This is a problem. Anything coming from hatred is not coming from a good place.
However, I do have a problem with what monotheism did to the world as a colonising force.
We have depictions of full genocide in the Torah due to a chosen people doctrine (remember, at this time gendercide was nearly the exclusive form of genocide). We had Christians take this after Constantine to take a proselytising mission and turn it into an imperial casus belli. We saw the same with the formation and expansion that lead to the Golden Age of Islam.
While religious tolerance and practices have an increased amount of personal choice now in the "Western" world, that does not mean that the institution that they inherent aren't any more colonial now then they were then. They are ideas that replaced other ideas, often through a theology of "god strengthens my arm and weakens the heathens, so might makes right".
It's not hatred for any set belief, but the "In" and "Out" groups created by "chosen people" dynamics that are inherent within monotheistic religion. They have always been used to perpetuate division among the "foreign", wealth for an elite, and loyalty from the masses.
Okay, to be clear, in the discussion you're jumping into, one of the interlocutors has stated that Jews are inherently genocidal.
I'm an atheist and I don't particularly value religion but I do value people and there are many good people who do value their religion and I won't stand for them being painted as inherently genocidal and neither should you.
There's a time and place for nuance but I don't know that this is it.
I'm saying the entire structure of monotheism has created a system of colonial thought and destruction across much of the world. Even the good theists I have met (and I have met many) will think less of or sorry for someone in the out group.
It's not Judaism, it's not Islam, it's not Christianity: it is the colonial ideology embedded in these ideologies that I'm saying are a negative force on the planet.
I was replying directly to the comment above, not so much the context. You are right to point that out.
Religious people aren't inherently genocidal. Their religion is. If you follow a book that says gay people must be put to death, you follow a homophobic book. Wether you actually believe that is up to you and God, but that's what is taught.
There are good religious people, they're the ones ignoring most of what their literature says.
Help me understand, and I actually mean this, this isn't a framing device for a dumb point though it looks like one. I mean this, I would rather be taught.
If the religious texts say genocidal stuff, why is it wrong to say if an institution believes in it, it believes in genocidal stuff? I can understand if sects qualify or revise it and I wouldn't call them that, but why is saying, for instance, "Christianism is homophobic" wrong when that is what the bible teaches? Again, if one church recontextualizes it, or says it was just Paul who said it, God is Love, fine, but can that sect speak for all Christianity when even in context the book preaches homophobia?
The main problem i have with this entire train of thought is that it's completely untethered from anything material and is therefore fundamentally wrong no matter what conclusions you're trying to draw. Well actually my main problem is that you're using this thinking to make (whether intentional or not) an anti-semtic conclusion which makes it way worse. But I'm going to focus on the first thing, because that's where i think where you're making a common mistake and stumbling into antisemitism.
Religion is a part of culture. Culture is an outgrowth of the base of society/system. The system itself is driven by material reality. Culture can work to reinforce and strengthen the system, in fact that's the main point of it, but it doesn't dictate the actions of the system. Colonialism, imperialism, genocide aren't caused by religion, anymore than they could be caused by a movie or a song.
This relationship is also why religions are malleable. Religions change and peoples relationship to them changes because they are in a subservient relationship to material drivers. The easiest thing to look at is the period of religious upheaval in Christianity coinciding with the emergence of capitalism (Protestant Reformation, 30 years War, English Civil War, development of Calvanism, etc.) - and the need for theology to either adapt to be compatible or become discarded.
The kind logic you're using is predicated on idealism the belief that ideas are the primary driver behind reality and actions. That applied to religion is the MO of nu athiest pseudointellectuals like Golden Girls fortune heir Sam Harris. He's known for making your exact same arguement but in an Islamophobic way - the target being Muslims and not Jews.
It's hard to understand how you don't get that saying Judaism is genocidal is incredibly antisemitic. But a lot of people repeated Harris's bullshit and claimed they weren't Islamophobic by hiding behind one hadith or another as proof that Muslims are evil. Some may not have understood. Harris may not have even really understand how rascist he is because is exceptionally stupid. So you might not mean it. If you don't want people to call you antisemitic you need to do a little self-criticism and examine what you really think and want to say here.
Religion is a part of culture. Culture is an outgrowth of the base of society/system. The system itself is driven by material reality. Culture can work to reinforce and strengthen the system, in fact that's the main point of it, but it doesn't dictate the actions of the system. Colonialism, imperialism, genocide aren't caused by religion, anymore than they could be caused by a movie or a song.
That's the problem I have with it, how good it is at reinforcing and justifying hate. Yes, a movie or song also reinforces hatred (which, mind you, those should be shat on appropriately), but I think having your spiritual life tied to it makes specially good convincing people. People use it to justify what they already believe, yes, but I know people who take the bible at face and believe in things just because that's what's in there, I don't think it's purely a one way street.
do a little self-criticism and examine what you really think and want to say here.
