Unitarian pogrom.
There are, in fact, some pretty rough Unitarians in a Hungarian-speaking part of Romania: the Szekely, who've been Unitarian for at least four centuries. (Unitarianism / Socinianism originated in Central Europe.)
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 2:22 PM
"the ADL" =/= "the Jews"
The leading Moroccan daily Attajdid, etc., =/= "the Muslim world," either, I'd say. It was kind of a one broad brush deserves another thing.
I'm glad to see you apply these principles consistently, in any case, but I still disagree. I think one of history's lessons is that when religions don't show a certain degree of respect for each other, everyone's in trouble. (Where deserved, obviously. This doesn't mean special respect for religiously based homophobic or sexist views, etc.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 2:24 PM
Not all Szekely are Unitarians, but most Rumanian Unitarians are Szekely. They're a rough crowd who claim be been descended from the Huns.
Don't mess with the Unitarians!
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 2:28 PM
Cala, I wasn't claiming that religion doesn't use reason, I was commenting on the ridiculousness of a "reason to here, but no further" position.
I'm not seeing that as the position. I'm seeing the overall position being 'don't claim that science can prove the non-existence of things it can't put in a lab', but that's not the same thing, and not a ridiculous position. (One that Lawrence Krauss holds, for one, as an atheist scientist.)
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 2:37 PM
I think one of history's lessons is that when religions don't show a certain degree of respect for each other, everyone's in trouble.
Isn't that basically what Jacob's saying (from the other side)?
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 2:41 PM
Part of the problem seems to be: does the religion have an explicit evangelical component* or doesn't it? Christianity does; Judaism doesn't.
Obviously no one's advocating torture or imprisonment, but saying 'Be Christian, but don't pray for others' conversions' isn't a religiously neutral statement.
*I almost wrote 'missionary commandment' and then thought better of it.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 2:46 PM
Perhaps I missed the point where this was addressed before, but wouldn't it be a good idea to ask cui bono? I guess bringing up the Banco Ambrosiano and John Paul I and all that stuff is just so, so trite nowadays, but let's remember that the Pope is, after all, a foreign prince, and while he may claim to be most interested in religious life, he lives in the material world just like the rest of us. He knows which side his bread is buttered on, is what I'm trying to say.
All of this religious shuck, whether it's the really absurd stuff, or the stuff that educated, secular people can talk about with a straight face, is all designed to keep the same groups and individuals in power, century after bloody century, and keep the rest of us beguiled. Robertson, Gyatso, Foxman, Benedict, al-Sadr, Falwell and the whole bunch of them are just bunko artists. That's it. There's no underlying truth or meaning to their slick spiels -- it's all in the service of the wealthy and powerful. The rest of us would be wise to take our dogs out of this fight and concentrate on building a world where none of this God nonsense can get any traction.
Posted by minneapolitan | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 3:28 PM
Cui bono.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 3:47 PM
83: As the author of a book called The Multiculturalism of Fear (that's all I know about it) I'd expect Jacob knows more about this than I do, but I don't think so. I'm saying that it's harmful for religions to emphasize contempt for other religions and the desirability of getting people to stop conforming to them. Jacob, it seems, is saying that respect for other religions requires recognizing that they will want to convert people, and will preach their superiority to other religions, and that no outsider can criticize the religion for that.
I interpret "I'm happy to see someone arguing that people shouldn't be Baptists" to mean that it's essential to Baptists that they try to evangelize Jews and to argue that they shouldn't is to argue that they shouldn't be Baptists, or should be replaced by such an argument. (Though there are Baptists who aren't Southern Baptists, and it seems that the Southern Baptists laid off the conversion of the Jews before bringing it back in the late 90s, so I doubt the essentialism.) I think it's much more respectful to argue for a kinder, gentler Baptistism rather than the end of it per se.
Cala, I don't think an explicit evangelical commitment gets a religion off the hook any more than an explicit commitment to sexism does. Prayer for someone's salvation is not necessarily benign; check the first block quote here. I certainly don't object quiet prayers, and I don't even mind LDS knocking on my door so long as they go away when I ask them and they don't have some master list of Jews to bug, but proselytization often gets more intrusive than that.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 3:52 PM
Religion is always internally negotiable. Large areas of the Bible and the tradition have to be ignored. It's justs aquestion of which parts.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 3:57 PM
I have just put out feelers to a Szekely site as a first step toward organizing a Unitarian goon squad. Step two: whup Levy's ass.
No, Levy isn't a Trinitarian, but his Christology is fucked.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 4:02 PM
87: What I mean is that you're both saying religions should respect other religions, but you mean that bigger religions should respect smaller ones by not aggressively proselytizing to them (etc.) and Jacob means that smaller religions should respect bigger ones by not trying to limit their ability to practice even if it involves doing things they don't like. I don't actually know which version I agree with more; 1 was a response to the linked post alone, not this larger issue.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 4:04 PM
Also, my sympathies for the aesthetic and moral-psychological experience of religious belief also run more toward people being serious about their religion; but it doesn't have anything to do with doctrinal rigidity or proselytization (81-85).
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 4:05 PM
89: I suspect Levy's objection is to Universalism more than Unitarianism per se. Call off your Szeklers.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 4:05 PM
89: Have you ever tried to call off a Szekler?
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 4:08 PM
I mean "92:".
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 4:09 PM
93: No, and there's a reason for that.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 4:10 PM
90: I don't necessarily think it's a bigger/smaller split, though probably smaller religions generally do less harm by my lights.
I agree with 88.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 4:25 PM
I don't think an explicit evangelical commitment gets a religion off the hook any more than an explicit commitment to sexism does. Prayer for someone's salvation is not necessarily benign
Amen.
Posted by m. leblanc | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 4:25 PM
96: I originally had it as stronger/weaker, but I'm not sure that's necessarily the distinction I'm going for. I do think there is one, though. Maybe it's just importance of proselytization.
I think I actually agree more with you than with Levy.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 4:29 PM
And I should have said, I think that's basically a great account of the disagreement.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 4:41 PM
Thanks.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 4:49 PM
Kobe!
Weiner, I take this to be the meat of your argument: I'm glad to see you apply these principles consistently, in any case, but I still disagree. I think one of history's lessons is that when religions don't show a certain degree of respect for each other, everyone's in trouble.
Isn't all the work being done by "certain degree of respect"? I'm sure you could come up with methods of proslytizing that Levy would find objectionable, but the Pope's speech seems at least not at the outer boundaries of that continuum. It seems that you and Levy are disagreeing about whether the Pope showed the appropriate amount of respect. Insofar as we're worried about the effects of the Pope's speech on the specific actions of other people, that seems like an empirical question about which we're guessing the answer. If you're saying that the speech was harmful, and he's saying that it wasn't, I'm not sure it's clear that you have the more convincing case.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 4:53 PM
Cala, I don't think an explicit evangelical commitment gets a religion off the hook any more than an explicit commitment to sexism does.
Not parallel exactly, but I wasn't trying to argue that it was a get out of jail free card for criticism. Just that when Jews -- or anyone else--- say 'don't prosyletize us as a group' it's not a neutral claim, because it's not optional, really.
