An open letter to somebody who will remain unnamed:

[conuly]

When you say that the rhetoric of the rightwing fundiegelical crowd is full of bigotry, including but certainly not limited to anti-Semitism, you're not wrong. I also agree with your implied suggestion that all this anti-Semitism is a bad thing.

However, when you then go from that starting point to the conclusion that these people are bad folks because they pay too much attention to the OT and not the NT, and that anybody who does that is hopelessly immoral, I worry that you have totally lost the plot. You should've quit while you were ahead.

If you can't figure out why those two statements don't belong in the same comment together, perhaps you should do some soul-searching. Actually, maybe you should anyway.

Comments

[elayna]

I'm sorry, what are OT and NT abbreviations for?

Oh! Old Testament and New Testament?

[conuly]

Yup. You see the problem here, I hope.

[elayna]

Honestly, I’m not religious and other than a cultural awareness that OT is the ‘eye for an eye’ one and NT is the ‘turn the other cheek,’ I don’t know enough about either book to judge people by them. I do wonder sometimes at people I know consider themselves good Christians and yet are anti-immigrant...I guess they don’t understand ‘love your brother’ like I assume it ought to be understood.

[conuly]

Yeah, that's the "awareness" that leads people to say crap like the dude in the post.

[librarygeek]

(Inarticulate cheering) Thank you! ✡️🧐💙💚

[conuly]

Seriously!

[calimac]

It remains only to be added that Jewish understanding of the morals and precepts of the OT is very different from the typical Christian view that it's red in tooth and claw.

For one thing, we don't call it the OT.

[conuly]

Yes, it would be very strange if you did call it that.

To be fair, I think this unnamed person was an atheist... and while I am less sure about this, I wouldn't be surprised if they had a less-than-easy deconversion from Christianity.

[adrian_turtle]

Atheism has very different implications, depending on what religion the atheist is walking away from. There's a difference between "There is no God and Mary is his mother," and "There is no God and Mohammed is his prophet."

[conuly]

Indeed. And it's not just the religion, but all the cultural trappings.

Of course, some of us were never raised with religion in the first place.

[siderea]

Of course, some of us were never raised with religion in the first place.

With all due respect, as a third generation atheist: no American is raised without religion. Our parents may do what they can to protect us from it, but it's like dining in the non-smoking sections of restaurants back in the day.

This is important, and I'm troubling to mention, because American atheists, including the ones with atheist families, often are deeply unaware of how much Christian ideas they've absorbed by osmosis: ideas about morality, ideas of what a religion even is, ideas about psychology(!). Which leads to things like the original example.

[sovay]

American atheists, including the ones with atheist families, often are deeply unaware of how much Christian ideas they've absorbed by osmosis: ideas about morality, ideas of what a religion even is, ideas about psychology(!).

+1. And the problem extends beyond American atheism: cf. Richard Dawkins. Christian hegemony has a long reach.

[conuly]

Obligatory "Richard Dawkins is awful" comment.

[conuly]

Fair enough.

[mindstalk]

With all due respect, I find that profoundly offensive.

Would you tell an American Jew or Muslim that they were raised with Christian ideas?

[siderea]

Yes, absolutely. I just did.

And while I can't speak to Muslims, as a Jew, I can assure you, the idea that in the US we're soaking from birth in a largely Christian culture is something that's not news and something we quietly discuss amongst ourselves when people like you aren't around to be offended by the idea.

I don't know what your damage is that you get butthurt over even hearing about – not even being directly confronted over – the idea that Christians and Christianity have enormous privilege, in the social justice sense, over non-Christians in the US, but: yeah. That's a thing. And all the rest of us who live here labor under that regime.

So you can step right the fuck off with your entitlement not to hear about it.

[mindstalk]

You didn't say Christianity has privilege. You made a sweeping generalization about other people's lived experiences, contradicting someone's claim about their own life.

>> Of course, some of us were never raised with religion in the first place.

> With all due respect, as a third generation atheist: no American is raised without religion.

That's you saying "With all due respect, you're wrong about your own life."

[conuly]

If you're continuing this discussion because you think siderea is contradicting your life, that's one thing, but please don't drag me back into it. I actually hate when people do that. If I want to argue or defend myself, I'll do it. I really don't want other people to do it for me, ever, for any reason.

