‘Genocide is not a Jewish value,’ say Jews and Rabbis as they storm AIPAC offices
‘Genocide is not a Jewish value,’ say Jews and Rabbis as they storm AIPAC offices
You're viewing a single thread.
confusedly flipping through the Tanakh
Are you sure?
Are you saying that Judaism is an inherently genocidal religion/culture?
I assume it's more of a generic internet atheist "religion bad" sort of critique
Straight up Sam Harris grade bullshit except directed at Judaism. All his beliefs just the opposite target lol
Not any more than other religions, but yes, it's in the book. Israel is what happens when you put bronze age morals in practice
Not any more than other religions
Because atheists never, ever, do terrible things. They are too enlightened by their intelligence, which is why the ruling class in Silicon Valley are so busy improving society somewhat and not being war profiteers naming their war profiteering corporations after fantasy fiction concepts.
atheists generally don't do horrible things in the ideological name of not believing in god. it would be nice if discarding religion also made you discard capitalism, white supremacy, chauvinism, or believing in bigfoot and psychics; but there's nothing forcing atheists to be humanists or skeptics or to become comrades.
ditching religion only takes away one lever western culture uses to propagate evil, but it does take away one lever.
Since when was nonreligious people doing horrible things in the name of atheism ever even a thing? They can do it for other reasons, and religious people did too. You're mistaking the cover for the motivation.
They have a point when the question is, as it was, religions and not religious people. Their holy texts both present particular genocides as good things and include directions to commit genocide against apostates. Whatever we might say of the historic position of Jews as social minorities, the content of the Tenakh, etc. is well-suited to justifying an ethnostate.
I do think they are generalizing to strongly in that regard, since the Abrahamic religions are all especially bad in this regard compared to the others that have made it to the modern day, with the possible exception of Hinduism (I don't know enough about it). Edit: I think Islam is the least bad of the three, but it's also the one I'm the least familiar with.
I'm not really interested in arguing for some particular prescription based on this, I just don't think we should close our eyes to obvious truths in the name of pushing some silly idea about religion being benign as a rule. I'm also not saying the Crusades are Christ's fault or any of that bullshit (nor that the Nakba is the fault of Moses, to be on topic), I'm just saying that when a text says "The appropriate response to someone preaching heresy in a town is to slaughter the villagers, raze the buildings, and salt the earth," that's what it says.
Edit 2: I probably didn't do enough to distinguish religion as a historical force from religion as a set of doctrines, but it should be obvious that I'm talking about the latter. Again, Christ did not order the Crusades.
Edit 3: Obviously, even without the convenient doctrine, Israel would be Israel, I'm merely saying the doctrine is convenient.
I do think they are generalizing to strongly in that regard
That's exactly my point. Saying "religions bad" does fucking nothing in the world we live in except establish oneself as an abrasively smug asshole, especially in the context of people currently in dangerous living conditions that may very well be killed in part because of their religious identity.
Especially because of the anti-Jewish smugposting, which involves a religious identity that has a secular side to it and is inherited, such atheist smugposting may as well say "hah, well you're wearing those silly badges! Sucks to suck!" during WW2 Germany.
Saying "religions bad" does fucking nothing in the world we live in except establish oneself as an abrasively smug asshole
Under no circumstances should anyone, especially people that claim to be Marxist, be stepping up to bat for religion. That includes the bizarre belief among some people on this website that the existence of reddit atheists nullifies all criticism of religion online, or that anyone criticizing religion is a reddit atheist. You are projecting a ton of weird shit onto this person for saying that Israel is using Judaism to justify a genocide, which they absolutely are! Netanyahu had fucking biblical visual aids in front of the UN literally today and you're sitting here saying they're "smugposting?"
That’s exactly my point.
That's an amusing decontextualization of what I said, but I don't think it gets us closer to mutual understanding.
Especially because of the anti-Jewish smugposting, which involves a religious identity that has a secular side to it and is inherited, such atheist smugposting may as well say “hah, well you’re wearing those silly badges! Sucks to suck!” during WW2 Germany.
Well, the Nazis were really attacking the Jewish ethnicity, it's not like Jews could survive by deconverting or even by having never practiced, but that's maybe less important than the fact that it's an equivocation beyond absurd to say that criticizing the moral/political doctrines in Jewish texts "may as well" be saying that Jews deserved Nazi persecution.
idk, people are all for "ruthless criticism of all that exists" when it comes to things they dislike, but then when they either have a sentimental attachment to something or just a strong contrarian streak because they know assholes who also criticize it, suddenly popularity is a perfect justification and saying bad things about something popular is "setting yourself apart from the global proletariat." Encounters with pseudo-intellectualism should not turn you into an anti-intellectual.
That's an amusing decontextualization of what I said, but I don't think it gets us closer to mutual understanding.
You're not here for that. You just want to emphasize really, really hard just how superior you are to religious people.