It's unfortunately never going to be part of Christianity for it just to be a religion of a small tribe or ethnic group that doesn't bother anyone else.
This isn't to say that one shouldn't complain about prosletyzing if it feels threatening. It's just not going to yield much other than maybe making the prosyletizing less annoying.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 4:58 PM
Cala, it sounds like you're saying that a religion without aggressive proselytization couldn't be Christianity. I seriously doubt that; Christianity has gone through a lot of changes in two thousand years. (88, again.) But if that's true, then I am saying Christians should give it up and become Unitarians. (I don't think it's true. I'm saying if it is.) And Muslims, and adherents of other religions, have cause to be very concerned about aggressive noises from major Christian leaders.
"Be more ecumenical" doesn't mean "become the religion of a small tribe or ethnic group," either, there's already a couple billion of you.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 6:11 PM
See, this is where I kind of side with Levy (and Cala). You may think Christianity without proselytization would still be Christianity, but that's not for you (or me or Jacob Levy) to decide; we're not Christian, and what we think about what Christianity is or should be is essentially meaningless to someone who is.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 6:53 PM
When I hear the word "religion," I reach for my gun -- particularly when a secular liberal is talking about how we should understand how this weird species thinks.
Actual existing Christianity has, by and large, been a bad thing. I am still of the opinion that the life of Christ is the most important event in the history of the universe and that if it had never happened, and more importantly if people hadn't found ways to bear witness to it (often in contradiction to the official church), then we wouldn't have the slightest idea what hope means -- hope in the strongest and broadest sense.
But of course I would believe something like that, because I'm a religious person! Pat me on the head and give me a cookie.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 7:03 PM
I think that I'll send the Szekely after Kotsko and Weiner next.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 7:09 PM
Works for me.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 7:10 PM
Universalists are weenies, but people don't mess around with Unitarian Particularists, especially not when they're Balkan ethnic groups.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 7:13 PM
I'm going to start a Trinitarian Universalist church.
Wait, that's actually the Episcopal Church.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 7:15 PM
104 seems wrong to me. Belief systems are not hermetic -- it's perfectly possible for people of any faith to respond to the ethical questions of their day whether or not those questions come from outside their faith-group. Dismissal can be tempting, of course, but that doesn't mean that what non-Christians think about Christianity is morally irrelevant -- especially not when the question at hand is Christian conduct toward non-Christians.
Posted by Doctor Slack | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 7:16 PM
That's why I said "essentially" rather than absolutely meaningless. I grant that the input of outsiders can be useful to members of the group in question, especially reformist-minded ones who see problems with the structure of the religion as it is and are looking for solutions. I do, however, think that when it comes to bedrock questions of what is necessary to believe in (or practice) to belong to a given religion outsiders don't get any say; members of the group need to define it for themselves.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 7:20 PM
Hey! I like Unitarians! Oh shit, that's appeasement, isn't it.
104, I see your point, that's why I'm phrasing it hypothetically. To put it as tendentiously as possible, I'm saying, "Behavior X is dickish. If X isn't essential to your religion, then you should practice a version of that religion that doesn't involve X. If X is essential to your religion, then you should get a less dickish religion. But the important thing is that you should stop doing X, because it's dickish. [And I suspect that X isn't essential to your religion, but that's your call.]"
There are some complications here because our X kind of has the religion itself in its description; it's not a narrowly circumscribed practice like human sacrifice or even refusing to ordain women. But still, "it's essential to the religion" doesn't serve as an excuse for behavior that's otherwise bad; and that's why all the religions that have lasted have proved quite flexible, as I understand it.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 7:33 PM
Religion is always internally negotiable. Large areas of the Bible and the tradition have to be ignored. It's justs aquestion of which parts.
The ignoring part seems to be a tacit admission that it's all made up. Which is fine, I think it's all a big fabrication too. But then let's all just stop this weak ass "I'm ok, you're ok" cherry picking, and go atheist already.
It's not that the fundies are more authentic, it's that they're the ones who seem to be actually reading the entire manual.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 7:33 PM
Preface: Becks style, ridiculousness may follow
82: Doesn't that position immediately fall victem to the pink-elephants argument? I.E., scientist's can't get the pink elephants in the lab, so how can they prove they don't exist? Or rather, presupposing "God" or spirituality or whatever, as "something" which can't be examined in the lab already gives the game away and is thus not relevent.
Posted by Glenn | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 7:34 PM
113: The fundamentalists just say they're reading the whole thing and taking it all literally. In reality, that's just empirically impossible. Thankfully for them, the mainstream secular media takes the fundamentalists to be the most authentic and serious representatives of Christianity, apparently just because funadmentalists are more likely to aggressively present themselves in that way.
Or it could be that secular liberals think that what is most "authentically" religious is strongly believing arbitrary things, so on that scale, fundamentalists are the most truly religious Christians out there -- plus the secular liberal can than congratulate himself on his refined taste, for admiring the conviction of this very authentically religious person (despite abhorring the content of his views). A taste for true conviction is like a taste for wine -- a sign of refinement and culture.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 7:42 PM
"Behavior X is dickish. If X isn't essential to your religion, then you should practice a version of that religion that doesn't involve X. If X is essential to your religion, then you should get a less dickish religion. But the important thing is that you should stop doing X, because it's dickish. [And I suspect that X isn't essential to your religion, but that's your call.]"
My position is pretty much this, except without the parenthetical. In some ways I'm actually taking a harder line than either you or Levy; you're saying "I don't think objectionable practice X is actually essential to your religion, so knock it off" and Levy's saying "I find X objectionable but I believe you when you say it's essential to your religion, so I guess I'd better accept that you're going to do it," both of which are attempts to accomodate the feelings of the religious practitioners in question, whereas I'm saying "I'm willing to believe that X is essential to your religion but I still find it objectionable, so I think you should cut it out even if that means you end up practicing something other than your current religion." I admit that this is kind of dickish of me, and I don't generally go around saying it out loud, but it is how I feel.
Proselytizing is indeed a tricky issue because it's so closely tied to religious faith in general, but the argument works for plenty of other religious practices as well.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 7:52 PM
114: Scientists can't get pink elephants in the lab because they're all here in Los Angeles.
Posted by DominEditrix | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 7:52 PM
What, there are no labs in LA?
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 8:01 PM
Dude, scientists can't get pink elephants in the lab because they don't exist; what further proof could you need?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 8:03 PM
Labs is in [redacted].
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 8:03 PM
Jesus Kotsko, sensitive much?
Who said anything about admiration? "believing arbitrary things" is pretty much a core aspect of any religion. Or do you think your religious beliefs are less arbitrary than anyone else?
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 8:12 PM
121:Jeez, gswift of course he does.
I happen to enjoy and approve of Kotsko's Pauline Marxism or whatever. I expect it to remain a minority position within Christianity. I suspect a committment to caritas might survive the removal of its justificatory logic, but I am not certain.
