Right-Wing Cranks and Israel
I think Josh Marshall is to some extent overthinking his analysis of Mike Huckabee’s claim that “generally Evangelicals are so much more supportive of Israel than the American Jewish community.” Everything he writes about Christian Zionist eschatology, the apocalypse, and Revisionist Zionism is true. But the larger truth is just that Evangelicals, on average, despite the fact that an intuitive reading of the Gospels points in a different direction, are just generally inclined toward an affection for violence, brutality, and authoritarianism.
If you look at support for executing felons or support for torturing terrorism suspects or support for launching aggressive wars, time and again you’ll see that white Evangelical Protestants are the leading proponents of violence as a solution to policy problems.
So if you totally ignore Israel, and just look at the “America debate” inside the United States you find that Evangelicals are much more inclined than Jews to believe that using the military to kill foreigners is a wise and moral approach to security issues. That’s not because Evangelicals are more “supportive of America” than Jews are, it’s because they’re more supportive of violence. Jews and Evangelicals, meanwhile, are both favorably disposed toward Israel. But “support for Israel” in the context of American political debates, is often glossed as meaning something like “proclivity to believe that killing Arabs is a wise and moral approach to security issues.” So it’s not really surprising that Evangelicals, who like violence, are more “supportive” than Jews who tend to be more skeptical of force.
[Obviously, this is all generalization; I know some Evangelical Christians who are pacifists, which is about what you would think a Christian would be if you read the Bible. But by-and-large the Evangelical self-identity correlates with hawkish opinions in the United States.]
108 Responses to “Right-Wing Cranks and Israel”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 21st, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Are you drunk or something?
August 21st, 2009 at 5:00 pm
This is an inappropriate comparison.
Evangelical christians vis a vis right wing jews or ultraorthodox jews or settler jews would be a better comparison. And the proclivity for violence would then be at least equal.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:01 pm
The Evangelical lust for violence is not confined to politics. Books on child-rearing by prominent fundamentalists like Dr. James Dobson all strongly endorse the use of corporal punishment, even on very small children. “Breaking the will” of the little demons is highly recommended.
If they’re happy to beat their own children into submission, why would they hesitate at torturing and executing strangers?
August 21st, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Matt, have you actually read the Bible? Sure, Jesus was the greatest pacifist of his time, perhaps all time. But almost everything else is very pro violence. Sunday School kids sing about the walls of Jericho falling down — Jericho was genocide.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Modern conservative evangelicals sure do love their smiting…
Reminds me of an article a while back (before the Iraq invasion) about how, at many of these Southern mega-churches, military music and imagery were part and parcel of sermons defending the invasion…
And now look who they’re calling fascist…
August 21st, 2009 at 5:04 pm
It’s Friday, it’s the doldrums of August, it’s slow at work, and I looking forward to reading the comments on this post.
And you thought my post in #17 at the “Baucus Slow Walks” post dropped the level of discourse, I suspect you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:04 pm
I know some Evangelical Christians who are pacifists, which is about what you would think a Christian would be if you read the Bible.
I’m not sure that this is necessarily the conclusion you’d come to from reading the Bible. You might also conclude that God gave the land of Israel to the Jews and told them to torment, forcibly circumcise, rape, and kill any other inhabitants of the promised land. And also that in order for Jesus to return in ass kicking, torturing and killing mode, the Jews need to all return to Israel. But that’s the sort of thing you get when you look to a bronze age text for moral guidance in the twenty-first century.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Evangelicals…are just generally inclined toward an affection for violence, brutality, and authoritarianism.
Welcome to the South?
August 21st, 2009 at 5:04 pm
And as for the “Gospels”, you need to reread Joshua and Deuteronomy.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Evangelical christians vis a vis right wing jews or ultraorthodox jews or settler jews would be a better comparison.
It’s interesting to note that many (most?) of the most rabidly militant Jewish settlers in Israel are immigrants from the United States.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:06 pm
What Ron said. Also, it occurred to me that I’d heard something about younger evangelicals being more liberal. Here’s the 1st result of my google search on this:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4269824&page=1
I realize nothing Matt said is actually in conflict with that, but thought it was worth mentioning. Also, bear in mind that Hector is not actually an evangelical, if I’m not mistaken.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Matt, no one in the mainstream of American politics “likes” violence. Some people think violence is necessary when others do not.
For example, Obama “liked violence” against Paki terrorists/civilians, inflicted with drone strikes, more than McCain did. Or Obama liked to inflict violence against a teenage pirate.
I agree with Obama in both of these instances-I don’t think it means he likes violence.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:11 pm
I have no doubt but that our previous president liked violence.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:13 pm
The Southern Baptist Convention was formed in defense of HUMAN SLAVERY.
In defense of the idea that human beings are FARM ANIMALS.
To be beaten till they dropped, tortured and killed with impunity, bred so their offspring could be sold at auction.
Do you think anything has changed in 150 years? Other than under duress, that is.
Evangelical preachers who preach “prosperity doctrine ” — i.e, for why they should live in million dollar homes and drive Mercedes — are just following the long tradition of whoring for the rich guys who drop the thick packets into the collection plate.
This subculture has revived in the past 20 years because it is a way to circumvent campaign finance laws. To launder money. Buy propaganda. The pulpit is a one way broadcast from God, brother.
I grew up in the South. I KNOW these two-faced motherfuckers.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:15 pm
In fairness to Matt, I think he was referring to the New Testament, not the Hebrew Bible. And the New Testament is generally less violent. Until you get to Revelation, of course. But even before you get to Revelation, it’s not entirely pacifist either. Consider this from Matthew:
“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother…”
Not exactly pacifist, is it? And Jesus wasn’t kidding, as his incident with the money changers demonstrates. Jesus was way cool, but I think it’s a misinterpretation to say he was a pacifist.