[ioplokon]

"There is no God and Mary is his mother"

LMAO as a lapsed-Catholic atheist I can definitely say you're onto something here. I think in some ways those of us who walked away from explicitly religious upbringings are a bit more aware of how influential those viewpoints can be but... it does sneak up on you sometimes, as well! I imagine that is especially true the more aligned your religious upbringing is with the prevailing culture.

[sovay]

Atheism has very different implications, depending on what religion the atheist is walking away from.

Or remaining in, since being a Jewish atheist is very different from being an atheist in opposition to Christianity ("organized religion" so often really meaning "Christianity").

[rhoda_rants]

*extreme side-eye*

Well that's certainly a take.

[conuly]

Yeah....

[low_delta]

The fundies pick and choose the parts they like from the Bible, that they think supports their opinions. A common belief is that the NT was a new deal that Jesus made with us, which supersedes the OT. So all the hatred found in the OT should have been overwritten by Jesus's love. And I'm not sure why they pay so much attention to the OT.

So their picking and choosing verses that support the hatred means they have a fundamental will to hate that's so strong that they're ignoring Jesus's message. So while "hopelessly immoral" is wrong, there is a certain immorality found in the fundamentalist behavior.

[siderea]

Amen.

ETA: I mean, at this point, I think fundamentalism (across religions!) attracts people who want to treat their fellow humans terribly, and are excited by the excuse fundamentalism provides them to do that. Fundamentalism allows you to imagine you're still following the rules of your religion, and therefore get to identify with it, without actually following any of the pesky restrictions on not being homicidal towards outsiders.

[low_delta]

Agreed. One of the most dangerous aspects of fundamentalism is that they force their religious beliefs on others. They get themselves worked up enough about the sins of others, that they start believing that its their responsibility to God to prevent all sin.

[siderea]

I gotta disagree. I think the narrative – and it's a common one – that the really objectionable part of fundamentalism is that they want to force their religions on others is a dangerous narrative, because it's not true and lets fundamentalism off the hook for its much more serious crimes. The most objectionable, and most dangerous, part of fundamentalism is where it legitimizes and incentivizes mass murder, the enslavement of other peoples, total war, and environmental destruction. Trying to force other people to join one's religion is bad. Being psyched when other people refuse to join one's religion because then you get to kill them and take their stuff is worse.

[low_delta]

I think those two things are very much related. They could just say "other people sin; that's not my problem." But, as I said, they hold others to their own professed standards, and then try to prevent that sin. And that's what legitimizes and leads to all that war, mass murder and enslavement. Maybe you thought I was only referring to them trying to prevent gay marriage or something. I'm talking about it all. Islamic Jihad, for example. This is where it begins: All sin and heresy must be eliminated.

[conuly]

So I'm going to stop you here to remind you that the word "jihad" just means "struggle" - usually a personal struggle, like a struggle with drug addiction or a struggle to be minimally polite to your mean grandma.

I'm also going to point out that you are vastly oversimplifying the causes of religious war to, well, "religion".

[low_delta]

Fair point about my use of "jihad," and (upon research) I'll add that its "armed struggle against unbelievers" is considered by modernist Islamic scholars to equate military jihad with defensive warfare.

Let me use a more specific example:
The Islamic State in West Africa or the Islamic State's West Africa Province (abbreviated ISWA or ISWAP), formerly known as Jamā'at Ahl as-Sunnah lid-Da'wah wa'l-Jihād (Arabic: جماعة أهل السنة للدعوة والجهاد‎, "Group of the People of Sunnah for Preaching and Jihad") and commonly known as Boko Haram, is a jihadist terrorist organization based in northeastern Nigeria, also active in Chad, Niger and northern Cameroon.

Founded by Mohammed Yusuf in 2002, the group has been led by Abubakar Shekau since 2009. When Boko Haram first formed, their actions were nonviolent. Their main goal was to purify Islam in northern Nigeria. Since March 2015, the group has been aligned with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Since the current insurgency started in 2009, Boko Haram has killed tens of thousands and displaced 2.3 million from their homes and was at one time the world's deadliest terror group according to the Global Terrorism Index.

[ioplokon]

Oof yeah. This notion (and supercessionism more broadly) is hugely harmful to Jewish people. Speaking as someone who was raised Catholic, it was a line of thinking that was explicitly condemned because of the real role it played in justifying Catholic anti-semitism and the horrific consequences thereof. Which I mention not so much to put a feather in the cap of the Catholic Church (bc like, they do not deserve it) but just to emphasize that it's not just an unfortunate rhetorical position but something that lies near the root of profoundly harmful systems of thought/belief. Like, it is actually dangerous to indulge this kind of thinking when arguing with Christians or cultural Christians.