I am fairly certain that the point of attack should not be bad behavior but bad justification systems.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 9:37 PM
The point of attack should be bad carnitas. There's no excuse for that.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 9:39 PM
the title of this post should have been "next you're going to tell me a wild bear shits in the woods!" I think the best thing about being pope would be that you can wake up in the middle of the night and say, hey, I want to go hang out in the sistine chapel. but you would have to catholic as well.
Posted by alameida | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 10:10 PM
103: The 'aggressive' is your addition, not mine. I don't think proselytizing in and of itself is any more threatening than listening to bad political arguments; and anything that is threatening is something against which one would have a valid complaint. (With 'threatening' being relative to the group & aware of history, &c.)
I guess I'm not making the argument that 'Practice X is justified by religion Y, therefore X must not be challenged', but the far narrower claim that it's not just as simple as saying 'Give up proselytizing, you can still be Christian without it', and when you say something like that, it's probably going to fall on deaf ears.
I'm saying that's really not for an outsider to decide whether it's important to the faith or not, any more than it's my place to decide that the Jewish holidays don't honor anything really meaningful and demand that my students write an exam on Yom Kippur and to defend myself by saying that I know a lot of secular Jews so it can't really be part of being Jewish to follow certain rituals on a day that inconveniences my section schedule.
114: A pink elephant would leave pink spoor all over the place.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 10:32 PM
It's not that the fundies are more authentic, it's that they're the ones who seem to be actually reading the entire manual.
As a former fundie, I call bullshit on this. Everyone cherrypicks the Bible; the fundamentalists just cherrypick some of the nastier parts.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 10:47 PM
I happen to enjoy and approve of Kotsko's Pauline Marxism
Hey, if Christianity can be liberalized, great. But the whole "I ran the Bible through my liberal decoder ring and now God loves the women and the queers 'cause Jesus is all about hope and loooove" strikes me as a bit delusional.
And yes, I don't doubt Kotsko's stuff has more to it than that.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 10:52 PM
125: I remain unclear about what Weiner's arguing. I assume he's not talking about illegal acts. Is the only question whether or not your are, for example, allowed to call the Catholic Church cruel names because of its position on the ordination of women?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 10:59 PM
I believe Weiner's arguing that, to take your example, the Church should start ordaining women and it has no good excuse not to.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 11:18 PM
I think the question is not whether namecalling is allowed (one doesn't ask permission before insulting), but what sort of restrictions or permissions an outsider can reasonably demand of a religion. So it's probably not "calling the Catholic Church cruel names" as much as it would be "insisting that it's not real Catholicism because it's an arbitrary rule anyway" or "it's not a real dietary restriction because not all Jews follow it."
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 11:20 PM
I don't know if he's saying that objectionable practice X means that religious group Y isn't practicing "real" religion Z, but he is saying that not doing X wouldn't make Y's Z any less real than doing it. I'm saying that judgments like that can only be made in a useful way from within the group in question.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 11:26 PM
Agree with 131. Weiner is clearly one of those religion-hatin' comm'nists.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 11:35 PM
Huh, I thought I'd posted something. I'm certainly not saying X means Y isn't practicing real Z. I'm saying that probably not-X wouldn't make Y's Z any less real, but I'm not wedded to that. What I am wedded to is that for many X, X sucks and Y should stop doing X even if (as I suspect it doesn't) that means abandoning Z. Insofar as the Catholic Church doesn't ordain women, that gives people a reason not to be Catholic.
Of course I'm not saying "You must stop being Catholic now!", no institution is perfect. Just the "there is some reason etc." with a little bit of "and reform is probably possible."
The dietary laws, you know, I think it's pretty much a proof that such laws aren't essential to Judaism that there are whole Jewish denominations that don't obey/enforce them. (Levy seems to dance up to the view that, mutatis mutandis, such denominations aren't as Jewish as others, which I think is as nosy as anything I say.) But an interesting case: Orthodox Judaism has all sorts of sexist rules. If you don't follow them you're Traditional Egalitarian. (As I understand it, I'm not either.) Are these rules essential to Orthodoxy, such that if you don't follow them you're not Orthodox? I guess I'm not one to say, but I'm happy to say that if that's true everyone should be Traditional Egalitarian instead of Orthodox, because those rules are sexist.
(oh, and in the comment I thought I wrote I said something about how I'm drawing a distinction between proselytization like "I have a very nice religion, hope you like it" and "we are going to convert the Jews!")
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-16-06 11:50 PM
So are we disagreeing at all? I guess I'm just not as willing to argue that a given practice isn't essential to someone's religion if they say it is. Otherwise I'm on board with everything in 133.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 12:07 AM
I guess I'm saying that there is a lot of inductive evidence that things which might seem essential to a religion are later abandoned by that religion. So when the current adherents of the religion say "If we stop doing X we might as well stop practicing Z!" I'm more skeptical. Then again I'm no historian of religion.
Usually when I talk about religion here I'm talking about something more on the level of a church than of one person's religion -- it may be essential to someone's Judaism that they not use electricity on Saturday, but it's not essential to Judaism (though maybe to some denominations).
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 12:28 AM
So, Teofilo, if someone comes up to you and tells you it is essential to their religion that they strap you down on an altar and divest your body of its blood and internal organs, you'd say "OK"? Somehow, I think not.
The bottom line, as 24 alludes to, is simply this: every religious leader goes to bed at night and wakes up in the morning absolutely convinced that they are the keepers of the One and Only Way to Salvation, and that all other religious leaders are not simply mistaken, but fundamentally Wrong. And that said Wrongness will condemn the followers of these Wrong leaders to feel the wrath of God. And that said Wrath can be spared these people if only they can be shown the Truth, by whatever methods necessary. Otherwise, what's the point?
Of course, as 126 points out, some Truths are more important than others. I must say I haven't noticed any Operation Rescue-style picketing at Red Lobster, much less the immolation of facilities that engage in such "abominations" and the targeting of the cooks there for assassination.
133: "The dietary laws, you know, I think it's pretty much a proof that such laws aren't essential to Judaism that there are whole Jewish denominations that don't obey/enforce them"
Those laws *are* essential to the Jews that follow them, and those Jews do not, in general, consider those who do not follow them to be "real" or "proper" Jews, any more than Catholics consider Anglicans, Baptists and Presbyterians (much less Mormons) to be "real" Christians (and vice versa, of course). That's the point: We're right, you're wrong.
Posted by Dr Paisley | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 1:42 AM
Paisley, teo is saying that he wouldn't dispute the claim that religion x includes a duty to strap virgins to the altar and divest them of their blood and internal organs, not that he'd add, "And that's ok."
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 2:11 AM
I hardly need to pull out quotes from Muslim religious leaders about the Jews, do I?
I would like to see these quotes, please. So that I can compare them with Islamophobic and Arabophobic suggestions I see in newspapers and hear on TV and radio every day. And that's just the FM radio!
So, you may be right, but I would like to see some evidence. Yeah, and avoid anything from MEMRI, please.
Thanks.