That said, I look forward to Hector’s take on this.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:15 pm
vis-a-vis Islamic Fundamentalists.
The one thing in common that the fundamentalists of the Abrahamic religious have in common is a procivity to see/use violence as a remedy.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:15 pm
It’s curious that so many Jews can attend seder year after year and never reflect on just what “passover” means or, better yet, what it meant for the Egyptian children.
Not that other religions are less selective in their choice of emphasis.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:19 pm
There are genuine men of God in the South, as elsewhere. But they don’t own their own TV stations and drive Mercedes. They don’t have a pot to piss in.
Because they follow the words of Jesus in Matthew 25 and whatever they receive they use to succor the poor, the sick, the elderly and the oppressed. I deeply respect them.
But the Baptist Church has no hierarchy. WHich is tailormade for con men evading accountability. Creating cults.
In my opinion, people like Pat Robertson. Rev John Hagee.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:19 pm
@2: That’s the whole point. American Jews are a heterogeneous group that don’t all have this kind of religious preference for violence that evangelicals (generally) have. So evangelicals poll further right than Jews on this issue even though it is, apparently, a Jewish issue – not because the rest of the Jews want to kill all the Jews in Israel (some may think founding Israel was a bad idea, but I doubt they’d embrace mass murder as a solution), but because they’re more likely to prefer nonviolent solutions to Israel’s problems.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:19 pm
And as for the “Gospels”, you need to reread Joshua and Deuteronomy.
Neither of which are Gospels–just sayin’.
But I’d sugggest that the evangelical proclivity toward violence may be an artifact of the high correlation between evangelical affiliation and white southern ethnicity. Lord knows I’m not keen on white southern stereotyping, but my friend John Shelton Reed long ago came up with statistical evidence that white southerners are more comfortable than other Americans with the notion that violence is an efficacious approach to solving a wide variety of problems. This attitude may be justified biblically, but it isn’t drawn from it–otherwise you’d see it more among Jews, who revere Joshua and Deuteronomy and not the Gospels. Another old friend, Bertram Wyatt-Brown, sees it as rooted in the old ethic of “honor,” which he sees as distinct from, and even opposed, to, the classic evangelical mindset. I think there’s something to that.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:19 pm
“Also, bear in mind that Hector is not actually an evangelical, if I’m not mistaken.”
Hector is more traditional Anglican, certainly not an Evangelical. But he does know his Bible, so his take should be good.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Matt’s certainly got a bee in his bonnet today. However, I do think that what Huckabee said was ridiculous, bordering on farcical. How someone like that has their opinions entertained as mainstream is beyond me.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:23 pm
It’s southerners, not evangelicals or fundamentalists per se that like violence. They had the southern core of honor, settling things through the gun. Even purification through violence. Remember the Civil War? Fundamentalists are predominately located in southern and border states (and Utah, the exception that proves the rule). Authoritarians prefer both fundamentalism and settling things through violence, and they live in the South because of the traditions of the people who predominantly settled the South during colonial times.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:23 pm
@16: Is it limited to the Abrahamic religions? I could have sworn there were fundamentalist Buddhists, too. (Yes, that’s even more contradictory of their founder’s teachings than violent Christians are, because as already pointed out here, Jesus was kinda inconsistent on that point.)
AFAIK, no one has yet come up with fundamentalist Taoism. That would be a real mindbender.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Matthew 25:41-46
” Then He will say also to those on the left, Go away from Me, you who are cursed, into the 1aeternal fire 2prepared for the devil and his bangels.
42 For I was hungry and you did not give Me anything to eat; I was thirsty and you did not give Me a drink;
43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in; naked and you did not clothe Me; sick and in prison, and you did not visit Me.
44 Then they also will answer, saying, Lord, when have we seen You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not minister to You?
45 Then He will answer them, saying, Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you 1did not do it to one of the least of these, neither have you done it to aMe.
46 And these shall go away into eternal 1punishment, but the 2righteous 3ainto eternal life. ”
————-
Tell me where Huckabee saw “Fuck the Palestinians” in that.
Tell me where Jesus said to give the Likud F16s so that they could bomb Gaza in the middle of the night and kill children.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:25 pm
There are two weird things about this post. First, though you’re usually thorough suddenly you base an entire generalization on Huckabee, Dobson and unsubstantiated claims. The premise could be correct, but usually you take the time to support claims like this.
Secondly, evangelicals account for a little more 25% of Americans per our friend Wikipedia. So that’s about 80m people. So saying that evangelicals are anything at all it difficult business. I may as well say that you obviously supported an interventionist war, tax cuts for the rich and vast expansions to the executive branch because you’re an American and Americans elected Cheney and Bush twice.
There are certainly loud factions in the evangelical movement that push for the death penalty, Israeli settlement expansion and all sorts of other odd policies. But to haphazardly lump all evangelicals under that same banner—especially when these views are all part of mainline Republican ideology—seems overly casual for such a usually diligent writer.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Yeah, cuz evangelicals have so much influence over the media.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:26 pm
@19-
Evangelicals are a subset of Christians
Ultraorthodox are a subset of Jews
August 21st, 2009 at 5:28 pm
As I have stated on several occasions, anybody who thinks that the Quran is a singular recipe for violence should read the Hebrew bible which is just as bad if not worse. The problem here is that some evangelicals take the Hebrew bible more seriously then Roman Catholics or mainline Protestants. And Mr. fostert is correct, the Book of Revelations in the Christian bible is no picnic either. By the way, Mr. Hector is a member of the Anglican Communion.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Hard to think about this without noting the Evangelical defense of slavery (and unprecedented violence to sustain it) in the Confederacy.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Hi Matt,
This
“Evangelicals…are just generally inclined toward an affection for violence, brutality, and authoritarianism.”
seems way too strong. Also not necessary to explain the phenomenon.