[conuly]

Absolutely.

[siderea]

Hear, hear!

[sovay]

Speaking as someone who was raised Catholic, it was a line of thinking that was explicitly condemned because of the real role it played in justifying Catholic anti-semitism and the horrific consequences thereof.

I am glad that the Catholicism in which you were raised condemned it.

[anankastick]

Yikes. That is a take I have not heard before, and I hope it's not popular/becoming popular...

[conuly]

How popular it is, I don't know, but this dude wasn't the first one I've seen roughly say that. He *is* the first one to say it immediately after more-or-less condemning anti-Semitism in particular, which is why it stood out.

[sovay]

because they pay too much attention to the OT and not the NT

Oh, good, the old and busted God of Wrath and the new hotness God of Love supersessionism. Like that's cleaned up any less anti-Semitic in the last two thousand years.

[conuly]

Let's polish that turd a little more, maybe we can wipe it away....

[ex_inklessej388]

I would venture out to say that strictly using the OT especially when going against more broader teaching found in the NT (which includes the writings of the Apostles, not just the words of Christ) is immoral. It may be a form of hair splitting but I do not associate the OT with Judaism aside from what historical needs are required within a broader Christian context. This was made clear to me by a Jewish friend who pointed out that absolutely nothing that I see in the OT is present or emphasized in the Jewish faith and their Torah. The words might be the same in some languages, but the themes and traditions certainly are nowhere near the same. Not even considering the fact that the Torah is just the start of Jewish sacred teaching, and these Christians who rely on the OT use it as the final word-- which it is not in either faiths.

But your point is certainly valid even with my pedantic hairsplitting of religious texts. There is an underlying current of anti-Semitism present within Christianity simply because of the historical fact of its doctrinal existence for the majority of the establish church's existence up to this point. Vestiges are still lingering and you pulled one out here I think.

[ioplokon]

I disagree that it is inherently immoral (or at least, any less moral/ethical than finding reasons for hatred elsewhere in one's religious canon). It is, more or less by definition, heresy in Christian faiths to do so but I also think it's flat-out untrue that "hateful" Christians use exclusively the OT/Hebrew Scriptures/etc. when forming or defending those views - you can, for example, get to many of the same places via the Pauline letters, if you were so inclined. In my experience, you're be just as likely to see someone quote Romans at you as Leviticus. Why, then, is this argument about the "hateful old testament" so popular?

Of course, I admit, I don't know that much about Protestant hermeneutics but to me, it seems like Christians (Catholic & Protestant alike) have set up this Wrath-Love dichotomy and mapped it onto the OT-NT, regardless of which part of the scripture is actually being used. And the reason this happens, even though it does a poor job of describing the actual content of the arguments being made, is because of anti-semitic ideas like supercessionism.

[ex_inklessej388]

Finding hatred in any religious canon is immoral. I feel like that is something we are both in agreement about probably if we even drop the religious context.

I think the Wrath-Love dichotomy is neither Catholic nor Protestant and probably American evangelical. Isaiah for example is one of the most hopeful books in the entire Bible from a Christian perspective and it is an OT centrepiece. Same for the psalms. But I’ve rarely heard those who justify hate in the Bible use any of those books. And you are right about the Pauline epistles too which is why there is more to this too than just OT v NT and Christian v Jewish texts. I rarely hear evangelicals quote Saint John for example (except to false claim logos means the Bible as the word of God). And John relies the most on OT Jewish concepts for his messiah in the gospel.

[ioplokon]

Yeah, I do agree with you re: hatred. I am just saying that the "OT" texts do not forcibly produce a hateful reading, you know? Nor do the "NT" texts forcibly produce a loving reading.

And I'm also just wary of trying to put like, everything bad about Christianity (from a historical or hermeneutic perspective) on evangelicals. I've seen similar rhetoric from a full 31 flavors of Christians so I do kinda think the call is coming from inside the house...

[pauamma]

I'm not at all familiar with Christian or Jewish scriptures (is that even the right word), but even I look askance at the non-sequitur.

[conuly]

Yeah, the implications are bad.

[silveradept]

Yep, that wouldn't go over particularly well if you think through the implications.

[conuly]

Even for a damn second.