I'm not religious myself, but I stopped saying "atheist" as a self-descriptor because it has been lately tarnished by sanctimoniously secular people that bloviate over others about their default state of superiority.
To put it in a less "amusing decontextualization" way, that's you.
idk, people are all for "ruthless criticism of all that exists" when it comes to things they dislike
Encounters with pseudo-intellectualism should not turn you into an anti-intellectual.
"Agree with me or you're not an intellectual."
Do you have any self awareness at all or are you still stuck years back in Reddit's Faces of Atheism mode?
You just want to emphasize really, really hard just how superior you are to religious people.
You are projecting on me what you encountered in the past from nuatheist types. I am not them, and have explicitly said multiple times that what I am referring to is religious doctrine, even going as far as pointing out that the doctrine is at odds with their history especially in the case of Jews, who have overwhelmingly (from the time of the Roman Empire to now) been the ones on the receiving end of brutal discrimination, genocide, etc. I don't know how I can make it more clear, because I feel like no matter what I say you'll just say that I feel superior to Jews and would support them being made to wear stars, etc.
This is kind of a known problem with you that I've seen others complain about, that you bring in all this baggage and dump it on people when your . . . uh . . . sensor goes off. Perhaps you could take this opportunity to reflect on it. Like, you know me, and I don't think you especially like me, but this vitriol you're poring on me is a bit much, and it's assuming that I'm coming from a much worse place than you have any reason to believe I would come from (whatever rightful misgivings toward me you may have).
“Agree with me or you’re not an intellectual.”
That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that rejecting criticism categorically is anti-intellectual and a betrayal of Marxism. You don't need to agree with my criticism, but if you're going to attack me for it, I'd hope you'd have a better reason for why it is wrong other than what it is addressed towards.
You are projecting on me what you encountered in the past from nuatheist types.
No need to do that because you've been doing it in this ongoing comment chain and you apparently don't even notice it, up to and including the "civility" masked put-downs and condescending remarks.
I have no need of that because I know what I'm seeing and I don't like it.
and have explicitly said multiple times
Yes, and I'm calling bullshit each and every time because whatever you want it to look like it still reeks of a sense of superiority over the unwashed religious masses.
You don't need to agree with my criticism, but if you're going to attack me for it, I'd hope you'd have a better reason for why it is wrong other than what it is addressed towards.
This isn't Reddit. I don't even see the purpose of your "religion bad" smugposting on this particular board, let alone this particular thread. You're not going to get congratulated much for the euphoria of being enlightened by your own intelligence here.
This pure idealist Sam Harris-style Islamophobia logic turned toward Judaism. You're wrong for the same reason he's wrong about Islam.
what happens when you put bronze age morals in practice
Is this 2006? I thought Nu Atheism was over lol. You must be the last holdout for that cringe ass, warmed over racist bullshit
This particular person is from .ml but honestly I've seen this kind of rhetoric popping up a lot recently on Hexbear and it's frustrating.
If you have hatred and contempt in your heart for all religious people, you hate and despise the global proletariat.
Once, I was on a bus with a typical Chick-tract distributing fundamentalist. I was polite, so he was polite, (Chick tracts are fucking hilarious so I accepted the one he offered me), so I made some small talk.
The thing he said that stood out to me most before the bus reached my stop was "do you know that if everyone was Christian, there would be no more war?"
That's bullshit, of course, and medieval Europe alone disproves that. But then I realized a lot of smug atheists have the same belief: if only religion vanished tomorrow, surely war and other problems would just vanish in a puff of euphoria. Also bullshit.
"do you know that if everyone was Christian, there would be no more war?"
What a creepy fucking thing to say. Straight up blaming everyone else for the violence inflicted upon them by Christians.
The other chilling implication was the belief that peace would reign if only every non-Christian was annihilated first.
Yeah there's a big difference between believing im secularism and wanting the liberation of people from religious oppression and hating religious people, as well as blaming religion (or bronze age morality) for things caused by modern colonialism and imperialism.
I'm sorry, but I was raised by them. I saw people indoctrinated into believing North African religions were Satan worship who wants to harm Good Christians, that women don't have reproductive rights and that gay and trans people are scum. Liberation of the proletariat does not exist without liberation from religion.
I was raised by evangelicals myself, and also went through a nu atheist phase when I was 14.
You're a bigot and you need to grow up and put that away.
Sure, I'll ignore all problems it causes once I get privileged enough that they stop affecting me
There are nonreligious homophobes and misogynists and racists and trans phones. There are religious people who aren't bigots at all.
Clearly the religion is an excuse for the bigotry and not the ultimate source of it, or neither of those would be true.
Saying that Judaism inherently inclines one to the kinds of genocidal crimes Israel is committing makes you a fucking antisemite and is clearly disproven by the number of religious Jews who have been vocally opposed to the genocide and to Zionism generally.