I wouldn't be putting any effort if I weren't. It upsets me. Is it objectionable if what I say is uncritical, unqualified belief of the texts that preach genocide is itself genocidal belief?
I think you need to be careful with throwing around "choseness" in this way because this is the exact perversion of the Jewish concept of choseness set forth in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf. I'm not trying to let Judaism off the hook for its genuine reactionary and regressive components (particularly with respect to women and non-normative sexuality), but it really muddies the waters when you overlay it with full-throated anti-Jewish projection onto Judaism.
Not really? There is an in-group (Jews) and an out-group (non-Jews, or Gentiles). The same applies for all monotheistic religions in a way that doesn't gel with the fabric of polytheism. These concepts, over centuries and through different forms (especially Christianity for the "West") were used to subjugate people by creating these in-groups and out-groups (to the point that the earliest use of the star of David to highlight the Jewish population I know of was done in England by Simon De Montfort (though I'm not an expert)).
That legacy still exists today and the institutions of wealth and (especially in places like the UK & Iran) governance. It's a legacy of us vs them and colonialism that needs to be examined.
I mean, you just did it again. Wasn't Simon De Montfort a Christian Crusader who persecuted the Jews? You are taking an antisemitic interpretation of "choseness" applied in a Christian framework that was then used to persecute Jews with a "they started it" argument. Which is exactly what the PEZ and MK did when they framed choseness. Rabbinic Judiasm (which is Judaism following the Roman conquest) deems "choseness" to be chosen NOT to control other populations. The Noahite laws, which apply to everyone whether Jewish or not (in the Jewish religion), specifically command the non Jews to create fair governments that the Jews could live under as 1 of 7 requirements. The Jews are "chosen" to follow the more stringent 613 commandments, which include following the laws of the just governments of non-Jews. Just saying that it creates categories of people is not unique to monotheism (or religion - see "America First"). And I don't think it tracks that creating groups in any context necessarily leads to genocidal intent and practice.
You are conflating my criticism of monotheism with a direct criticism of Judaism. I am saying the core value of monotheism (i.e. there is one god and its the one I picked) has created a colonial mindset in all monotheistic religion. You're saying "I did it again", but I'm doing it for all. I mean the Arab conquests soon after Muhhamad's death is the same as well.
Monotheism, as an ideology, has stolen a lot from us in terms of ways of thinking, belief, and added division in its stead. This continues to be true in major geopolitical states including America, Israel, Iran, and many, many more countries.
The irony is I'm not even an atheist. I've described a specific ideological problem I have with monotheism as a concept. Why does that upset you so badly? Why would that compel you to say someone doesn't belong?
I think you are trying too hard to conflate the colonial/genocidal mindset with monotheism when the evidence doesn't really support it. Was Ancient Rome not colonial and genocidal? Greece? Egypt? They also had slaves. They conquered everyone they could. The exterminated whole swaths of peoples. They didn't need monotheism to do that. You could argue that the legacy of those polytheistic societies (specifically Egypt for the ancient Jews, Rome for Christians) laid the groundwork for the same genocidal/colonial mindset. But the main point is that the colonial and genocidal mindset is easier to understand from a class/material analysis than one tied to any specific theology. The monotheist theologies were used as a tool to organize and mobilize populations because that was the easiest tool to grab and it was couched in a language that the populations already spoke, but polytheists and other non-monotheists are just as capable of using their theological tools to do the same. For a more modern example, see for example the relationship between Hindu and Buddhist sides over Sri Lanka. Neither are abrahamic monotheisms, yet the colonial and genocidal tendency and forces are still at work.
While I think that's interesting point, two things:
Destroyed swaths of people is dubious. Cultures, yes, men, yes, but peoples, no (hence the slaves but also why those lands were still administered by high ranking officials).
Essentially, I feel it's whataboutism. There's very good reason why it's said the Philippines was conquered by friars, the Crusades weren't caused by resources, and the age of Empire and the Atlantic slave trade were both back by the concept of monotheistic "other".
Just because other ideologies (and theologies) have negative kernels, it does not excuse the vast negative issues the have directly born out of monotheistic religion as an aspect of otherhood and a sense of colonisation or superiority. That does not make them the sole source (the concept of land ownership, for example, is a non-theistic ideology that is used to cause group division and destruction). We could also talk about Manifest Destiny, as a non-religious movement (though it did have large religious support), but it's not what I am talking about
Monotheism as it has manifested on the world stage has come with colonisation, destruction of old ideas, and entitled due to the other people being sinful heathens. It is a useful tool for the powerful (which is why we see the royal conversions in Europe, leading to internalised oppression of polytheistic beliefs). It is worth questioning.
This is a problem. Anything coming from hatred is not coming from a good place.