Posted by abb1 | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 2:34 AM
Tariq Ali: A Bavarian Provocation
Posted by abb1 | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 2:52 AM
As far as the essentials of Christianity: Christianity began with a period of oncontrolled diversity (with Herbrew, Greek, Persian, Judeo-Persian, Judeo-Greek, and Roman elements), which was gradually normalized by a series of councils which expelled the Eastern churches (Ethiopia, Armenia, and others) and accomodated itself to the Roman Empire. After the fall of Rome Catholic Christianity was reconstituted in the North: "The Germanization of European Christianity". During th Reformation and counter-Reformation everything was redefined again, and then during the XIX-XXc came liberalization, accompanied by the rise of fundamentalism and dispensationalism (Armageddon Christianity) which were also new.
So while it's true that most of the thousands of Christian sects probably do claim exclusivity, for their sect which for them represents Christianity as a whole, their claims to representing Christianity as a whole are all weak. So we have a swarm of parochial traditions claiming to be catholic, and Levy endorses this.
The situation is quite different with Judaism, where the Karaites are obviously right, and all other branches wrong.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 5:05 AM
I call bullshit. The Pope opens up with a statement about how Islam doesn't add anything, then goes on for pages about "hellenism" ignoring the Muslim philosophers who were primarily responsible for transmitting hellenism to Europe? I don't give a shit about the offensiveness of it; It's dishonest, ahistorical, and that offends me.
Posted by Ahistoricality | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 5:13 AM
Everytime I read the Iliad I say a little prayer ... to Allah.
Posted by md 20/400 | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:55 AM
136: Catholicism does consider Anglicanism, etc, to be real Christians (though Mormons aren't); the easy way to tell, generally is whether baptism is required for a convert.
It's not always reciprocal, especially with megachurches: 'You're Catholic, but are you Christian?' I heard too many times. 'Didn't your church come into existence here last Wednesday when you dedicated the new basketball-court-cum-community discussion area?'
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 8:31 AM
141: Muslims did not introduce Greek thought to Origen, Basil, Augustine, etc.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 9:19 AM
Origen, Basil and Augustine were not primarily responsible for transmitting hellenism to Europe.
Posted by Doctor Slack | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 9:52 AM
Basil, Origeno, and Thyme would be a good Simon and Garfunkel followup song.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 10:09 AM
Basically what I'm saying is that Christianity was already in intense dialogue with hellenistic thought before Islam even arose. Relatively few of the actual texts made it to Europe before the high middle ages, but Augustine definitely transmitted neo-Platonic thought to the West.
Islamic philosophy was obviously decisive for Aquinas and what came after, but the Byzantines also deserve some credit for transmitting the Greek heritage to the West -- and it was a Byzantine Christian, not a Muslim, who first taught Westerners Greek after centuries of total ignorance of the language in the Latin world.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 10:28 AM
Actually, it was the Irish.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 11:24 AM
Karaites aren't really Jewish, John.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 11:33 AM
No, it's the so-called "Jews" who aren't Jewish. The Karaites are the only real Jews.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 11:36 AM
Changing "Irish" to "Islamic" was a common scribal error.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 11:38 AM
Do the Karaites even claim to be Jewish?
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 11:49 AM
They're almost extinct, but yes. They denied it at some point, which helped them with the Czar and Hitler.
Most of what I know is from Wiki.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 11:51 AM
Wikipedia classes them as Jewish (and seems to indicate that Israel does the same). The article also says:
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 11:55 AM
I don't actually have a strong opinion on the Jewishness of the Karaites. They are now apparently generally considered Jewish, which is good enough for me.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 12:01 PM
Coming in late to this one -- I haven't been online since Friday -- but I think Ogged and Levy are both right. For most religions, thinking adherents of all other religions are wrong is not optional -- it's just what it means to hold a religious belief. And while it may be tactless to harp on the rightness of your religion and the wrongness of everyone else's, it's not worse than tactless, and particularly for someone whose entire reason for being a public figure is his religion, like, say, the Pope, it's not really even tactless.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 12:44 PM
Ummm... LizardBreath...
With respect to "while it may be tactless to harp on the rightness of your religion and the wrongness of everyone else's, it's not worse than tactless, and particularly for someone whose entire reason for being a public figure is his religion, like, say, the Pope, it's not really even tactless..."
I think it is, in fact, worse than tactless. And some think I speak with some authority on matters like these.
May I tell you a story? About a guy who came to me asking questions a whole lot of years ago?
"Rabbi," he said--I think he was, like you, a lawyer. "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?
And I said back to him,: "What is written in the law? how readest thou?"
And he answering said: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself." And I told him that he had gotten it right, and that he would inherit eternal life. But he wasn't satisfied. He asked me: "And who is my neighbour?" So I told him this story:
"A certain [man] went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded [him], and departed, leaving [him] half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked [on him], and passed by on the other side.
"But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion [on him], And went to [him], and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave [them] to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
"Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?"
And the lawyer answered me: "He that shewed mercy on him."
Then I said: "Go, and do thou likewise."
LizardBreath: The theology is not the point. The Pope, as much as anybody else, should know that the theology is not the point--that harping on the rightness of your religion and the wrongness of everyone else's is really not the point.
What is the point? I've gotten it down into four planks:
1. Love God.
2. Love your neighbor.
3. Try as hard as you can to return good for evil.
4. Rejoice! For the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!
Posted by Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 3:10 PM
But how do you feel about divorce, Josh?
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 3:15 PM
157 makes some good points, but it does bug me when someone calls himself 'rabbi' and then preaches doctrine that's not really Jewish.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 3:16 PM
I'm extremely pissed at Pope Rat (and doesn't that seem like a China Mieville invention) for his little intervention, not so much because I think he's been uncharitable in his judgment of Islam, as because he's refused to accept the responsibilities inherent in his position. As pope, like it or not, he is the tribal leader of a substantial number of people who still live in countries where that is significant. There are, of course, times when a religious leader must speak out on a topic regardless of the repercussions for his flock - I don't hold it against that Benedict that he's spoken about the "Christian culture" of Europe as a reason to exclude Turkey (although I think he's wrong). But in this case, the only reason he seems to have had to quote that Byzantine emperor was to demonstrate what a 31337 SkolR he was. He either knew and didn't care, or else should have known, that as Pope his words would be held against him (and against his followers in other countries, as well as against other non-Catholic Christians), and given that there was no good reason for him to speak out on this issue (whatever it was), his decision to go ahead and use that Paleologus quote can be seen as intellectual wankery, about which I think the Catholic Church has certain teachings.
Posted by Tom Scudder | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 3:18 PM
Re: "It does bug me when someone calls himself 'rabbi' and then preaches doctrine that's not really Jewish."
Hey! Rabbi was what they called me back then in 31 A.D. And I, at least, that it was Jewish doctrine when I preached it. Cut me some slack!
But whether the doctrine is theologically sound is the wrong question to ask. The priest--his theology was impeccable. I know. And I *know* theology. (Trust me on this.) The Levite--he had every single ritual and prayer down stone cold. The Samaritan: a despised heretic with muddled and incoherent theological errors, and he was none too clean either.
