Shooting Fish in Barrels

[cnorman18]

For some years now, I have observed a very great many threads that attempt to debate, or disprove, cast doubt upon, or otherwise dispute the beliefs or claims or value or morality or truth of religion. They have been popping up thick and fast of late, in several subforums, taking various tacks that all seem to center around the same assumptions. That is, virtually all of those threads appear to address fundamentalist Christianity of the Biblical-literalist variety, and for the most part seem cognizant of no other religious traditions at all.

When this is pointed out, the members who post these threads seem to me, after some ten years of posting on this forum and others, to fall into two groups:

Those in the first group say that they are quite consciously addressing ONLY fundamentalist Christianity of the most dogmatic and repressive kind, and that disputing that variety of religion is where their interest lies, and that they do not intend to consider or debate other approaches. This is said to be for various reasons; to wit, that that variety of religion is (a) the most pervasive, (b) the most influential, (c) the most pernicious, et cetera, and no other faiths are worthy of attention for those reasons; sometimes it is admitted that there are other iterations of religious belief or practice that are not so toxic and objectionable.

I think that's a reasonable approach; but in that case, I would think it would be a matter of clarity, if not simple intellectual honesty, to specify that one is only addressing dogmatic, fundamentalist Biblical literalism, and not religion without qualification.

I have also rather frequently dealt with members of the second group, on this forum and others; those who insist (ironically against both objective fact and logic) that any and all varieties of religious belief ARE equivalent to fundamentalist Christianity, and that there is no essential difference between any of them. Strangely, I have also seen the complete inverse of that claim, to wit, that any variety of religious expression that is NOT dogmatic, literalist, repressive, anti-science, etc., is not really religion at all, and that those of us who do not believe in those ways are either lying, closet atheists, or are on our way to becoming atheists.

Both of those claims are objectively and verifiably false, and in my experience those who insist on maintaining either (or, not infrequently, both) are just as dogmatic and doctrinaire in their own way as any Bible-thumping fundamentalist. There is only one correct way to think, and that is MY way -- even when one is thinking about religion. Even though I do not believe in it, I will make pronouncements which may not be questioned about how and what religionists must think and believe.

I have found it about as futile to attempt to debate the matter with them as it is to debate Young Earth Creationism with a Young Earth Creationist. The dogmatic mind is a closed mind, and theres little point in attempting to debate a person who assumes a priori that he knows the Truth, and ignores or dismisses everything you say in the firm and certain knowledge that you are either an obstinate sinner who clings to his sin, or an irrational fool who clings to his superstitious foolishness and is either lying about it or attempting to confuse the issue. Peace to both kinds of dogmatists; I have better things to do. Dogmatists, religious or antireligious, are not really interested in debate, only preaching, and I am not addressing them here.

But; For the first group, I propose that there is very frequently -- though not always -- another reason for concerning oneself exclusively with repressive, literalist fundamentalism in debate: It is the easiest kind of religion to argue against. The arguments in favor of it are easy to counter, and the arguments against it are easy to mount. Besides, its safe and fun -- the intellectual equivalent of beating up ten-year-olds.

Okay. But the way I learned it, shooting fish in barrels does not make you a master fisherman.

There are a number of enlightened liberal religious traditions and approaches, including some Christian ones, which teach and practice virtually none of the problematic dogmas and behaviors which one associates with literalist, fundamentalist Christianity; virtually none of those practices or teachings are found in modern Judaism, either. And yet, few are willing to extend their disputes with religion to these liberal and nonrepressive iterations of religious faith, without applying the transparently fallacious arguments outlined above -- and yet continue to insist that their argument is with RELIGION ITSELF and not only with the toxic varieties of it which they address and refer to in every post.

I have said here, many times, that there is no such thing as "religion." There are only religions, and there is not a single belief, practice or attitude that is common to them all. That FACT ought to have some bearing on this matter, in my opinion.

Question for debate:

Is it intellectually honest to claim to argue against "religion" when one is only arguing against certain varieties of religion -- and simultaneously refusing to engage with, or perhaps even admit the existence of, other varieties of religion which are not subject to one's complaints?

Is this tendency caused, at least in part, by the fact that repressive fundamentalist Biblical literalism is the easiest variety of religion to argue against?

[scourge99]

Minority groups who otherize themselves by exclusion, seclusion from main society, communal activity, etc, are often the target of discrimination, suspicion, and condemnation.

The Jewish people did not "otherize themselves by exclusion, seclusion from main society, communal activity," etc., because they chose to do that themselves.

My description was not specific to Jews other wise i would say so. But it certainly does apply. It also is apt to describe Mormons, FLDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, Freemasons, and many others.

Since your post was in response to one that was concerned with the Holocaust, and which WAS specific to Jews, and since you did NOT say that it was a general observation, it's hard to believe that you did not intend it to be about Jews. That was a reasonable inference if there ever was one, and in any case, Jews were certainly INCLUDED in it.

I certainly was including jews but i wasn't talking exclusively about them either. Perhaps that wasn't clear.

What i also wasn't doing was making some moral judgement blaming jews or picking on jews. That is something you read into.

Further, since Mormons and Witnesses work VERY hard to evangelize and bring others into their groups, it's pretty hard to see how your remarks about "exclusion" and "seclusion" could apply to them at all.

Having a unique and distinct identity with a group different from the majority is seclusive. Even more so when membership can only be obtained through rituals, tasks, birth right, race, privilege, etc. That makes it exclusive. It doesn't matter if they recruit or not.

Also, exclusion, seclusion , and communal activity vary to different degrees and can be expressed in different ways. What I am referring to is not black and white like living in a cave or creating your own town (like the FLDS).