It is more plausible that what Evangelicals are “generally inclined toward” (as long as we are engaging in such sweeping generalizations) is the thought that *revenge* (as both an emotion and an action) is highly appropriate in response to injury, and should be encouraged. All of the examples you cite are nicely explained as outgrowths of a thought that revenge is an essential component of justice itself (by contrast to the idea that one attains justice only when the desire for revenge is wholly overcome, or else procedurally excluded– say, by insisting that the judge have no personal interest in the case).
Tracing the matter to the valorization of revenge has the added advantage that, at least arguably, that attitude is credibly attributable to the underlying Christian ideology. Perhaps the most notorious example of that argument is due to Nietzsche (Genealogy of Morality). By contrast, your characterization, as you note, forces us to simply accept the paradox of a movement devoted to an ideology of love and forgiveness but a practice at odds with it. The revenge account *explains* why the ideology is likely to produce this result, in spite of the official “religion of love” line…
Lanier
August 21st, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Re Don Williams
I don’t know what we would do without the blogs resident Bolshevik. In this respect, I would note the actions of Hamas against Al Quada elements in the Gaza Strip. Unlike the pantywaists in the IDF, Hamas took a page from the Hafaz Assad playbook and applied Hama rules to the Al Quada terrorists, teaching them a lesson they won’t soon forget. They didn’t worry about collateral damage, just wiped out everybody and left it to god to sort ‘em out.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:33 pm
I read Robert Wright’s “The Evolution of God” a while back. It is a brief exegesis of the Abrahamic religions with some philosophy thrown in. MattY could learn some things from it.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Evangelicals are a subset of Christians
Great. And Christians are a subset of religious people, who are a subset of people, who are a subset of mammals…. The starting point was evangelicals because they’re the group that is to the right of Jewish America in vocal support for Israel. No word yet on how dolphins feel about the issue.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:35 pm
“It’s southerners, not evangelicals or fundamentalists per se that like violence. They had the southern core of honor, settling things through the gun. Even purification through violence. Remember the Civil War? Fundamentalists are predominately located in southern and border states (and Utah, the exception that proves the rule).”
I agree, in the South its more about honor (just like with Islam). The South was Feudal, unlike the capitalist North. In colonial times they’d have duels, like Burr and Hamilton.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:36 pm
August 21st, 2009 at 5:41 pm
@34-
You don’t understand that if you compare a subset of one religion (Christianity) with a subset of another religion (Judaism), you find roughly the same proclivity for violence?
And if you compare all Chrstians to all Jews, you also have roughly the same result (less violent)?
August 21st, 2009 at 5:43 pm
I agree, in the South its more about honor (just like with Islam). The South was Feudal, unlike the capitalist North. In colonial times they’d have duels, like Burr and Hamilton.
Gawd knows I love me some Southern bashing, but I suspect honor cultures are pretty complicated things, and that things don’t reduce so easily. Actually, if anyone knows a good reference work, particularly one that treats the South, I’d be curious to know the name of it.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Look fellas, any Zionist is a despicable right-wing crank and racist scum, regardless of their religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and country of origin. Indigenous people in Palestine have the right to self-determination, and it’s an absolute and fundamental right. Is this so complicated?
August 21st, 2009 at 5:46 pm
I agree, in the South its more about honor (just like with Islam). The South was Feudal, unlike the capitalist North. In colonial times they’d have duels, like Burr and Hamilton.
Burr and Hamilton dueled in Weehawken, New Jersey.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:46 pm
You don’t understand that if you compare a subset of one religion (Christianity) with a subset of another religion (Judaism), you find roughly the same proclivity for violence?
Matt’s not comparing religious groups. I have no idea what evangelicals in England are like; certainly Matt makes no reference to them. It looks like he’s comparing (for lack of a better word) two cultural groups: Jewish Americans and Evangelical Americans.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:47 pm
“I could have sworn there were fundamentalist Buddhists, too.”
Yes, but Sri Lanka is really the only example I can come up with. And it’s a good one, with Hindu temples being burned down and and Tamil minority being slaughtered. Maybe you could make a case for Pol Pot, as he was a Buddhist monk in his early years. But nearly every male was a monk at some point in the Cambodia of his day. And he pretty much converted to a religious form of Maoism. I’d say he was no more Buddhist than Stalin was Christian.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:48 pm
“This “Evangelicals…are just generally inclined toward an affection for violence, brutality, and authoritarianism.”
seems way too strong. Also not necessary to explain the phenomenon.”
I think it’s the best thing Matt’s ever written.
“It’s southerners, not evangelicals or fundamentalists per se that like violence.”
Well, that sure explains all the militia activity in Michigan, Idaho and Montana then.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:49 pm
And Hamilton is probably the founding father that’s least fit to be compared to caricature of the modern American south.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:52 pm
In colonial times they’d have duels, like Burr and Hamilton.
Poptarts, it might interest you to know that both Burr and Hamilton were New Yorkers. This southern honor culture stuff is horseshit. The Brits had an honor culture that went just as deep and lasted just as long. They killed a lot of people too, but is anyone trying to argue today that they are in inherently violent people?
This thread should be about bashing the religious (both Christians and Jews) not southerners! Come on, people!
August 21st, 2009 at 5:53 pm
…two cultural groups: Jewish Americans and Evangelical Americans.