However, I do have a problem with what monotheism did to the world as a colonising force.
We have depictions of full genocide in the Torah due to a chosen people doctrine (remember, at this time gendercide was nearly the exclusive form of genocide). We had Christians take this after Constantine to take a proselytising mission and turn it into an imperial casus belli. We saw the same with the formation and expansion that lead to the Golden Age of Islam.
While religious tolerance and practices have an increased amount of personal choice now in the "Western" world, that does not mean that the institution that they inherent aren't any more colonial now then they were then. They are ideas that replaced other ideas, often through a theology of "god strengthens my arm and weakens the heathens, so might makes right".
It's not hatred for any set belief, but the "In" and "Out" groups created by "chosen people" dynamics that are inherent within monotheistic religion. They have always been used to perpetuate division among the "foreign", wealth for an elite, and loyalty from the masses.
[Edited to clarify the last paragraph]
Okay, to be clear, in the discussion you're jumping into, one of the interlocutors has stated that Jews are inherently genocidal.
I'm an atheist and I don't particularly value religion but I do value people and there are many good people who do value their religion and I won't stand for them being painted as inherently genocidal and neither should you.
There's a time and place for nuance but I don't know that this is it.
I'm saying the entire structure of monotheism has created a system of colonial thought and destruction across much of the world. Even the good theists I have met (and I have met many) will think less of or sorry for someone in the out group.
It's not Judaism, it's not Islam, it's not Christianity: it is the colonial ideology embedded in these ideologies that I'm saying are a negative force on the planet.
I was replying directly to the comment above, not so much the context. You are right to point that out.
Religious people aren't inherently genocidal. Their religion is. If you follow a book that says gay people must be put to death, you follow a homophobic book. Wether you actually believe that is up to you and God, but that's what is taught.
There are good religious people, they're the ones ignoring most of what their literature says.
I will say though, this is a great Sam Harris impression. Antisemitic Sam Harris is actually an interesting bit
Help me understand, and I actually mean this, this isn't a framing device for a dumb point though it looks like one. I mean this, I would rather be taught.
If the religious texts say genocidal stuff, why is it wrong to say if an institution believes in it, it believes in genocidal stuff? I can understand if sects qualify or revise it and I wouldn't call them that, but why is saying, for instance, "Christianism is homophobic" wrong when that is what the bible teaches? Again, if one church recontextualizes it, or says it was just Paul who said it, God is Love, fine, but can that sect speak for all Christianity when even in context the book preaches homophobia?
The main problem i have with this entire train of thought is that it's completely untethered from anything material and is therefore fundamentally wrong no matter what conclusions you're trying to draw. Well actually my main problem is that you're using this thinking to make (whether intentional or not) an anti-semtic conclusion which makes it way worse. But I'm going to focus on the first thing, because that's where i think where you're making a common mistake and stumbling into antisemitism.
Religion is a part of culture. Culture is an outgrowth of the base of society/system. The system itself is driven by material reality. Culture can work to reinforce and strengthen the system, in fact that's the main point of it, but it doesn't dictate the actions of the system. Colonialism, imperialism, genocide aren't caused by religion, anymore than they could be caused by a movie or a song.
This relationship is also why religions are malleable. Religions change and peoples relationship to them changes because they are in a subservient relationship to material drivers. The easiest thing to look at is the period of religious upheaval in Christianity coinciding with the emergence of capitalism (Protestant Reformation, 30 years War, English Civil War, development of Calvanism, etc.) - and the need for theology to either adapt to be compatible or become discarded.
The kind logic you're using is predicated on idealism the belief that ideas are the primary driver behind reality and actions. That applied to religion is the MO of nu athiest pseudointellectuals like Golden Girls fortune heir Sam Harris. He's known for making your exact same arguement but in an Islamophobic way - the target being Muslims and not Jews.
It's hard to understand how you don't get that saying Judaism is genocidal is incredibly antisemitic. But a lot of people repeated Harris's bullshit and claimed they weren't Islamophobic by hiding behind one hadith or another as proof that Muslims are evil. Some may not have understood. Harris may not have even really understand how rascist he is because is exceptionally stupid. So you might not mean it. If you don't want people to call you antisemitic you need to do a little self-criticism and examine what you really think and want to say here.
Thank you for the response.
That's the problem I have with it, how good it is at reinforcing and justifying hate. Yes, a movie or song also reinforces hatred (which, mind you, those should be shat on appropriately), but I think having your spiritual life tied to it makes specially good convincing people. People use it to justify what they already believe, yes, but I know people who take the bible at face and believe in things just because that's what's in there, I don't think it's purely a one way street.
I wouldn't be putting any effort if I weren't. It upsets me. Is it objectionable if what I say is uncritical, unqualified belief of the texts that preach genocide is itself genocidal belief?