We were once fully engaged in the Gentile world -- witness the involvement of Jews in the Roman world, in Rome and even in Palestine itself in the first century, as depicted in the New Testament. We were very active at trying to make contact and engage with non-Jews; Paul himself remarks that the Jews of his day would "travel over land and sea to make a single convert."

So what happened? Read a bit of actual history. We were excluded from Gentile society during the Christian era, by Christians, from the fall of Rome till the Enlightenment, a period of more than a thousand years, both socially and de jure. Jews were forbidden to live in Christian towns, forbidden to own land or engage in farming, forbidden to work for Christians, forbidden membership in the craft or trade guilds, and even forbidden to to have Christian friends (read the edicts of Pope Innocent III). We were confined to ghettos and shtetls, separate communities which were commonly obliged to pay tribute to the local lords or other authorities for the privilege of being allowed to exist. Communal activities were all we had; we were allowed virtually no contact with anyone outside of our own community, except, of course, during the occasional massacre or pogrom or forced relocation.

Is it your contention that only non-Jews decide who is Jewish? If not then it would be reasonable to conclude that there is a culture, lifestyle, religion, etc, where those who would identify with it would call themselves Jewish. And a unique minority identity from the majority seems to be a prerequisite for discrimination and "otherizing".

You said nothing about merely identifying oneself with a minority culture. You spoke of "Minority groups who otherize themselves by exclusion, seclusion from main society," and so on.

I explained this above when discussing identities.

I say again: The Jews did not do this themselves; it was done TO them.

I agree that historically Jews have at times been otherized by the majority. I agree that such wasn't mentioned in my response.

Since you seem to see antisemites lurking in every shadow...

That is a blatant personal attack. I do no such thing. I note and call out the possibility of the presence of antisemitism where it appears to be present, and your statement was inarguably a variation on a very old antisemitic trope. If that was not your intention, I apologize, but then considering the post to which you were responding, it's hard to read it any other way. Perhaps you should post with a bit more awareness of how others might read your words.

So you claim you don't see antisemitism in every shadow yet you think what i said is inarguably a variation of antisemitism. But if it isn't then you can't help yourself but to see it as antisemitic. And its my fault you see it as antisemitic.

Its pretty obvious that my assessment was spot on. You do see antisemitism lurking in every shadow.

I AM keenly aware of the continuing presence of antisemitism in the world, and even on this forum -- examples are rather easy to find -- and for that I will not apologize, nor will I reduce my vigilance on that subject.

Seems you are trying to rationalize your witch hunt.

Attempting to trivialize and ridicule concern about antisemitism does not exactly speak to your own acknowledgement of its actual, continuing presence here and elsewhere.

Anyone who dares to speak out or question the witch hunt is A WITCH or a witch sympathizer. BURN THEM ALL!


Your new title should be "Grand Inquisitor".

Honestly, I thought blaming minorities for the prejudice and bigotry directed against them went out a few decades back.

Your insinuation that its bigoted and prejudiced to state the fact that "others" are more likely to be persecuted is nothing but zeal.

And once again, that is not what you said. You said, quote, "groups who otherize themselves by exclusion, seclusion from main society, communal activity, etc". Merely being a member of a minority group was NOT the subject of your post.

One way to become a member of a minority group is to self identify with them.

By such reasoning it must also be misogynistic to state the fact that a woman is more likely than a man to be raped.

Except that, once again, THAT remark says nothing at all about anything a woman DOES, but only about the mere fact of her being a woman. Your post went rather far beyond that, explicitly so, and it's a trifle disingenuous of you to try to backpedal and say something else now. Your remarks are on the record. I dealt with what you actually said, and everything I said was perfectly justified.

My post did not make any judgment on who is or isn't to blame, let alone whether there even is someone to blame. You did that all on your own by reading into it, mr inquisitor.

Likewise an overzealous feminist might read into my statement and claim that I'm blaming women for being raped.

[Wootah]

Fundamental Christianity scares people because it actually believes God is real.

I can't recall you easily arguing against me in our discussions. In fact I don't recall having that done at all.

We have conversed from time to time. I don't recall anything particularly memorable, but then I'm not about personalities here.

I further think that this is a Debating Christianity site not Judaism or any other religion. The & Religion is only sub forums.

I was formerly a moderator here, and I can tell you that that is not accurate. This is the most general and open of the subforums, and here anyone may discuss any religion or absence of religion they care to.

Actually what is your bullet point list of defeating arguments for fundamental Christianity. If it is so easy then post it up and let's find out.

That is not the subject of this thread. If you'd care to start a thread of your own and ask for such arguments, I'm sure you'll get a lot of takers.

Those debates are not usually something I care to pursue. I am no more interested in debating "Creationism," for instance, than I am in debating whether the Sun revolves around the Earth. It's not worth my time.

I would guess that people find God offensive. God's holiness is awful for us and what it means. I would imagine fundamental Christians are the next most offensive as we actually defend God as holy.

And as a Jew, I can tell you that both your guess and your imagining would be wrong. I am certainly not "offended" by God -- Jews think of God as holy, too, for the record -- and I do not find Christianity "offensive" either; it is an ancient and honorable faith, and I do not say that it is wrong -- but it is not my own.

Start another thread if you like, but this one was not addressed to you, and your concerns are offtopic here.

Be well, and peace to you.

Your topic is that you think that attacking fundamental Christianity is like shooting fish in a barrel and you think we should discuss other religions more.

My reply was that people sense that fundamental Christianity is real or claims to be real in a way other religions do not and so they are more desperately to attack it. If God is real then they know the must change.

I am well on topic in describing the phenomena you raised.

[otseng]

Anyone who dares to speak out or question the witch hunt is A WITCH or a witch sympathizer. BURN THEM ALL!


Your new title should be "Grand Inquisitor".