What does it mean exactly – that they listen to different music and like different kinds of food? So, what do the Jewish Americans do: listen to Hava Nagila and eat matza? This is sooo stupid.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:53 pm
@38-
“Albion’s Seed” by David hackett Fischer.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Cripes, didn’t you guys read the posts? Matt didn’t make the comparison between American Jews and American Evangelicals vis a vis their support for Israel, Huckabee did. Matt is merely noting the ridiculousness of this and how it reflects the fact that support for Israel is equated with support Israeli violence in our media.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Re Tim at 38: “Actually, if anyone knows a good reference work, particularly one that treats the South, I’d be curious to know the name of it.”
————
Albion’s Seed, David Hackett Fischer re the Scotch-Irish.
Jim Webb’s book was a pale imitation.
KKK’s Burning Cross originally was a battle signal on Scottish border.
Your clan chief may be an evil, greedy motherfucker but you still back him and the clan against those foreigners over in the next valley.
Oh — and don’t put a lot of effort into building a house — because some fucker will just come along and burn it down. A mobile home is good enough.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Seems like a good time to review the Holy Hand grenade of Antioch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOrgLj9lOwk
August 21st, 2009 at 5:57 pm
The key word is intuitive reading. Certainly if you really want to you can work non-pacifism into the Gospels, but it says more about you than it does Jesus–you just have to explain away too many love-thy-enemies and other-cheeks and peace-makers. The pacifist case isn’t entirely simple either, but the number of asterisks they have to apply to the text is much smaller.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:57 pm
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion%27s_Seed for an overview.
August 21st, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Actually, this line from Poptarts is even more objectionable than the misidentification of Burr and Hamilton as southerners:
The South was Feudal, unlike the capitalist North.
No, the south was not feudal. It was a plantation oligarchy with a small white ruling class, a large slave population and a large free, dirt-poor white population.
You’re trying to imply that this supposed culture of honor and violence stems from the long history of the white ruling class. But the group that people like you like to bash are the descendants of the dirt poor free white class. Were the Tennessee mountain folk supposed to have somehow picked up notions of honor from the slave-owning overlords of the gulf coast? This is idiotic.
August 21st, 2009 at 6:02 pm
44
And Burr is probably the closest, and yet he was born and raised in NY IIRC.
August 21st, 2009 at 6:02 pm
“In colonial times they’d have duels, like Burr and Hamilton.”
Burr and Hamilton were both residents of New York City, Burr being a native of New Jersey and Hamilton growing up in the West Indies, and who came to Boston and then New York as a young man. Neither of them can even remotely be perceived as Southern. Both were (sort of) opponents of slavery.
August 21st, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Certainly if you really want to you can work non-pacifism into the Gospels, but it says more about you than it does Jesus
Actually, what it says is that the Bible has enough contradictions in it that you can interpret it to say just about anything. Love thy neighbor! Thou shalt not kill! Smite the Philistines! May the Jews burn in eternal Hell!
August 21st, 2009 at 6:08 pm
My favorite is Jesus as a hardcore Capitalist.
Pray to Jesus and he will help you make money. Pray to Jesus and your business will grow. Jesus wants you to succeed and become rich. Pray to Jesus.
Now, if you are pastor pushing this nonsense on your “flock” you better make sure none of them read the Gospels. Cut those four sections right out. Do what the Catholic churches do and hide the bibles. Jesus wasn’t always clear about everything, in fact he could be downright obtuse, but he was absolutely crystal clear on one topic, wealth; if you are rich or spend your time trying to acquire wealth during life, upon death you will be given a one way ticket on a high speed locomotive heading straight into eternal hellfires.
Jesus got pissed off exactly once, when he encountered Capitalists working in what he considered a sacred place. Jesus could and would forgive almost anyone, except unrepentant bankers and Capitalists.
August 21st, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Indeed, I agree with Matt.
August 21st, 2009 at 6:18 pm
“The pacifist case isn’t entirely simple either, but the number of asterisks they have to apply to the text is much smaller.”
I’d agree, but let’s face it, pacifism and war mongering aren’t the only options. Most of us fall in between. I would describe Jesus as “peaceful, yet pragmatic.” The nature of humanity is such that violence is sometimes necessary to achieve peace. Jesus was wise enough to recognize that. And yes, there is an inconsistency here, but it occurs in every religion. The Buddha sometimes advocated war. But only if it would bring to power a “wheel turning monarch.” In all religions, it is considered acceptable for a righteous leader to use violence to defeat an oppressive leader.
August 21st, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Yes technically Burr and Hamilton weren’t from the South, but they were of the colonial culture that derived from a European culture that still had feudal vestiges. The North evolved out of it because of capitalism, the South, less so.
August 21st, 2009 at 7:39 pm
It ain’t necessarily so…
It ain’t necessarily so…
Things that you’re liable
To read in the Bible…
It ain’t necessarily so.
Seems appropriate here, somehow.
Words attributed to a Depression-era Charleston dope-peddler, written by a descendant of a signer of the Declaration of Independence (and slave owner), and turned into a classic American folk opera by a couple of Jewish brothers whose parents came from Russia.
Yup, that’s an odd collection of folks, but they all knew something about the misuse of religion to oppress people. Even the guy who was, you know, fictional.
August 21st, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Fostert-
Yes, but Sri Lanka is really the only example I can come up with.
There are also some rather notorious examples of Zen nationalists in 1930’s Japan which come to mind. And the Lamaist traditions in both Tibet and Mongolia have always harboured strong fundamentalist strains.