But what mattered was that the Samaritan loved his neighbor as himself. That's the question. Not "is this church's theology correct?" but "does this church teach people to love God and love their neighbors?" If so, it is one of My churches, and its people are part of My flock no matter what theology they preach.
After all, in My Father's House are many mansions...
Posted by Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 3:22 PM
You didn't answer my question, Josh...
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 3:23 PM
Yeah, 161 is pretty much right. Take 159 as a puzzlement over whether I'm entitled to be as annoyed as I am at people who call themselves "Jews for whatsizname."
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 3:30 PM
Teofilo--
You're talking about my little conversation with the Pharisees? The one that went like this?:
"And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, 'Is it lawful for a man to put away [his] wife?' tempting him.
"And he answered and said unto them, 'What did Moses command you?'
"And they said, 'Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put [her] away.'
"And Jesus answered and said unto them, 'For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.'"
That's what you're asking about?
Let me say that community property makes a difference. Divorce is a very different animal in a modern legal jurisdiction like California than it was in Roman-occupied Judea.
Nevertheless, it is only because human hearts are hard--that people are cruel and uncharitable--that my colleague Moses laid down the law allowing divorce in the first place. And we won't need it in the New Jerusalem, after Heaven and Earth have passed away...
Posted by Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 3:33 PM
I don't like his tone.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 3:33 PM
But Rabbi, are the parables you tell us not, themselves, theology? How can you ask us to do what you say, and at the same time tell us not to listen to your words?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 4:13 PM
Boy oh boy, I never thought I'd be typing this, but I'm really gonna have to agree with Rabbi ben Yosef on this one. As an atheist who grew up in a VERY liberal mainline Protestant denomination (but not the UniUnis -- see if you can guess which) the idea that it is sweet and fitting to believe that everyone else's theology is incorrect, Hell-bound apostasy just sticks in my craw.
In fact, if we disregard the Romish church for a moment and look at the mainline Protestants, we see that in fact, most of them take a pretty ecumenical view on the same theological questions that are still gettin' mu'fuckas killed all over the damn place. So how can we reconcile the idea that it is theologically viable (and, as some commenters above have argued, theologically essential) for the true adherent of a particular religion to regard other religious views as False with the fact that there are millions of Christians in the U.S. who very sincerely embrace a theology which claims just the opposite? (Not even going to start with the Hindus here.)
Also, to my point far, far above, I hardly think it's indicative of an irrational belief in conspiracies to argue that publicly avowed hierarchical organizations which have a stated ideology and access to the resources necessary to effect change in the larger society may in fact have an agenda which is not fully disclosed; and that that agenda is determined by the people at the top of the hierarchy; and that those people often consider their own personal interests before their stated responsibilities (or act to make their interests and their responsibilities coincide.) That's what I mean by cui bono?
Can I get a witness?
Posted by minneapolitan | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 4:33 PM
You know, those of us who are arguing that believing in the falseness of other religions can be essential to a given faith aren't necessarily saying that's a good thing...
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 4:40 PM
Huh. I was just reading other blogs and found out who the esteemed Rabbi appears to be.
167: Don't you (or, rather a current adherent of an ecumenical-type Protestant church. Call them Episcopalians for the sake of argument) think that other religions that insist on the rightness of their own theology, and think it's important, are wrong to do so? You don't have to believe they're going to hell for it, but I think you have to think they're mistaken. And you think they're wrong because you know what God wants, and he doesn't want people to be insistent about the rightness of their theology.
It seems to come to the same thing -- your denomination may be nicer about it, but no less convinced of its own correctness than any other.
Teo's got a strong point in 116:
"I'm willing to believe that X is essential to your religion but I still find it objectionable, so I think you should cut it out even if that means you end up practicing something other than your current religion." I admit that this is kind of dickish of me, and I don't generally go around saying it out loud, but it is how I feel.
Just because believing in your own theological rightness is, I think necessary to be religious at all, and proclaiming it is required by many religions, doesn't mean that it may not be incredibly obnoxious.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 4:57 PM
it does bug me when someone calls himself 'rabbi' and then preaches doctrine that's not really Jewish
Was this a joke, or was Weiner totally pawned by 'jhc@newjerusalem.org'?
Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 5:11 PM
BTW, the good Rabbi and savior appears to be channeling Brad DeLong from Saturday. Or maybe it's the other way around...
Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 5:15 PM
I assume Weiner knew what was up.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 5:16 PM
pawned?
Sudden-death overtime in the NFL is so lame.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 5:17 PM
They should just do penalty kicks.
Posted by Tom Scudder | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 5:23 PM
Alternately, they could do ACTUAL sudden death.
Posted by Tom Scudder | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 5:25 PM
believing in the falseness of other religions can be essential to a given faith
This wasn't the Levy/ogged position, though, was it? It was that those religions which aggressively assert the falseness of other religions, and strictly adhere to the odd particulars of their own individual religion, are more authentically religious than liberal, pluralistic religions. That seems patently unfounded, because the most important thing about religious experience is, well, the experience, not whether you experience the religion believing in Jesus or Buddha or Ganesh.
(And by "odd particulars of other religions," I don't mean the general moral laws of a religion, which are often broadly similar (some version of "be nice to other people" is accepted by pretty much every major religion on the planet), but the cosmology and theology (virgin birth, reincarnation, etc.), which really don't strike me as all that important in and of themselves.)
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 5:37 PM
167: United Church of Christ.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 5:43 PM
I don't know if ogged ever really explained what his position was. I think what you quote was part of Levy's position, along with the authenticity stuff. I don't really have a position on authenticity, but I am arguing that believing others are wrong can be (but isn't necessarily) an essential part of a given religion.
The rest of 176 puts forth a view of religion that, honestly, just isn't the way I see it. I don't deny that there are certain elements that are very common in religions around the world, but I do think the differences are important, at least to many of the members of those faiths.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 5:45 PM
I don't think that 'more authentically religious' is the ogged/Levy position. More that aggressive insistence that other religions are false is, for many religions, not optional bad behavior, but a central and necessary tenet of their religion.
the most important thing about religious experience is, well, the experience, not whether you experience the religion believing in Jesus or Buddha or Ganesh.
In your theology. An evangelical Christian would say that the most important thing is the relationship with Jesus, and Jesus only, growing out of the experience. If you say, "Who is he (the Christian) to tell me I'm wrong)?" an exactly parallel question is "Who are you to tell him he is?"
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 5:46 PM
Re: "An evangelical Christian would say that the most important thing is the relationship with Jesus.... 'Who are you to tell him he is [wrong]?'"
Yeshua ben Yosef, of course. I have some standing here, I think. And I tell him that--in Mark, Matthew, and Luke at least; John is a different story--he is wrong.
Remember my story: The priest had an excellent relationship with YHWH. The Samaritan had a flawed and heretical one. Yet which was neighbor to the one who fell among thieves?
Posted by Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 6:00 PM
In your theology.
My theology? I have no theology. I'm not making a theological point here; I'm making a point about what gives religion its appeal and its potency, and as I said several times upthread, it has nothing to do with whether the Holy Spirit procedes from the Father or from the Father and the Son. It does, however, have a lot to do with the sense of community provided by shared rituals and shared beliefs. It doesn't matter what those beliefs actually are, it only matters that you share them with members of your community.