Moderator Comment

Sarcasm like this is not going to foster a civil debate. It's best to leave out comments like this altogether.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[cnorman18]

Minority groups who otherize themselves by exclusion, seclusion from main society, communal activity, etc, are often the target of discrimination, suspicion, and condemnation.

The Jewish people did not "otherize themselves by exclusion, seclusion from main society, communal activity," etc., because they chose to do that themselves.

My description was not specific to Jews other wise i would say so. But it certainly does apply. It also is apt to describe Mormons, FLDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, Freemasons, and many others.

Since your post was in response to one that was concerned with the Holocaust, and which WAS specific to Jews, and since you did NOT say that it was a general observation, it's hard to believe that you did not intend it to be about Jews. That was a reasonable inference if there ever was one, and in any case, Jews were certainly INCLUDED in it.

I certainly was including jews but i wasn't talking exclusively about them either. Perhaps that wasn't clear.

In the context of the post to which it was a response? No, not at all.

What i also wasn't doing was making some moral judgement blaming jews or picking on jews. That is something you read into.

Its always interesting to note what has been DELETED from a post when a response is posted. Once again:

The implication of your statement was very clearly that Jews (and perhaps others) are at least partially to blame for bigotry directed against them -- and NOT because of mere self-identification as members of a minority, but for excluding others, secluding themselves, actually having the temerity to participate in their own communal activities, and the like. Again, it's hard to read your post in any other way than "if they did not do these things, they would not be 'the target of discrimination, suspicion, and condemnation.'"

If thats not blaming, what would blaming look like?

Further, since Mormons and Witnesses work VERY hard to evangelize and bring others into their groups, it's pretty hard to see how your remarks about "exclusion" and "seclusion" could apply to them at all.

Having a unique and distinct identity with a group different from the majority is seclusive.

So ANYONE who is a member of ANY minority group is by definition seclusive and exclusive? Then what were you trying to say in the first place? If that was really what you meant, it would seem to be that ANY member of ANY minority group is often the target of discrimination, suspicion and condemnation. And if thats the case, what was the point of mentioning seclusive, exclusive and so on?

Even more so when membership can only be obtained through rituals, tasks, birth right, race, privilege, etc. That makes it exclusive. It doesn't matter if they recruit or not.

Can you tell me of a minority group in which membership is obtained by something OTHER than the things you have named?

Also, exclusion, seclusion , and communal activity vary to different degrees and can be expressed in different ways. What I am referring to is not black and white like living in a cave or creating your own town (like the FLDS).

Exclusive means practices exclusion, which means keeping others out. How coulc a group which actively RECRUITS people to join be considered exclusive?

We were once fully engaged in the Gentile world -- witness the involvement of Jews in the Roman world, in Rome and even in Palestine itself in the first century, as depicted in the New Testament. We were very active at trying to make contact and engage with non-Jews; Paul himself remarks that the Jews of his day would "travel over land and sea to make a single convert."

So what happened? Read a bit of actual history. We were excluded from Gentile society during the Christian era, by Christians, from the fall of Rome till the Enlightenment, a period of more than a thousand years, both socially and de jure. Jews were forbidden to live in Christian towns, forbidden to own land or engage in farming, forbidden to work for Christians, forbidden membership in the craft or trade guilds, and even forbidden to to have Christian friends (read the edicts of Pope Innocent III). We were confined to ghettos and shtetls, separate communities which were commonly obliged to pay tribute to the local lords or other authorities for the privilege of being allowed to exist. Communal activities were all we had; we were allowed virtually no contact with anyone outside of our own community, except, of course, during the occasional massacre or pogrom or forced relocation.

Is it your contention that only non-Jews decide who is Jewish? If not then it would be reasonable to conclude that there is a culture, lifestyle, religion, etc, where those who would identify with it would call themselves Jewish. And a unique minority identity from the majority seems to be a prerequisite for discrimination and "otherizing".

You said nothing about merely identifying oneself with a minority culture. You spoke of "Minority groups who otherize themselves by exclusion, seclusion from main society," and so on.

I explained this above when discussing identities.

You tried to. You still didnt explain why you mentioned seclusion, exclusion, communal activities, and so on if you merely meant membership in any old minority group.

I say again: The Jews did not do this themselves; it was done TO them.

I agree that historically Jews have at times been otherized by the majority. I agree that such wasn't mentioned in my response.

Then the thrust of your remark did not logically apply to Jews.

Why not just admit that your words were ill-chosen and retract them, as I did with my own Schadenfreude remark? Seems better than just getting defensive and going on the attack, as you do below.

Since you seem to see antisemites lurking in every shadow...

That is a blatant personal attack. I do no such thing. I note and call out the possibility of the presence of antisemitism where it appears to be present, and your statement was inarguably a variation on a very old antisemitic trope. If that was not your intention, I apologize, but then considering the post to which you were responding, it's hard to read it any other way. Perhaps you should post with a bit more awareness of how others might read your words.

So you claim you don't see antisemitism in every shadow yet you think what i said is inarguably a variation of antisemitism.

Like I said; getting defensive and going on the attack. Your remark WAS a variation on a very old antisemitic smear. Ill be happy to provide examples, from medieval times through the Nazi period and into the present day.

But if it isn't then you can't help yourself but to see it as antisemitic. And its my fault you see it as antisemitic.

If you know so little about antisemitism that you were unaware that what you were saying has been said by antisemites for centuries, then, yes, it was your fault.

Its pretty obvious that my assessment was spot on. You do see antisemitism lurking in every shadow.

Hardly. I only see it when it is there, or has a high likelihood of being there.

This particular canard has a very long history among antisemites:

This vicious anti-Semitic canard, frequently repeated by other Soviet writers and officials, is based upon the malicious notion that the "Chosen People" of the Torah and Talmud preaches "superiority over other peoples", as well as exclusivity. This was, of course, the principal theme of the notorious Tsarist Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
--Soviet Jewry: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations, United States Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. 1984 p.56

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

I AM keenly aware of the continuing presence of antisemitism in the world, and even on this forum -- examples are rather easy to find -- and for that I will not apologize, nor will I reduce my vigilance on that subject.