August 21st, 2009 at 8:05 pm
there is a strong hindu fundamentalist streak, too, and it is distinctly political, or at least has been since last century. Shinto is not a bad example of another non-Abrahamic religion that was militaristic and violent to a remarkable extent (Pearl Harbor, remember?).
the key is Fundamentalism, or hard-core Orthodoxy–jewish, protestant, catholic, hindu, muslim, whatever.
the very religious tend to think they are on god’s side (this comes of being SO religious that they know they are more vituous than the ‘other guys” whoever they are), with God on their side, they know they can’t be faulted for their fervor, even maybe an occasssional excess of zeal, maybe more than occassional.
this certainty that one is right, more right than any who would oppose your position (which after all, is what you see as God’s position) on some matter, leads easily to an arrogance that places one above the usual rules of right or wrong. soon not only is violent defense of the faith allowed, it comes to be seen as essential, as one’s duty. fighting against those people who oppose god is fighting against evil. how can anyone expect much restraint in such a case?
the arrogance is especially interesting in any who read the Bible, since Pride is the first deadly sin. it was the pride that led Adam and Eve to believe they could make their own rules that led to their downfall and expulsion from the Garden. (no, it wasn’t lust. it was proud disobedience. read it again.)
moral certainty can be more dangerous than almost anything when not tempered by some humility, and religious fanatics–oops sorry, fundamentalists–are the proof of the pudding.
August 21st, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Out of curiosity, I’d like to hear them. I was under the impression that by then the state religion had become Shintoism, which certainly was not pacifist. Japan seems to be a weird blend of Shinto and Buddhist. Not to mention, the controlling elite often cynically use religion for their own ends, not necessarily following the tenets set by the founders.
August 21st, 2009 at 8:29 pm
“It’s curious that so many Jews can attend seder year after year and never reflect on just what “passover” means or, better yet, what it meant for the Egyptian children.”
People don’t think about lots of things, but for the record its not for lack of trying. There’s a whole portion of the seder where you spill wine on the plate for each of the plagues, thats supposed to remind you that the egyptians were god’s children too, etc, etc. Why is it that religion is one of those things that people always feel like ignorance is no barrier to their absurd generalizations.
August 21st, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Gott mit uns!
One needs to look again at Sharlet’s chapter on “jesus Plus Nothing’ in The Family if you want to understand some of the twists and turns in Christian fundamentalism that are now emerging full strength today. Look at Abram Vereide, the Norwegian founder of The Family and his dreams of wedding power, wealth and Christ with aggression…
August 21st, 2009 at 8:36 pm
“People don’t think about lots of things, but for the record its not for lack of trying. There’s a whole portion of the seder where you spill wine on the plate for each of the plagues, thats supposed to remind you that the egyptians were god’s children too, etc, etc. Why is it that religion is one of those things that people always feel like ignorance is no barrier to their absurd generalizations.”
At least in the sedar’s I’ve been to, the wine-spilling ceremony was always a celebratory thing. I mean, the participants tended to joyously scream “Amen!” after the recitation of each plague.
There are sections of the sedar that are a little more humanistic, but I think you might have misinterpreted that particular part.
August 21st, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Hey, Jeremy, to be honest this was something I myself only vaguely remembered hearing something about somewhere or other…so I googled it. Here is the fruit of my googling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War
August 21st, 2009 at 8:42 pm
i also was always struck, no appalled, at the moment in the seder when it became clear (I had to learn this more than once as a kid) that what we were celebrating was that god had killed all the innocent little first born babies of the other guys (oh! i realized years later–arabs!).
as time went on i would mention this notion to various friends, especially jewish friends, and they always said they had not thought of it that way. We are very poor observers of our own iniquities although we are usually pretty thorough students of the other guys’.
August 21st, 2009 at 8:46 pm
“There are also some rather notorious examples of Zen nationalists in 1930’s Japan which come to mind.”
Hmm, I tend to think that those folk were more nationalist than fundamentalist. But it certainly speaks to the unfortunate reality that religion does little to deter our worst tendencies.
“And the Lamaist traditions in both Tibet and Mongolia have always harboured strong fundamentalist strains.”
Now there’s an interesting thought. I guess it really gets down to what “fundamentalism” is. The Vajrayana tradition largely rejects the older Theraveda tradition. And it has a long tradition of vigorous philosophical debate. At the same time, its followers tend to be very devout. But their devotion is largely to a rejection of dogma and finding a Middle Way. Although there is a lot of ritual in the practice, and one could easily question whether ritual is consistent with the Middle Way. I guess that could be seen as fundamentalist. But one thing that is missing is a desire to convert others into the religion. But the conversion issue is more normally associated with evangelism rather than fundamentalism. I don’t know, and I’ve spent a lot of time on Tibetan refugee camps. I will say this, the Tibetans are usually very peaceful. But not always.
August 21st, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Jeremy -
goddogo is on the right track. Brian “Daizen” Victoria’s seminal book Zen at War is the best available source on the role Zen nationalists played in pre-WWII Japan. Long story short: in the post restoration period Zen schools–under intense critical pressure from Shinto sects and desperate to prove their inherently Japanese character and assuage any doubts as to their fundamental loyalties–became hyper-nationalistic and tended to overemphasise the bushido elements of their lineage.
For instance,
“If ordered to march: tramp, tramp or shoot: bang, bang. This is the manifestation of the highest wisdom of enlightenment. The unity of Zen and war … extends to the farthest reaches of the holy war now under way.”
Zen Master Harada Daiun Sogaku – 1939
The Soto school didn’t officially apologize for its wartime activities until the nineties and the Rinzai in 2001.
It is also worth noting that in the post-war period the Zen
schools have often been supporters of strong anti-modern movements within the conservative politcal parties.
August 21st, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Okay, I can’t help it, I have to put on the historian hat.
Right, but you know who started the international anti slavery movement? Mostly a bunch of American and British evangelicals. Nobody else ever got further than making vague noises about how slavery really was kind of an unfortunate thing and they hoped it would end someday. Evangelicals weren’t unanimous about this stuff, other one’s thought slavery was divinely sanctioned. It was, you know, complicated.