Its not that complicated. Saying Judaism is genocidal is just like saying Islam is a religion of war. Its rascist.
I think you need to be careful with throwing around "choseness" in this way because this is the exact perversion of the Jewish concept of choseness set forth in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf. I'm not trying to let Judaism off the hook for its genuine reactionary and regressive components (particularly with respect to women and non-normative sexuality), but it really muddies the waters when you overlay it with full-throated anti-Jewish projection onto Judaism.
Not really? There is an in-group (Jews) and an out-group (non-Jews, or Gentiles). The same applies for all monotheistic religions in a way that doesn't gel with the fabric of polytheism. These concepts, over centuries and through different forms (especially Christianity for the "West") were used to subjugate people by creating these in-groups and out-groups (to the point that the earliest use of the star of David to highlight the Jewish population I know of was done in England by Simon De Montfort (though I'm not an expert)).
That legacy still exists today and the institutions of wealth and (especially in places like the UK & Iran) governance. It's a legacy of us vs them and colonialism that needs to be examined.
I mean, you just did it again. Wasn't Simon De Montfort a Christian Crusader who persecuted the Jews? You are taking an antisemitic interpretation of "choseness" applied in a Christian framework that was then used to persecute Jews with a "they started it" argument. Which is exactly what the PEZ and MK did when they framed choseness. Rabbinic Judiasm (which is Judaism following the Roman conquest) deems "choseness" to be chosen NOT to control other populations. The Noahite laws, which apply to everyone whether Jewish or not (in the Jewish religion), specifically command the non Jews to create fair governments that the Jews could live under as 1 of 7 requirements. The Jews are "chosen" to follow the more stringent 613 commandments, which include following the laws of the just governments of non-Jews. Just saying that it creates categories of people is not unique to monotheism (or religion - see "America First"). And I don't think it tracks that creating groups in any context necessarily leads to genocidal intent and practice.
You are conflating my criticism of monotheism with a direct criticism of Judaism. I am saying the core value of monotheism (i.e. there is one god and its the one I picked) has created a colonial mindset in all monotheistic religion. You're saying "I did it again", but I'm doing it for all. I mean the Arab conquests soon after Muhhamad's death is the same as well.
Monotheism, as an ideology, has stolen a lot from us in terms of ways of thinking, belief, and added division in its stead. This continues to be true in major geopolitical states including America, Israel, Iran, and many, many more countries.
deleted by creator
Quick what year is it??? Is it 2006 again? It feels like the worst time travel experiment ever
The irony is I'm not even an atheist. I've described a specific ideological problem I have with monotheism as a concept. Why does that upset you so badly? Why would that compel you to say someone doesn't belong?
deleted by creator
Being chronically online isn't a character trait. It's an addiction.
deleted by creator
I think you are trying too hard to conflate the colonial/genocidal mindset with monotheism when the evidence doesn't really support it. Was Ancient Rome not colonial and genocidal? Greece? Egypt? They also had slaves. They conquered everyone they could. The exterminated whole swaths of peoples. They didn't need monotheism to do that. You could argue that the legacy of those polytheistic societies (specifically Egypt for the ancient Jews, Rome for Christians) laid the groundwork for the same genocidal/colonial mindset. But the main point is that the colonial and genocidal mindset is easier to understand from a class/material analysis than one tied to any specific theology. The monotheist theologies were used as a tool to organize and mobilize populations because that was the easiest tool to grab and it was couched in a language that the populations already spoke, but polytheists and other non-monotheists are just as capable of using their theological tools to do the same. For a more modern example, see for example the relationship between Hindu and Buddhist sides over Sri Lanka. Neither are abrahamic monotheisms, yet the colonial and genocidal tendency and forces are still at work.
While I think that's interesting point, two things:
Destroyed swaths of people is dubious. Cultures, yes, men, yes, but peoples, no (hence the slaves but also why those lands were still administered by high ranking officials).
Essentially, I feel it's whataboutism. There's very good reason why it's said the Philippines was conquered by friars, the Crusades weren't caused by resources, and the age of Empire and the Atlantic slave trade were both back by the concept of monotheistic "other".
Just because other ideologies (and theologies) have negative kernels, it does not excuse the vast negative issues the have directly born out of monotheistic religion as an aspect of otherhood and a sense of colonisation or superiority. That does not make them the sole source (the concept of land ownership, for example, is a non-theistic ideology that is used to cause group division and destruction). We could also talk about Manifest Destiny, as a non-religious movement (though it did have large religious support), but it's not what I am talking about
Monotheism as it has manifested on the world stage has come with colonisation, destruction of old ideas, and entitled due to the other people being sinful heathens. It is a useful tool for the powerful (which is why we see the royal conversions in Europe, leading to internalised oppression of polytheistic beliefs). It is worth questioning.
deleted by creator
Nah didn't see your name on the door.
deleted by creator