Seems you are trying to rationalize your witch hunt.

Perhaps youd care to explain why you think concern about antisemitism is a witch hunt. The implication of that term is, of course, that there is no threat at all; witches do not exist. Just for the record, the claim that Jews are always crying Antisemitism! Antisemitism! at any criticism, no matter how reasonable or true, is yet ANOTHER antisemitic trope.

Do you think that there is no such thing as antisemitism? Are you claiming that antisemitic propaganda has never appeared on this forum? If not, what, exactly, is wrong with my being concerned about it and calling it out when antisemitic ideas are posted here?

Attempting to trivialize and ridicule concern about antisemitism does not exactly speak to your own acknowledgement of its actual, continuing presence here and elsewhere.

Anyone who dares to speak out or question the witch hunt is A WITCH or a witch sympathizer. BURN THEM ALL!


Your new title should be "Grand Inquisitor".

That is so obvious a personal attack, and so blatant an an attempt to suppress any concern with the things I have stated, that I dont think it needs any comment from me.

Honestly, I thought blaming minorities for the prejudice and bigotry directed against them went out a few decades back.

Your insinuation that its bigoted and prejudiced to state the fact that "others" are more likely to be persecuted is nothing but zeal.

And once again, that is not what you said. You said, quote, "groups who otherize themselves by exclusion, seclusion from main society, communal activity, etc". Merely being a member of a minority group was NOT the subject of your post.

One way to become a member of a minority group is to self identify with them.

And, yet again: THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID.

By such reasoning it must also be misogynistic to state the fact that a woman is more likely than a man to be raped.

Except that, once again, THAT remark says nothing at all about anything a woman DOES, but only about the mere fact of her being a woman. Your post went rather far beyond that, explicitly so, and it's a trifle disingenuous of you to try to backpedal and say something else now. Your remarks are on the record. I dealt with what you actually said, and everything I said was perfectly justified.

My post did not make any judgment on who is or isn't to blame...

One more time: ...it's hard to read your post in any other way than "if they did not do these things, they would not be 'the target of discrimination, suspicion, and condemnation.'

...let alone whether there even is someone to blame. You did that all on your own by reading into it, mr inquisitor.

The meaning of your original comment is plain, no matter how much you try to qualify and justify it and go on the attack after the fact. You misspoke, and are now refusing to retract a wholly unjustified remark. Period.

Likewise an overzealous feminist might read into my statement and claim that I'm blaming women for being raped.

Nonsense -- unless, of course, you posted sentence that read Women who [do X] are more likely to be raped, as opposed to just women are more likely to be raped than men.

Here is your remark, once again, in full. I have added emphasis, but added or subtracted nothing:

Minority groups who otherize themselves by exclusion, seclusion from main society, communal activity, etc, are often the target of discrimination, suspicion, and condemnation.

If you had left out the bolded words, your remark would have been what you are now claiming it was meant to be, would have been perfectly reasonable, and we would not be having this conversation.

[cnorman18]

Your topic is that you think that attacking fundamental Christianity is like shooting fish in a barrel and you think we should discuss other religions more.

That is an enormous, and self-serving, oversimplification of the OP. If I had meant only that, the OP would have been one line long. It wasn't.

My reply was that people sense that fundamental Christianity is real or claims to be real in a way other religions do not and so they are more desperately to attack it. If God is real then they know the must change.

And that is a claim which I did not mention, am not at all concerned with, and is not the subject of this thread.

I am well on topic in describing the phenomena you raised.

I'm sure that from your point of view, that is true, and you have a right to your opinion and to post what you like.

On the other hand, I am free to post what I like, too, and I have no intention of being drawn into a debate about the merits of fundamentalist Christianity on this thread.

Once again; feel free to start a thread of your own. You can watch me not participate in it there, and perhaps engage others.

[Waiting4evidence]

Well, this is how I see it:

Religiosity is a spectrum.

On one end you have dogmatic and blind faith, and an absolutely literalist view of whatever scripture you believe in.

On the other end you have a completely skeptical and clear mind, where you only believe that for which there is good evidence, and only do so tentatively until such a time as new evidence is discovered.

Now, I, as a person on the skeptical side of the spectrum think of it this way: The closer you are to my worldview, the less of a beef I have with you.

And on that we are agreed. I am as opposed to fundamentalist literalism as you -- and perhaps more so. For one thing, fundamentalism gives ALL religion a bad name; for another, we Jews have historically been first in line for their wrath.

A person such as your typical modern Jew living in NYC who only manifests his faith by throwing a party for his 13 year old son, and having a vague feeling in his heart that there is some kind of creative force out there, is for all practical purposes an atheist. What would I debate him on? Should I try to convince him to have a secular Sweet 16 party for his kid, and not a Bar Mitzvah? Whatever!

The other way of looking at it is that most moderate and educated religious people tend NOT to make TESTABLE, EMPIRICAL claims. They will say something like "I hold the deistic view that some kind of force external to the universe was integral to the universe's beginning".

In terms of its "debatability" such a subjective, untestable claim is as meaningful to attack as the statement "My favorite color is blue".

On the contrary, fundamentalists make testable, empirical claims. They will say "Donkeys can talk". That's a testable claim. They will say "The earth is 6000 years old". That is a testable claim. I can mount a fact-based argument against those claims

Also, lets not forget the obvious. You don't see many moderates of any religion bombing abortion clinics, or blowing themselves up in supermarkets, or picketing the funerals of soldiers with "God hates Fags" signs, or refusing treatment for their children and then the children die.