August 21st, 2009 at 9:06 pm
fostert -
Suffice it to say that categories like “fundamentalist,” which have rather unambiguous meaning within the Abrahamic faiths, don’t translate so easily to a Buddhistic milieu. As for the Tibetans, I guess what I had in mind was the political role the Lamaist priesthood served in both Tibet and Mongolia.
August 21st, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Oh…sorry about the damn linking faux pas.
August 21st, 2009 at 9:12 pm
I don’t think I’m wrong about this,
http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/169,2202336/Why-do-we-pour-wine-out-of-the-cup-at-the-Seder.html
and the hagaddah’s I’ve used make a big point about how we shouldn’t rejoice about our enemies dying. I think there’s also a bit about god telling the angels not to sing and rejoice when he drowns the egyptian army. Like many parts of the old testament its reasonable to wonder about the justice of all of this, but there is a pretty signficant strain of rabbinical thought, it would seem, trying to deal with this issue.
August 21st, 2009 at 9:18 pm
“If ordered to march: tramp, tramp or shoot: bang, bang. This is the manifestation of the highest wisdom of enlightenment. The unity of Zen and war … extends to the farthest reaches of the holy war now under way.”
Hmm, maybe I was wrong. I guess I should have seen that coming. After all, the Bodhidharma is credited with developing Shaolin Kungfu.
August 21st, 2009 at 10:33 pm
“Escariot” was not Judas’ last name. It was a title earned by assassinating a Roman official. Three of the apostles are believed to have earned the title.
The Prince of Peace was born on paper long after the messianic revolutionary named Jesus died.
August 21st, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Re: That said, I look forward to Hector’s take on this.
My take is that a hipster agnostic like Mr. Yglesias is perhaps not the best person to be bloviating on just what ‘an intuitive reading of the Gospels’ entails, any more then I would be the most fair minded intepreter of the life of Gloria Steinem. As this thread has been relatively more civilized than the usual sniping from the Yglesian peanut gallery, I will be more restrained in my responses as well.
Our Lord was very definitley not a pacifist. For example, He says, “To him who conquers, and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations, and he shall rule them with a rod of iron; even as the vessels of a potter shall they be shattered to shivers, and I will give him the morning star.” (Revelation 2:26). Which was in one sense, a prophecy of the Christianization of the Roman Empire under Constantine, but also a more general acknowledgement that the use of force can be licit for Christian states. It is also said, in St. John’s Revelation, “Reward [Babylon] as she rewarded you; fill her a double draught in the cup that she filled”, again sanctioning the use of violence against the forces of political evil in the world (Nazis, Klansmen, the Bolivian opposition, and the like). And too, “He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity; he that slays with the sword, with the sword shall he be slain”. This is not necessarily limited to Revelation, but is implicit in the Gospels too. We have the following parable, “And the master said to the slave, go out in the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled”, sanctioning the use of force in the cause of justice and charity. We have the following parable sanctioning the violent response to evil when necessary: “And those mine enemies, who would not that I rule over them, bring them out and slay them before me”. Finally we have the fact that neither Jesus not St. John the Baptist ever condemned soldiers for what they were doing: in fact Christ said of the centurion, in essence, “I have not seen faith like this in Israel”.
The use of violence can be licit, and obligatory, when it is necessary to achieve the ends of justice and charity and to overthow a tyrannous system, when it is sanctioned by some kind of licit authority beyond the mere individual, and when it is proportionate and directed primarily against the offenders themselves (political leaders, enemy soldiers, agents of a tyranny, etc.) It would not be just when waged simply to gain territory: this would forbid, for example, an Israeli war to annex Gaza, or Syria, or for that matter a Christian effort to reconquer Turkey or Syria. This is the basis of the well known just war theory. Fostert puts it well: he was neither a pacifist nor a warmonger.
Buddhism has, incidentally, been interpreted as a militant faith on certain occasions: most notably in Sri Lanka since the 1960s, but also at certain points in Tibetan and Mongolian history, and I think by some strains in Japanese culture as well. Japan was as much a Buddhist culture as a Shinto one.
The American South was about as much a feudal society as the late and unlamented Jesse Helms was a nice guy. The system of slavery as it developed in the American South was about money and greed, and was capitalist to its bl**dy core, and I do literally mean “bl**dy”.
And yes, I am a member of the Anglican Communion, and consider evangelicalism as much a grave error as theological liberalism.
August 21st, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Re: “Escariot” was not Judas’ last name. It was a title earned by assassinating a Roman official. Three of the apostles are believed to have earned the title.
What the F*ck?
“Iscariot” means “of the town of Kerioth”. I am not aware this has been seriously disputed.
August 21st, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Anan Sudonomos,
I don’t think ‘fundamentalist’ is the same as ‘the belief that Church and State should be tightly interdependant and connected’. Many traditional Catholic and Orthodox, and some Anglican thinkers held the latter belief, but they cannot be classified as fundamentalists (i.e. biblical literalists, or believers that scripture is the only source of truth). The word you want is ‘integralist’.
You are free to dislike integralists, but please don’t confuse them with what they are not.
August 21st, 2009 at 10:56 pm
““Escariot” was not Judas’ last name.”