An evangelical Christian would say that the most important thing is the relationship with Jesus, and Jesus only, growing out of the experience.
As a former evangelical Christian, I can tell you that I never once met Jesus or talked to him - the man never even left a message on my machine - but I met dozens of other evangelical Christians, went to church with them, prayed with them, etc. They might have called that "talking to God" or having a "personal relationship with Christ," but that doesn't make it so.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 6:06 PM
It does, however, have a lot to do with the sense of community provided by shared rituals and shared beliefs. It doesn't matter what those beliefs actually are, it only matters that you share them with members of your community.
This is just your opinion, though. Plenty of people disagree.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 6:12 PM
"Plenty of people disagree."
Plenty of people are wrong. Do you think the set of Catholics that regularly performs the eucharist is larger or smaller than the set of Catholics who believes that the wafers actually, literally transform into the body of Christ?
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 6:17 PM
I assume it's larger. But so what?
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 6:20 PM
184: So there's a sizable chunk of religious people who consciously perform a ritual for the sake of the ritual itself, and not because of the mystical significance the Church attaches to that ritual. This is not an anomaly; it indicates that the power of the ritual is in the ritual, not in the theology behind it.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 6:30 PM
Adam at 147: You're right, of course. But the context is the Pope's citation of Islam as anti-rational, the antithesis of hellenism, when that's unjustified.
Posted by Ahistoricality | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 6:35 PM
It doesn't matter what those beliefs actually are, it only matters that you share them with members of your community.
I think this is correct, but I don't think it support the claim that ecumenism doesn't diminish a sense of community (which is where I thought you were going with it). It's true that we can be Catholics or Jews or Reformed Cultists of the Ichor God Bel-Shamaroth and gain a sense of community through ritual.
What doesn't follow from that is that the community itself could adopt a formal 'this ritual is meaningless/just as valid as not doing the ritual' and survive. Even if most Catholics can't explain transubstantiation, the ritual takes a lot of its meaning from the fact that it means Something fixed and Not-Something is rejected.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 6:38 PM
187: I don't think Unitarians (to pick the group Levy bashed) believe their rituals mean "nothing" (or "not-something"). They just don't think they represent something that excludes the things that Catholic and Muslim rituals represent.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 6:41 PM
Why are you so up in arms about this, sj?
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 6:59 PM
I have some of sympathy for what stras is saying about where religions actually get their meaning from (Durkheim!), but I don't know that it actually helps my ecumenical argument. It seems to me that a religion that encourages shaming non-believers and trying to get everyone else around you to join you could create an even stronger sense of community. This is kind of the problem with Durkheimian views; see Barbara Ehrenreich's review of Habits of the Heart (in The Worst Years of Our Lives I think) for a non-religious example. (On further review, maybe not non-religious.)
OTOH my favored brand of Judaism has pretty explicitly Durkheimian underpinnings while remaining open to ecumenicism. But it may help that Judaism is ethnic as well as religious, and doesn't proselytize anyway.
On the side, and I apologize for the "evangelicals are weird" tone of this, but it seems to me that "it's all about your personal relationship with Jesus" is in tension with "you must try to convert others." Maybe the thread that ties this in is this: There's nothing about a personal relationship with and sincere belief in God, or about community-binding rituals, that requires shaming people who don't conform to your belief. [There's an anecdote here that's not mine to tell.] If someone's particular kind of belief does require or encourage that, then I think they should get a new kind of belief.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:00 PM
181, 188: See, this argument makes me crazy, and I'm a lifelong atheist/agnostic/whatever. Sure, if no religion is true, if it's just people getting together for coffee, donuts, and charitable work, then the doctrinal differences are unimportant. And for anyone who doesn't particularly think their own religion is true, but is in it for the coffee, donuts, and charitable work (and this describes a fair number of people -- my aunt's one), they'd be complete twerps if they got hostile about correcting other people about how their beliefs are wrong. But that's because they aren't really religious.
If you're going to talk about religion as a social force, don't you have to accept that a sizable group of people aren't just going through the motions? That they're doing what they think a God that genuinely exists actually wants them to do? I think you do, and that you have to accept that such people will have specific beliefs about what the God that actually exists in fact wants, which will contradict other people's specific beliefs in this regard.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:04 PM
I'm actually pretty broadly in agreement with stras as a normative matter; I think religion is essentially community-based and ritual is a better foundation for that community than theology. But I do think he's wrong descriptively. I just don't see how you can say that the people who hold that their religion is based on belief are wrong, even if there are other people in the same group who are more attached to ritual. Who are we (assuming we're not part of the group ourselves) to say which group of people is "correct" about what their religion means? Also:
It seems to me that a religion that encourages shaming non-believers and trying to get everyone else around you to join you could create an even stronger sense of community.
This strikes me as a pretty good summary of how religion actually works in a lot of cases. I don't think it should work like this, but I think it often does.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:09 PM
because they aren't really religious.
Says you. And on what authority?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:10 PM
I'm pretty much with #191. A substantial number of people genuinely believe some pretty divergent shit, and somebody's got to be wrong.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:12 PM
193 was curt, but I don't think it's the place of the non-religious to define what other people's religion must involve if it's to count. Or of religious people either.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:15 PM
192: See, I'm desperately annoyed by anyone who's just in it for the ritual (in real life, I keep a lid on it -- I get along fine with my aunt). Religion seems to me to be such a powerful force for hostility and exclusion that there is no excuse for it unless you believe that an all-powerful being with the right to direct your actions actually wants you to do stuff. Even, on some level, the atheist-compatible denominations like Unitarianism seem to me to give credibility and social cover to people who do bad stuff.
I have nothing against plenty of theists other than thinking they're wrong. The kind of church-goer who's in it for the social ritual and bonding but thinks atheists are vaguely questionable and untrustworthy I despise.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:16 PM
Gee, thanks.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:19 PM
thinks atheists are vaguely questionable and untrustworthy
OK, I'm against that. But I don't think religion has to be a force for hostility and exclusion, and to say that it excludes ecumenicism is counterproductive in this respect.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:20 PM
Not that I think atheists are untrustworthy, but I do fall into the "in it for the ritual" category of religious observance.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:21 PM
193: Fair enough, I'm being presumptuous. But generally I'd say that they aren't religious by the standards they formally purport to accept.
To take Catholics as an example: it's an organization, with a series of creeds, that requires members to affirm beliefs in a number of truths about the universe. I am fairly sure that if you asked the Pope whether someone who did not accept this was a Catholic in good standing, he would say no. They are purporting to belong to an organization that requires specific beliefs, while not having those beliefs.
The same could be said of Muslims, (much less so of Jews who I find less annoying in this regard) that a 'Muslim' who did not believe in the existence of one God of whom Mohammed was a prophet would be not actually a Muslim, but rather purporting to be one.
If there's no belief, there's no point or validity to the professions of belief that form a central part of many religions.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:23 PM
But--for Christians at least--the idea that there's an all-powerful being with the right to direct your actions actually wants you to do stuff provides no excuse for hostility and exclusion.