For the record, the overwhelming majority of even other FUNDAMENTALISTS regard such practices as repugnant

Well, duh. All fundamentalists find the practices of DIFFERENT fundamentalists to be repugnant. People who have their rabbis ceremonially put the penis of a baby in their mouth after a circumcision find it repugnant that some other people give away their daughters in marriage when they are prepubescent, and vice versa.

As for refusing treatment -- well, "My son, the doctor" is an old Jewish joke, mostly because so many Jewish sons (and daughters) ARE doctors -- and not a few of them perform abortions.

This is the bottom line:

I try to dissuade fundamentalists rather than moderates of their beliefs for the same reason that a doctor in an Emergency Room will treat the person that is bleeding to death from a major car accident BEFORE he treats a guy with a scratch on his hand.

Fundamentalists need more help!

LOL! I quite agree. I suppose we can disagree on whether liberal theists need any "help" at all -- at least as long as there are fundamentalists around. Till then, as far as I'm concerned, we're on the same side.

Well, let me rephrase my statement slightly.

Maybe some VERY liberal theists don't need help at all. I COULD be persuaded of that. Maybe.

But although you and I are clearly much closer ideologically than you and a fundamentalist are (even a fundamentalist of your faith) there is one major beef that I have with you.

Moderates provide cover and legitimacy for extremists. You guys, with your PhDs, and your tenures at Harvard and MIT, and your positions on the boards of Fortune 500 companies, etc, give LEGITIMACY to fundamentalists by using the same BRAND to identify yourselves.

Both you and them are "Jews" or "Christians", or "Muslims".

Do you have any idea how many times I told a fundamentalist he's insane for believing in a talking donkey, and he retorted with "Well, Einstein, Obama, Francis Collins, Isaac Newton, Professor So and So and Nobel Prize Winner So and So are Christians too, just like me, so maybe I'm on to something, and you're just wrong"?

I wish moderates would do a better job of distancing themselves from the nut jobs, and of making the fact clear that if they had to pick between being stuck on a desert island with a fundamentalist of their same faith or with an atheist, they'd probably choose the latter.

[playhavock]

I do not debate "religion" I debate people of relgion (and non) who have assertions or claims to make. I do so because all claims require justifcation and showing that there is none is what I think I must do because I want to shine the light of truth and critcal thinking on the world in my small way.

[cnorman18]

Well, this is how I see it:

Religiosity is a spectrum.

On one end you have dogmatic and blind faith, and an absolutely literalist view of whatever scripture you believe in.

On the other end you have a completely skeptical and clear mind, where you only believe that for which there is good evidence, and only do so tentatively until such a time as new evidence is discovered.

Now, I, as a person on the skeptical side of the spectrum think of it this way: The closer you are to my worldview, the less of a beef I have with you.

And on that we are agreed. I am as opposed to fundamentalist literalism as you -- and perhaps more so. For one thing, fundamentalism gives ALL religion a bad name; for another, we Jews have historically been first in line for their wrath.

A person such as your typical modern Jew living in NYC who only manifests his faith by throwing a party for his 13 year old son, and having a vague feeling in his heart that there is some kind of creative force out there, is for all practical purposes an atheist. What would I debate him on? Should I try to convince him to have a secular Sweet 16 party for his kid, and not a Bar Mitzvah? Whatever!

The other way of looking at it is that most moderate and educated religious people tend NOT to make TESTABLE, EMPIRICAL claims. They will say something like "I hold the deistic view that some kind of force external to the universe was integral to the universe's beginning".

In terms of its "debatability" such a subjective, untestable claim is as meaningful to attack as the statement "My favorite color is blue".

On the contrary, fundamentalists make testable, empirical claims. They will say "Donkeys can talk". That's a testable claim. They will say "The earth is 6000 years old". That is a testable claim. I can mount a fact-based argument against those claims

Also, lets not forget the obvious. You don't see many moderates of any religion bombing abortion clinics, or blowing themselves up in supermarkets, or picketing the funerals of soldiers with "God hates Fags" signs, or refusing treatment for their children and then the children die.

For the record, the overwhelming majority of even other FUNDAMENTALISTS regard such practices as repugnant

Well, duh. All fundamentalists find the practices of DIFFERENT fundamentalists to be repugnant.

Not at all what I meant. Those practices are repugnant to EVERYONE other than the cultists who practice them, including other fundamentists, and NOT for purely sectarian reasons. I daresay that YOU do not oppose them because the violate the tenets of YOUR religious beliefs....

People who have their rabbis ceremonially put the penis of a baby in their mouth after a circumcision find it repugnant that some other people give away their daughters in marriage when they are prepubescent, and vice versa.

Again; it's not as if anyone objects to those practices ONLY because of their differing religious dogmas. They are both anachronistic relics of ancient times, and by modern standards are not only unnecessary, but simply wrong on grounds that have nothing to do with religion.

As for refusing treatment -- well, "My son, the doctor" is an old Jewish joke, mostly because so many Jewish sons (and daughters) ARE doctors -- and not a few of them perform abortions.

This is the bottom line:

I try to dissuade fundamentalists rather than moderates of their beliefs for the same reason that a doctor in an Emergency Room will treat the person that is bleeding to death from a major car accident BEFORE he treats a guy with a scratch on his hand.

Fundamentalists need more help!

LOL! I quite agree. I suppose we can disagree on whether liberal theists need any "help" at all -- at least as long as there are fundamentalists around. Till then, as far as I'm concerned, we're on the same side.

Well, let me rephrase my statement slightly.

Maybe some VERY liberal theists don't need help at all. I COULD be persuaded of that. Maybe.

Fair enough.

But although you and I are clearly much closer ideologically than you and a fundamentalist are (even a fundamentalist of your faith) there is one major beef that I have with you.