Iscariot has another possible origin, “Kerioth” being the name of two towns and possibly a region. So it could be something like ‘Judas of Kerioth’. Nonetheless, nobody had last names around there until the first world war. Most names just had a nickname, or son of so-and-so, or from someplace at the end. Thus, Ataturk was born “Mustafa,” given the nickname “Kemal” (meaning ‘perfection’), and then took on Ataturk (’father of the Turks’) when he forced everyone else to take on family names. And force he did. Ataturk was a classic example of a fundamentalist Westernist. Changing the alphabet, the calender and everyone’s names is pretty nuts. Add on banning the Fez, the Hijab, and sex discrimination, and his Western fundamentalism was more radical then much of the West. Women got the right to vote in 1934. Later than the US obviously, but still earlier than many European nations. That’s pretty crazy.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:05 pm
“The word you want is ‘integralist’.”
Hear, hear! Man, that’s the word I’ve always been looking for. I had a great conversation with a Salafi scholar and it was interesting that while he was clearly a fundamentalist, he also believed to nobody should be compelled to follow his beliefs. Allah does not come to you, you must come to Him. And that’s why I’ve felt that we need clearer definitions of these words. Fortunately, there was Hector to the rescue.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:18 pm
“My take is that a hipster agnostic like Mr. Yglesias is perhaps not the best person…”
Now that’s what I’m talking about! And we agree again! This is getting less rare for some reason. I think the Catholic concept of Just War Theory is really spot on. Of all religions, I think they really came up with the right answer. Too bad nobody listens to them on that. Is there an Anglican variation? Or is it the same? Inquiring minds want to know.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:32 pm
“Japan was as much a Buddhist culture as a Shinto one.”
That’s true, but Japan also seems to take a “cafeteria style” approach. Shintoism alone has a lot of Buddhist, Confucist, Taoist, and Animist influences. Mix that with Christianity, newer forms of Buddhism (not Zen), and the random new Asian religions springing up, and well, I would call it a mixed bag. It’s a practical approach to religion. Take what you want out of all of them. I suspect you and I would have different feelings about that, but that’s better for later.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:36 pm
@78 Hector: “Our Lord was very definitley not a pacifist. For example, He says, “To him who conquers, and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations, and he shall rule them with a rod of iron; even as the vessels of a potter shall they be shattered to shivers, and I will give him the morning star.” (Revelation 2:26).”
Hector, come on, Revelation? If you include Revelation then yes, Jesus was the baddest motherfucker who ever lived on the planet -if you consider living as an immortal God living on the planet.
According to Revelation Jesus is going slaughter, single handed, billions of humans. So in that context, your right, he certainly is no pacifist. In fact, Jesus is the ultimate mass murderer.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:45 pm
My understanding is that Shinto is the “national” religion, sort of ancestor worship. You are then free to add to it. Yakasuni (the war shrine) is Shinto, and I think ceremonies related to the Emperor or of a national nature are Shinto.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:47 pm
That should be “Yasukuni”
August 22nd, 2009 at 12:38 am
“If you include Revelation then yes, Jesus was the baddest motherfucker who ever lived on the planet”
No, he was a bad ass before that. He kicked the money changers’ ass and gave their money to the people. And that was considered a criminal act. Hell, that would be be a felony like bank robbery here and now. And that’s a federal offense. And you really don’t want to mess with the Feds. Oddly enough, if you pull that stunt here in the US, you’d get a lifetime sentence. What would you get for petty theft? Well, the guy next to Jesus got crucifixion for it. Jesus did a lot more than petty theft. Has anyone ever considered the possibility that Jesus was simply killed for his criminal behavior? And I’m not trying to dis him, I’ve been prone to criminal behavior myself. It’s justified sometimes. Someone rapes your daughter? I can see why you’d kill that person. But you have to pay too. Killing people ain’t cool, either. Violence is unavoidable, but less of it would be nice.
August 22nd, 2009 at 12:49 am
“It’s justified sometimes.”
Rarely so, I’d add. If an old Jewish man who survived Auschwitz shoots a an old man who was a guard there, I’ll let it slide. But an eye for an eye cannot work. Strangely enough that’s actually what Salomon meant. He put that at a maximum punishment, not at minimum.
August 22nd, 2009 at 1:05 am
the persecuted have become the persecutors.
August 22nd, 2009 at 1:08 am
“the persecuted have become the persecutors.”
They always do.
August 22nd, 2009 at 1:24 am
And when you look at what was really happening in the Temple, you can clearly see that it was a crime (usury). The Temple took a take on the money changers’ take on your money. And paid the Romans their cut. You can see why Jesus would be upset by this. Three level usury is violating the laws of the day in a rather extreme way. Jesus called them on it. Surprised someone wanted to kill him?
August 22nd, 2009 at 1:56 am
“Surprised someone wanted to kill him?”
Challenge the money, and your life will be short. Consider the Buddha and Jesus. Jesus went into Jerusalem and challenged the authorities. The Buddha never set foot in Varanasi. He challenged whether the current system was realistic, but he never challenged their authority. He just became more respected.
August 22nd, 2009 at 4:09 am
“He just became more respected.”
And I don’t mean to disparage Jesus in any way. His antics got him killed at a fairly young age. So he didn’t get to say as much. The Buddha avoided such dangerous situations, so he lived a lot longer. Thus, he had more teachings. Add another fifty years, and maybe someone might say more. Who’d have thought someone might learn something in fifty years?
August 22nd, 2009 at 4:24 am
“Who’d have thought someone might learn something in fifty years?”
That in itself is an interesting challenge to the Buddha. If he knew everything, then how did he learn? It turns out, he really did have answer. He only knew all that ever was, he didn’t know the future. The future always happens, so there’s always something to learn.
August 22nd, 2009 at 7:33 am
..Jews who tend to be more skeptical of force.
I doubt that there are too many Jews who will appreciate what Tarantino has done in “Inglourious Bastards”. At the finish of the matinee I saw, there was ghoulish cheering and appreciative clapping for the 2.5 hours of head-bashing with baseball bats, carving swastikas in foreheads, mass incinerations, etc., and the crowd did not look Jewish to me.