The people who say they actually met the all-powerful being and passed down what he said tell us that said all-powerful being (a) preached the Gospel of Bill and Ted: "Be excellent to each other!", (b) told people that he had very good news--that they should rejoice, for the Kingdom of God is at hand--and (c) repeatedly said "Don't sweat the theology and ritual. They're not the most important things."
Every hostile and exclusive Christian church should be subject to a devastating internal critique...
Posted by Brad DeLong | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:25 PM
199: The 'but' is structural in that sentence. You, I think are kind of silly, but in the same way I think my beloved aunt is silly.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:25 PM
I don't think it's the place of the non-religious to define what other people's religion must involve if it's to count. Or of religious people either.
But surely there's some kind of standard, like actual belef or something. If I'm an atheist who happens to hang out at the local Uni church for the conversation and because the coffee rules, I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim I'm religious just because of some minimal participation.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:26 PM
I have nothing against plenty of theists other than thinking they're wrong. The kind of church-goer who's in it for the social ritual and bonding but thinks atheists are vaguely questionable and untrustworthy I despise.
Heh-Indeedy.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:28 PM
Does said atheist live his or her neighbors? If there were a God, would he or she love her?
Posted by Brad DeLong | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:29 PM
202: What?
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:31 PM
196: I've been mostly following this interestedly but staying quiet, but this seems really wrong to me. If you have a quiet, non proselytizing, ecumenical religion, and you don't really believe that fervently, but are just practicing a ritual, you're transforming religion into something less exclusive.
Also, I kind of didn't know belief wasn't actually required, and now feel somewhat cheated, because I've thought about attending church or synagogue, because I like singing and praying and dancing and thinking about what value words might have even if I didn't believe in their literal truth, but never have because I was worried about hypocrisy. Actually, I had a sense from my Episcopal school days that belief might not be required for that. And actually, my aunt simultaneously claims she's an athiest and at times has expressed an interest in rabbinical school. So maybe I did know.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:31 PM
I don't know about Episcopalianism, but there are certainly lots of Jewish atheists who attend services. Weiner and I, for instance.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:32 PM
203: There's a sermon perennial: "Schwartz goes to shul to talk to God. I go to shul to talk to Schwartz."
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:33 PM
Does said atheist live his or her neighbors? If there were a God, would he or she love her?
Can I love them from a distance? I'm not really a people person. Is there a way to tell people to get off my lawn in a loving manner?
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:34 PM
Weiner and I, for instance.
Waitaminnit, I seriously doubt that you know what my theological beliefs are, and I like it that way.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:35 PM
209: I've always heard that anecdote with the name Garfinkel. It's more memorable that way.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:36 PM
211: Sorry. I believe you once said something about them, though.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:37 PM
201: repeatedly said "Don't sweat the theology and ritual. They're not the most important things."
I would argue with this, at least with regard to theology rather than ritual. Isn't the message of the parable of the Good Samaritan not that 'theology', taken to mean the intellectual process of figuring out what God wants and then doing it, is unimportant, but that the priest's theology was wrong (or he, personally, failed to understand it) because it didn't lead him to help the guy who fell among thieves. And the Samaritan, while simpler and less intellectual, had a better understanding of theology, because it led him to know, and therefore do, what God actually wanted.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:39 PM
202: I think participating in religious ritual without belief is silly. I am less annoyed by it in Jews than in Christians, because it is my understanding that believing Jews believe that there is value to Jewish ritual even when performed by an unbelieving Jew, so the ritual observance of atheist Jews makes some sort of sense as non-hypocritical service to a community.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:41 PM
If you have a quiet, non proselytizing, ecumenical religion, and you don't really believe that fervently, but are just practicing a ritual, you're transforming religion into something less exclusive.
It just seems to me that minus the belief, you're transforming it into something that's no longer a religion. Once the belief is gone, what's to differentiate it from a gathering at the gun club?
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:41 PM
216: I am gswift. Aside from the gun ownership.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:42 PM
Maybe I'll start going to B'nai Jeshurun on Fridays and Judson Memorial on Sundays. That'll show 'em.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:42 PM
Someone should say something hostile if I'm being too obnoxious about this. I'm stalled on something for work and I'm in a terrible mood. (I'll probably keep arguing, but I can be politer if I need to.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:44 PM
216: I'm not one to take it upon myself to define religion. But I was responding to LB's specific argument that those people were somehow providing cover for the forces of exclusion and intolerance.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:44 PM
219: Nah, you're fine.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:45 PM
I think participating in religious ritual without belief is silly.
See, I think this shows an overly Christian-centric view of religion. Not every religion considers faith the most important thing.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:47 PM
220: Oh, it's not just the 'providing cover' argument. I'm also just annoyed by the whole Durkheimian idea that there's something terribly valuable for society that we can only have by playing a collective game of bullshit 'let's pretend'. If that's so, I don't care how valuable it is, I don't want it.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:47 PM
That noted theologian and moral philosopher Isaac Asimov says somewhere that 2000 years of repetition have robbed the Parable of the Good Samaritan of its meaning. In its first century context, a Samaritan is:
--Culturally other
--A member of a despised ethnic group
--And a schismatic heretic as well
To get the right charge out of the word "Samaritan" today, you would have to replace it with, depending on context...
...An Orangeman
...A Provisional IRA supporter
...A Hindu fundamentalist
...An Islamofascist
...A follower of Jerry Falwell
...A San Franciscan
The parable of the advanced-in-theology-who-do-not-understand-it vs. the simple-in-theology who do is the Parable of the Publican and the Pharisee.
Posted by Brad DeLong | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:49 PM
Have I ever mentioned that I hate it when people use the word "Pharisee" with its New Testament meaning?
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:52 PM
Well, it is Christian-centric, and I nodded to what I understood to be a Jewish perspective in 215. And Buddhists don't necessarily care what you believe, as far as I understand Buddhism.
But even for religions that don't require faith as part of their practice, for someone to be able to define whether or not faith is important, that person has to either (a) genuinely believe in the actual truth of the religion themselves, or (b) be spinning bullshit stories to entertain the masses.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:52 PM
Religion seems to me to be such a powerful force for hostility and exclusion that there is no excuse for it unless you believe that an all-powerful being with the right to direct your actions actually wants you to do stuff.
Do you really think that religion works this way - that religious conservatives hate gay people because God told them to stone sodomites back in the days of Leviticus? Or do you think that religion provides a convenient excuse for already-existing hostility and bigotry?
It seems silly to say that liberal Unitarians are providing cover for the prejudices and hatreds of right-wing fundamentalist Christians. Right-wing fundamentalists are fundamentalists because they're right-wing; they're not right-wing because they're fundamentalists.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:53 PM
201: Jesus expected a cataclysmic event that would permanently destroy the power structures of this world, which he took to be thoroughly sinful. (This is basically the single most agreed-upon thing in biblical scholarship today.) I don't think that's quite the same as hippy liberalism.