Moderates provide cover and legitimacy for extremists. You guys, with your PhDs, and your tenures at Harvard and MIT, and your positions on the boards of Fortune 500 companies, etc, give LEGITIMACY to fundamentalists by using the same BRAND to identify yourselves.

Both you and them are "Jews" or "Christians", or "Muslims".

Sorry, but I vehemently disagree. I've heard that one many times before, it didn't hold water then, and it still doesn't.

I don't think that it's RATIONAL to accuse people of "providing cover" and "legitimacy" to the very things that they actively and unequivocally OPPOSE. That makes as much sense as "having a beef" with atheists because they "provide cover" and "legitimacy" to murderous ideologues like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot who also happen to be aggressive and dogmatic atheists.

I've showed, and on this very thread, that dogmatic fundamentalism is a relatively modern phenomenon, and that is true of ALL of the three Abrahamic faiths. Why should those who hold to the historically more authentic and pluralistic beliefs and practices of those religions be expected to renounce their names and respective heritages because they have been hijacked by doctrinaire revisionists? It is they who have misrepresented and twisted their respective religions, and they whom very many of their coreligionists oppose.

You are simply advocating surrender on the part of we who believe in the humanistic values that lie at the core and origin of our faiths, and demanding that we buy into the claim that religion itself has no value or worth whatever.

Do you have any idea how many times I told a fundamentalist he's insane for believing in a talking donkey, and he retorted with "Well, Einstein, Obama, Francis Collins, Isaac Newton, Professor So and So and Nobel Prize Winner So and So are Christians too, just like me, so maybe I'm on to something, and you're just wrong"?

The obvious answer to that would be, "Really? Did they all believe in talking donkeys?"

Might it not be both on point and, excuse me, but rational to challenge the "just like me" part of that claim? I certainly would, and if you choose not to, that's hardly MY fault.

When you accept that bogus claim or others like it, you are totally buying into and swallowing whole the fundamentalist definition of "religion." I quite understand why an atheist would be reluctant to acknowledge the existence of ANY form of religion that is not dogmatic and irrational, but in this case, you might want to consider it. It is, after all, an objective and verifiable FACT, is it not?

I wish moderates would do a better job of distancing themselves from the nut jobs, and of making the fact clear that if they had to pick between being stuck on a desert island with a fundamentalist of their same faith or with an atheist, they'd probably choose the latter.

I have expressed that very thought, in essentially those words and in many other ways, and most emphatically, more times than I can count on this forum; you are relatively new here, or you would know that.

Further -- as I have also observed before, and more than once -- you are also clearly unfamiliar with the very many periodicals and innumerable books that express modern, liberal and humanistic approaches to religion. These are not Xeroxed fanzines or obscure little academic journals, but major magazines with wide circulation; Commonweal, Christianity Today, The Christian Century, Sojourners, The Progressive Christian, and many more. Among Jewish magazines and newspapers, it's hard to find one that doesn't take a liberal and humanistic approach: Moment, Tikkun, Commentary, Reform Judaism, Jewish Heritage, Jewish World Review, and on and on. Liberal religionists DO speak out, and loudly, and consistently, in their opposition to fundamentalism, dogmatism, anti-scientific sectarianism, repressive, racist and sexist teachings, and all the rest.

The fact that the mass media expends a LOT more ink on the 50-member Westboro Baptist Church and tiny splinter groups like the FLDS and minuscule ultra-Orthodox cults, and that those are therefore more widely known than all those magazines and newspapers put together, is hardly the fault of the liberal theists. Look at any movement for the liberation of the oppressed, for academic and social freedom, against racism, sexism, ignorance, and bigotry of all kinds, and you will see us there. Those references are not hard to find; when Martin Luther King crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge in the March on Selma, besides other black Civil Rights activists, he was accompanied by rabbis, priests and nuns on either side of him.

Stereotyping is not helpful in any debate or any discussion where LOGIC and FACTS are thought to be of value; and discounting or trivializing the very EXISTENCE of liberal religion, and advocating the abandonment of the term "religion" itself to the extremists, cultists, literalists and other assorted yahoos who are attempting to usurp the term, is simply playing onto the hands of those whom you, and I, most vehemently and vociferously oppose.

[cnorman18]

I do not debate "religion" I debate people of relgion (and non) who have assertions or claims to make. I do so because all claims require justifcation and showing that there is none is what I think I must do because I want to shine the light of truth and critcal thinking on the world in my small way.

Then I would say that you and I are essentially in agreement. I don't know that all statements are "claims" -- notice my signature -- and I don't know that all "claims" require justification, unless one is attempting to convince someone else to alter his own positions or beliefs and accept them; but when they are attempting that, yes, some reasons or justifications would be logically necessary.

Of course, by the same token, I would require anyone who is attempting to convince ME to abandon my positions and beliefs and accept theirs to provide reasons and justification for doing that as well. And that, for the record, has indeed occasionally happened.

[scourge99]

Minority groups who otherize themselves by exclusion, seclusion from main society, communal activity, etc, are often the target of discrimination, suspicion, and condemnation.

The Jewish people did not "otherize themselves by exclusion, seclusion from main society, communal activity," etc., because they chose to do that themselves.

My description was not specific to Jews other wise i would say so. But it certainly does apply. It also is apt to describe Mormons, FLDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, Freemasons, and many others.

Since your post was in response to one that was concerned with the Holocaust, and which WAS specific to Jews, and since you did NOT say that it was a general observation, it's hard to believe that you did not intend it to be about Jews. That was a reasonable inference if there ever was one, and in any case, Jews were certainly INCLUDED in it.

I certainly was including jews but i wasn't talking exclusively about them either. Perhaps that wasn't clear.

In the context of the post to which it was a response? No, not at all.

Now its crystal clear.

What i also wasn't doing was making some moral judgement blaming jews or picking on jews. That is something you read into.