August 22nd, 2009 at 8:07 am
Re: Someone rapes your daughter? I can see why you’d kill that person. But you have to pay too. Killing people ain’t cool, either.
Well, the real question is not whether YOU should kill the fellow who rapes your daughter, but whether the state should do so after a fair trial. If your daughter is a child, I would say it should be considered.
Re: Has anyone ever considered the possibility that Jesus was simply killed for his criminal behavior?
If you accept the Gospel accounts as truthful, Jesus was executed (depending on your point of view) either for treason or for blasphemy, but not for turning over the tables in the Temple.
Re: Hector, come on, Revelation?
Er, yes, it is divinely inspired (though allegorical) writing by an Apostle which includes DOminical sayings, and as such it must be taken seriously.
August 22nd, 2009 at 10:47 am
The problem with talking about Jesus is that people often cite the Gospels which were written well after the events portrayed and are subject to intense editorial/ theological review. The authors had the choice to portray Jesus as they wished. This tendency begins with Paul, the foremost Christian theologian of the Jesus group. Recall that Paul never met Jesus in everday life, having converted post- crucification. Rather, Paul communes with a divine Jesus in various heavens that he travels to. So Jesus was to him, whatever he said Jesus was.
A great source to explore this aspect of textual analysis of Jesus is “James the Brother of Jesus” by Eisenman. Eisenman explores textual support for St James as a way at getting at the ‘real’ Jesus.
Taking this back to the post- Jesus may have been a violent religious revolutionary (think Masada, the Jewish Revolt, David bar Kochba) which you can make loose connections to Zionism and fundamentalists everywhere, and that the Jesus people are usually refering to is whatever they want him to be, a figment of their creation, and those weaving before them.
August 22nd, 2009 at 12:05 pm
There’s an old song from the Louvin Brothers called “The Weapon of Prayer”. I first heard in on the Notting Hillbillies recording, but it has fairly mind-expanding lyrics.
http://www.elyrics.net/read/n/notting-hillbillies-lyrics/weapon-of-prayer-lyrics.html
It takes a certain deep-seated comfort with justifying violence to come up with the notion of prayer as a weapon.
August 22nd, 2009 at 12:48 pm
“Yes technically Burr and Hamilton weren’t from the South, but they were of the colonial culture that derived from a European culture that still had feudal vestiges. The North evolved out of it because of capitalism, the South, less so.”
Hamilton especially was not only a leading capitalist himself, Hamilton was the prime mover bar none behind the structures of American capitalism in his time (and ours). Both Burr and Hamilton founded banks which survive to this day (Hamilton in the Bank of New York, Burr in the Bank of Manhattan).
August 22nd, 2009 at 12:59 pm
The Buddha didn’t claim to know all things. An idea that’s antithetical to Buddhism. Buddhism doesn’t deal with metaphysics. Buddhism is the Junior Woodchucks Manual of religious thought — very practical stuff. You’re going to get old and suffer and die. Don’t get caught up in ephemerals. Love everything that can suffer. Figure it out for yourself. Etc.
August 22nd, 2009 at 1:59 pm
I think you need to draw a distinction between what Buddha thought and Buddhism as it is practiced today…just as I imagine Jesus probably wouldn’t agree with a lot that was attributed to him in the bible.
August 22nd, 2009 at 2:41 pm
American = mean + bigoted + stupid.
August 22nd, 2009 at 6:02 pm
The American Evangelical movement has no intellectual tradition, and it shows. For example, their favorite Supreme Court justices are all Catholic. Part of what made it possible to install them is that John Roberts, Scalia, and Alito are smart guys, even if you disagree with them. But there is no such bench of talent in the Evangelical wing of the GOP.
The Evangelical movement says that acceptance of Jesus as your personal savior is necessary and sufficient to receive grace. Three things about that: 1) It doesn’t require a lot of thought to do that, and 2) If you believe it, it’s an easy escape when you’re desperate. If you’re a drunk or a thief, it turns out it’s pretty easy to make right with God. 3) Since it’s so easy to be saved, those who aren’t must choose to be that way, and are therefore evil.
So what makes Evangelism so accessible is also what dilutes its intellectual strength. When you start off with a base like that, is it surprising that Evangelicals endorse violence as a first resort?
August 22nd, 2009 at 9:02 pm
If we’re going to mention Buddhist violence, don’t forget the warrior monks of Japan. Active from the end of the Heian period, through the first shogunates and down to the end of Warring States period. Six hundred years of fighting each other (Todaiji versus Kofukuji in the streets of Nara), threatening the Imperial Court with armed demos in Kyoto, and taking sides in the civil war. Finally quashed by Nobunaga in the late 16th century. And by quashed I mean massacred.
August 22nd, 2009 at 9:23 pm
I miscalculated. Actually more like four hundred years. 12th through 16th centuries.
August 23rd, 2009 at 2:52 am
[...] Matthew Yglesias says that Marshalls is just overthinking his analysis of Mike Huckabee’s claim that “generally Evangelicals are so much more supportive of [...]
August 24th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
But the larger truth is just that Evangelicals, on average, despite the fact that an intuitive reading of the Gospels points in a different direction, are just generally inclined toward an affection for violence, brutality, and authoritarianism.
this is a pretty bad statement. first, what do you mean by “evangelicals”? second, how do you get affection for violence brutatlity, etc. by the statement that conservative leaning christians generally support war? this is really crazy, and pretty offensive – also just completely unsupported. i would stay away from statements like “the larger truth” and say instead “i feel that” when making comments like this that are (apparently) more reflective of your personal feeling than any logic or fact.