The way people responded to his message, his death, and his (reported) resurrection was to form communities and to live together as best they could as though the post-apocalyptic circumstances already obtained, with the full knowledge that such a life could lead to death in certain circumstances (viz., Jesus). Again, not a real feel-good message.
That's my critique of liberal Christians -- they don't take the apocalyptic seriously. On the other hand, the conservative Christians make the apocalyptic into some kind of esoteric (and ultimately meaningless) code, a mental puzzle that is impossible to relate to anything like an actual way of life.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:54 PM
I'm not crazy about the argument in 215 because it presumes that there have to be Jewish theists for Judaism to work, but we've had that argument before and it's not worth going over again. I don't really understand the second paragraph of 226.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:55 PM
Have I ever mentioned that I hate it when people use the word "Pharisee" with its New Testament meaning?
I think by that you mean "its modern, Christian meaning." At the time the New Testament was written, its authors knew what Pharisees were.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:57 PM
atheist-compatible denominations like Unitarianism
I cannot understand this as a religion. (188: I heard it described as 'we just believe in being tolerant.') I don't agree with all of Catholicism; I'm not practicing currently. But I can figure out where they stand on things, and with what I agree and disagree and the like.
But this 'A is true, but not to the exclusion of not-A' boggles the mind. What's the difference between it and the gun club? The gun club is more fun and doesn't try to argue that really, what end you put the bullets in is just a matter of choice.
I don't think it provides cover for anything, but I'm also sure it's compatible with both providing cover and not-providing cover.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:57 PM
"cover for the forces of exclusion and intolerance"
This underlying assumption irks me a bit. Sure, the religious have done awful things. But so have the atheists. Lots of religious people of all faiths are hypocritical. But the very fact of hypocrisy requires that there is something of value that people aren't living up to, or are betraying, or whatevs.
The codes of ethics, in of themselves, are good things. I don't see an argument against a person adopting such a code, following a ritual based on the code, though he or she has insufficient belief.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:57 PM
See, I think this shows an overly Christian-centric view of religion. Not every religion considers faith the most important thing.
Well yeah. But come one, Muslims and Christians number their members in the billions, and Jews are what, 15 or 20 million?
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:58 PM
Back then, the Pharisees were the theological liberals. (I'm not trying to make a polemical point here, but it's just ironic given the connotation it now has.)
Also, in the New Testament "faith" means something more like "faithfulness" or "loyalty" -- specifically, to Jesus. At least in the letters of Paul and in the Gospels it does -- in some of the later writings it might drift toward meaning "a set of beliefs with no supporting evidence."
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:59 PM
224: But isn't part of the point that the priest's theology is false, or misunderstood -- that it doesn't led him to act as God wants?
That is, if you tell the story with a Baptist chaplain in Afghanistan passing by, while a Good Taliban member helps the person who's fallen among theives, you can say that the Baptist isn't a good Christian, because he doesn't love his neighbor. I think you can only say that the Good Taliban is a good Christian (or sufficient equivalent) to the extent that he consistently acts in accordance with God's will, which (I think most believing Christians would say) is unlikely without an understanding of what God's will is, aka theology.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 7:59 PM
I cannot understand this as a religion.
If you define "religion" as a belief system which assumes the existence of a god, then yes, it's hard to accept Unitarian tolerance for atheism. But this is a silly definition, as well as a sloppy one.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 8:00 PM
Are we all coming to the point where we're starting to wonder if "religion" is a useful category? (I came to that point long ago, I'm just wondering if anyone else is feeling it -- it slips and slides everywhere, one minute it appears to be nothing other than Christianity, the next minute it contains a wide range of contradictory meanings....)
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 8:02 PM
233: Yeah, and there's just a handful of Hindus.
234: "Ironic" is one way to put it.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 8:03 PM
téo: Judaism has an ethnicity or sense of shared history that isn't quite the same in a lot of Christian sects. You'll be Jewish even if you don't practice because your parents were, &c. An evangelical who leaves the church just isn't Christian any more. (Catholicism's a bit closer to Judaism in this regard.) So faith becomes more important because it's what ties an otherwise disjoint group together.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 8:03 PM
237: I know I am.
239: Yes, I know that. That's why I'm saying you can't just assume that Christian views of religion automatically apply universally.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 8:05 PM
But isn't part of the point that the priest's theology is false, or misunderstood -- that it doesn't led him to act as God wants?
Lizardbreath, you keep using the word "theology" in ways I don't really understand. "Ethics" or "moral code" is a better fit for what you're describing in that sentence.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 8:05 PM
I believe LB is using "theology" to mean "understanding of what God is and wants." But she can speak for herself.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 8:07 PM
I can understand a religion without a godhead, sj. I can't understand one that says godhead is okay and not godhead is okay and claims to be Christianity.
Christ, we have higher standards for political affiliations.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 8:08 PM
Does UU actually claim to be Christianity? I honestly don't know.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 8:09 PM
229: Let me try 226 again, although it's really the same argument as 215, so it may be annoying.
You, I understand, are an atheist Jew. So, probably, are other members of the congregation you're a member of. Imagine all the atheists in your congregation are stranded together on a desert island. Do you hold services? Probably not. If I get you all in a room and ask in terms of your own beliefs, rather than appealing to the beliefs of someone else not present, whether belief in God is necessary or important, I think you have to answer no. If I ask whether proper observance of Jewish ritual is necessary or important, I think you also have to answer no.
The person who can credibly say that belief is not important, but correct observance of particular ritual (rather than any old ritual that creates a feeling of togetherness) is important, has to themself believe in order to have a basis for calling the particular ritual important.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 8:09 PM
Are we all coming to the point where we're starting to wonder if "religion" is a useful category? (I came to that point long ago, I'm just wondering if anyone else is feeling it -- it slips and slides everywhere, one minute it appears to be nothing other than Christianity, the next minute it contains a wide range of contradictory meanings....)
JZ Smith wrote an essay about the genesis of the modern sense of "religion", called "Religion, Religions, Religious", collected in Relating Religion, which is good, and whose title I used for the title of this Tuesday Hatred.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 8:09 PM
Yeah, téo, I realized after I wrote that you got that. Sorry.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 8:09 PM
Do you hold services?
Yes.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 8:10 PM
It's like #243 is reading my mind. This is getting weird.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 8:12 PM
I can't understand one that says godhead is okay and not godhead is okay and claims to be Christianity.
Unitarian Universalism does not identify itself as a type of Christianity. There are Unitarians who are Christians, but Unitarianism itself does not "claim to be Christianity" any more than it claims to be Buddhist.
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 8:12 PM
If I ask whether proper observance of Jewish ritual is necessary or important, I think you also have to answer no.
I don't think so, depending on how you define "necessary" and "important."
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 8:15 PM
One good thing I will say about UU: it has become a very nice place for people who for whatever reason don't fit in in other places but still want to worship.
I still can't understand it. Must. put. things. in. proper. boxes.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 09-17-06 8:18 PM
Re: "Have I ever mentioned that I hate it when people use the word 'Pharisee' with its New Testament meaning? Posted by: teofilo"
I apologize, and I repent in dust and ashes
Posted by Bradford DeLong |