Its always interesting to note what has been DELETED from a post when a response is posted. Once again:

The implication of your statement was very clearly that Jews (and perhaps others) are at least partially to blame for bigotry directed against them -- and NOT because of mere self-identification as members of a minority, but for excluding others, secluding themselves, actually having the temerity to participate in their own communal activities, and the like. Again, it's hard to read your post in any other way than "if they did not do these things, they would not be 'the target of discrimination, suspicion, and condemnation.'"

I already addressed those arguments which is why there is no need to quote them directly. But apparently you missed that so i have to spoon feed you because you can't figure it out and so you presume something nefarious. I'll oblige you this once and explain how it was already addressed:

Cnorman18 : The implication of your statement was very clearly that Jews (and perhaps others) are at least partially to blame for bigotry directed against them -- and NOT because of mere self-identification as members of a minority, but for excluding others, secluding themselves, actually having the temerity to participate in their own communal activities, and the like.


Response:
A1) What i also wasn't doing was making some moral judgement blaming jews or picking on jews. That is something you read into.
A2) My post did not make any judgment on who is or isn't to blame, let alone whether there even is someone to blame. You did that all on your own by reading into it, mr inquisitor.

Cnorman18 :
Again, it's hard to read your post in any other way than "if they did not do these things, they would not be 'the target of discrimination, suspicion, and condemnation.'"

Response: see A1 and A2.
And
So you claim you don't see antisemitism in every shadow yet you think what i said is inarguably a variation of antisemitism. But if it isn't then you can't help yourself but to see it as antisemitic. And its my fault you see it as antisemitic. Its pretty obvious that my assessment was spot on. You do see antisemitism lurking in every shadow.
And
Your insinuation that its bigoted and prejudiced to state the fact that "others" are more likely to be persecuted is nothing but zeal. By such reasoning it must also be misogynistic to state the fact that a woman is more likely than a man to be raped.

If thats not blaming, what would blaming look like?

Blaming would be something like: jews are to BLAME for X.

Imo, you are presuming the worst with even the slightest of ambiguity. Even when i have come out and cleared up that ambiguity--which i was under no obligation to do--you still persist in your attacks and insinuations.

Further, since Mormons and Witnesses work VERY hard to evangelize and bring others into their groups, it's pretty hard to see how your remarks about "exclusion" and "seclusion" could apply to them at all.

Having a unique and distinct identity with a group different from the majority is seclusive.

So ANYONE who is a member of ANY minority group is by definition seclusive and exclusive?

No. I imagine, like most things,that there are a variety of exceptions.

Then what were you trying to say in the first place? If that was really what you meant, it would seem to be that ANY member of ANY minority group is often the target of discrimination, suspicion and condemnation. And if thats the case, what was the point of mentioning seclusive, exclusive and so on?

Its an observation that the groups who have been targeted have certain things in common.

Even more so when membership can only be obtained through rituals, tasks, birth right, race, privilege, etc. That makes it exclusive. It doesn't matter if they recruit or not.

Can you tell me of a minority group in which membership is obtained by something OTHER than the things you have named?

I dont see the point but ok.
Geographic location, for example, the irish.

Also, exclusion, seclusion , and communal activity vary to different degrees and can be expressed in different ways. What I am referring to is not black and white like living in a cave or creating your own town (like the FLDS).

Exclusive means practices exclusion, which means keeping others out. How coulc a group which actively RECRUITS people to join be considered exclusive?

If recruiting makes a group non-exclusive then there would be no way for an exclusive group to live on past its founding members. So your definition of "exclusive group" seems overly narrow.

How about an example: A yacht club would be considered an exclusive group. Yet such a club can still accept new members and may even actively recruit.

We were once fully engaged in the Gentile world -- witness the involvement of Jews in the Roman world, in Rome and even in Palestine itself in the first century, as depicted in the New Testament. We were very active at trying to make contact and engage with non-Jews; Paul himself remarks that the Jews of his day would "travel over land and sea to make a single convert."

So what happened? Read a bit of actual history. We were excluded from Gentile society during the Christian era, by Christians, from the fall of Rome till the Enlightenment, a period of more than a thousand years, both socially and de jure. Jews were forbidden to live in Christian towns, forbidden to own land or engage in farming, forbidden to work for Christians, forbidden membership in the craft or trade guilds, and even forbidden to to have Christian friends (read the edicts of Pope Innocent III). We were confined to ghettos and shtetls, separate communities which were commonly obliged to pay tribute to the local lords or other authorities for the privilege of being allowed to exist. Communal activities were all we had; we were allowed virtually no contact with anyone outside of our own community, except, of course, during the occasional massacre or pogrom or forced relocation.

Is it your contention that only non-Jews decide who is Jewish? If not then it would be reasonable to conclude that there is a culture, lifestyle, religion, etc, where those who would identify with it would call themselves Jewish. And a unique minority identity from the majority seems to be a prerequisite for discrimination and "otherizing".

You said nothing about merely identifying oneself with a minority culture. You spoke of "Minority groups who otherize themselves by exclusion, seclusion from main society," and so on.

I explained this above when discussing identities.

You tried to. You still didnt explain why you mentioned seclusion, exclusion, communal activities, and so on if you merely meant membership in any old minority group.

Because those qualities seem to be common amongst minority groups who have suffered discrimination and persecution .

I say again: The Jews did not do this themselves; it was done TO them.

I agree that historically Jews have at times been otherized by the majority. I agree that such wasn't mentioned in my response.

Then the thrust of your remark did not logically apply to Jews.

Why not just admit that your words were ill-chosen and retract them, as I did with my own Schadenfreude remark?

But it still does apply just as it applies to Mormons, FLDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, Freemasons, etc.

But i also agree that it doesn't account for the instances when jews, Mormons Jehovah's Witnesses, etc were otherized by others, if they were.

I admit i could have phrased it better and by accounting for both situations.

Seems better than just getting defensive and going on the attack, as you do below.

Seems that the defensiveness and attacking started with your obsession to find hidden antisemitism.

Since you seem to see antisemites lurking in every shadow...

That is a blatant personal attack. I do no such thing. I note and call out the possibility of the presence of antisemitism where it appears to be present, and your statement was inarguably a variation on a very old antisemitic trope. If that was not your intention, I apologize, but then considering the post to which you were responding, it's hard to read it any other way. Perhaps you should post with a bit more awareness of how others might read your words.

So you claim you don't see antisemitism in every shadow yet you think what i said is inarguably a variation of antisemitism.

Like I said; getting defensive and going on the attack. Your remark WAS a variation on a very old antisemitic smear. Ill be happy to provide examples, from medieval times through the Nazi period and into the present day.

And you have persisted in your desperate delusion that what i have said is a VARIATION. The very fact that you use such a vague word like "variation" demonstrates that desperation.

But if it isn't then you can't help yourself but to see it as antisemitic. And its my fault you see it as antisemitic.

If you know so little about antisemitism that you were unaware that what you were saying has been said by antisemites for centuries, then, yes, it was your fault.

What i did say isn't even close to anything antisemitic.

I have repeatedly clarified those statements as to leave no doubt. Nevertheless, your delusion and obsession persists and even grows more elaborate with every post. But that is your problem, not mine.

Its pretty obvious that my assessment was spot on. You do see antisemitism lurking in every shadow.

Hardly. I only see it when it is there, or has a high likelihood of being there.

This particular canard has a very long history among antisemites:

This vicious anti-Semitic canard, frequently repeated by other Soviet writers and officials, is based upon the malicious notion that the "Chosen People" of the Torah and Talmud preaches "superiority over other peoples", as well as exclusivity. This was, of course, the principal theme of the notorious Tsarist Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
--Soviet Jewry: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations, United States Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. 1984 p.56

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

Well that proves it. Some antisemites used the word exclusivity and i did too so i must be antisemitic.

But to perpetuate your delusion you must ignore the fact that i never claimed jews thought themselves superior and the antisemites quoted did. And ignore the fact that the context of exclusivity mentioned by the antisemites was in the context of "Chosen People" whereas mine was in the context of an identity.

Please, mr inquisitor, continue your witch hunt. After all, if the inquisitor accuses someone then they must be guilty. No going back now!

I AM keenly aware of the continuing presence of antisemitism in the world, and even on this forum -- examples are rather easy to find -- and for that I will not apologize, nor will I reduce my vigilance on that subject.

Seems you are trying to rationalize your witch hunt.

Perhaps youd care to explain why you think concern about antisemitism is a witch hunt.. The implication of that term is, of course, that there is no threat at all; witches do not exist.

A witch hunt is a metaphor that refers to the seeking and persecuting of a perceived enemy with little regard to actual guilt or innocence. Furthermore, those accused are convicted merely on accusation.

Shall i describe the inquisitor metaphor as well?

Just for the record, the claim that Jews are always crying Antisemitism! Antisemitism! at any criticism, no matter how reasonable or true, is yet ANOTHER antisemitic trope.

The problem is that there is a Jew who crys "Antisemitism!" when there is none. And this Jew seems to believe that daring to challenge his crys of antisemitism is proof of antisemitism.

Convenient, wouldn't you say?

what, exactly, is wrong with my being concerned about it and calling it out when antisemitic ideas are posted here?

I've already explained.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out antisemitism. What's wrong is there is a person who is so paranoid about antisemitism that he sees it lurking everywhere.

What's the moral of the story "the boy who cried wolf"?

By such reasoning it must also be misogynistic to state the fact that a woman is more likely than a man to be raped.

Except that, once again, THAT remark says nothing at all about anything a woman DOES, but only about the mere fact of her being a woman. Your post went rather far beyond that, explicitly so, and it's a trifle disingenuous of you to try to backpedal and say something else now. Your remarks are on the record. I dealt with what you actually said, and everything I said was perfectly justified.

My post did not make any judgment on who is or isn't to blame...

One more time: ...it's hard to read your post in any other way than "if they did not do these things, they would not be 'the target of discrimination, suspicion, and condemnation.'

It certainly stands to reason that if jews, Mormons, FLDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc did not do these things then maybe they wouldn't be targeted. Likewise, it stands to reason that if you don't ever leave your house then its unlikely you will get in a car accident. But if you do get in a car accident does that mean you are to blame? If you are targeted for persecution for being a Mormon does it mean you are to blame? No and no.

This notion of blame is one you have read into the facts. And as you have explained, it quite clearly stems from your paranoia of pervasive antisemitism.

Likewise an overzealous feminist might read into my statement and claim that I'm blaming women for being raped.

Nonsense -- unless, of course, you posted sentence that read Women who [do X] are more likely to be raped, as opposed to just women are more likely to be raped than men.

Fine let's try it your way.

A woman who walks alone in a park is more likely to get raped. Is that misogynistic?

Here is your remark, once again, in full. I have added emphasis, but added or subtracted nothing:

Minority groups who otherize themselves by exclusion, seclusion from main society, communal activity, etc, are often the target of discrimination, suspicion, and condemnation.

If you had left out the bolded words, your remark would have been what you are now claiming it was meant to be, would have been perfectly reasonable, and we would not be having this conversation.

If i left out the bolded words it wouldn't be true.

I see two valid disagreements as debatable:
1. You can disagree that Jews/Mormons/Freemasons/etc (whether present day or historic) can be accurately described as an exclusive group or a seclusive group, or a communal group, or etc...

2. You can disagree that exclusivity, seclusion, communalism, etc are properties of minority groups which are often persecuted.