You don't get to "I'm oppressed too" your way out of being called out for bigotry.
You seem to think my view is that "all religious people have the same beliefs". It's not. But I think a system designed to indocrinate reactionary beliefs and hatred towards people towards people who don't belong in those systems from a young age on the premise that it's your sole reason for existance causes people to have reactionary beliefs. Guess it's bigotry to call someone out for spreading bigotry towards you.
Some jackass once said:
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies.
Let's see if he was right, you said:
You seem to think my view is that "all religious people have the same beliefs". It's not.
But no, here's what I think your view is:
Are you saying that Judaism is an inherently genocidal religion/culture?
Your response?
Not any more than other religions, but yes, it's in the book preached as the word of God and prophets. Israel is what happens when you put bronze age values in practice
Let me cut out all the weasel words for you
Yes
Yes, you think that Judaism is inherently genocidal.
Fuck you, you antisemitic trash.
I'm sorry
You're not.
Welcome to the reddit nu atheist pile on. I was not expecting antisemitic Sam Harris to be a thing, but here it is
What the fuck happened here, in a Palestine section of Lemmy of all places?
How would these two fucking fedora tippers fare if they walked among suffering Palestinians in Gaza and said "religion, all religion, is bad actually" with the smug-ass tones they're putting here?
>religion, all religion, is bad actually 
No clue. I thought this kind of dumb reductive nu atheist "religion is the cause of all evil" had kind of died out when they morphed into acolytes of the Jungian fascism of Peterson
You know, I said that on a whim, but on second thought I am. I would rather not argue with people I think are cool, but in my view, religion, as an institution, proliferates and helps perpetuate hatred. It's not the only one, and it's often a tool for others to do that. But I'm conviced it's an outdated institution we (in general, not each specific person) would be better off casting away.
Religious superstition and prejudice is a problem, yes, but if you think religion is the singular source of society's problems and of human suffering in general, or that its absence would make those problems all go away in a puff of euphoria, you should be sorry.
No, of course not. I agree with you on that. Ultimately how a religion is followed is a reflection of the society, but I hope you'll agree that the source materials have a lot of outdated beliefs from a time where people knew little about a lot of things and it's fertile grounds for otherwise well meaning people to do harm.
but I hope you'll agree that the source materials have a lot of outdated beliefs
So does Reddit New Atheism. The Sam Harris-era atheist craving to glass the Middle East and seeking the mass murder of Muslims after 9/11 comes to mind.
There's no special monopoly on unqualified false expertise, bad hubris-laden ideology, or even propaganda that justifies murder and mayhem that is exclusive to religion, and not all of it is ancient. In fact some of the most fucking ignorant people in the industrialized world get taken for a ride and get into some very bad beliefs because they think that abandoning religion makes them objectively smarter than everyone else and immune to being fooled.
hatred and contempt
This is a problem. Anything coming from hatred is not coming from a good place.
However, I do have a problem with what monotheism did to the world as a colonising force.
We have depictions of full genocide in the Torah due to a chosen people doctrine (remember, at this time gendercide was nearly the exclusive form of genocide). We had Christians take this after Constantine to take a proselytising mission and turn it into an imperial casus belli. We saw the same with the formation and expansion that lead to the Golden Age of Islam.
While religious tolerance and practices have an increased amount of personal choice now in the "Western" world, that does not mean that the institution that they inherent aren't any more colonial now then they were then. They are ideas that replaced other ideas, often through a theology of "god strengthens my arm and weakens the heathens, so might makes right".
It's not hatred for any set belief, but the "In" and "Out" groups created by "chosen people" dynamics that are inherent within monotheistic religion. They have always been used to perpetuate division among the "foreign", wealth for an elite, and loyalty from the masses.
[Edited to clarify the last paragraph]
I think you need to be careful with throwing around "choseness" in this way because this is the exact perversion of the Jewish concept of choseness set forth in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf. I'm not trying to let Judaism off the hook for its genuine reactionary and regressive components (particularly with respect to women and non-normative sexuality), but it really muddies the waters when you overlay it with full-throated anti-Jewish projection onto Judaism.
Not really? There is an in-group (Jews) and an out-group (non-Jews, or Gentiles). The same applies for all monotheistic religions in a way that doesn't gel with the fabric of polytheism. These concepts, over centuries and through different forms (especially Christianity for the "West") were used to subjugate people by creating these in-groups and out-groups (to the point that the earliest use of the star of David to highlight the Jewish population I know of was done in England by Simon De Montfort (though I'm not an expert)).
That legacy still exists today and the institutions of wealth and (especially in places like the UK & Iran) governance. It's a legacy of us vs them and colonialism that needs to be examined.
I mean, you just did it again. Wasn't Simon De Montfort a Christian Crusader who persecuted the Jews? You are taking an antisemitic interpretation of "choseness" applied in a Christian framework that was then used to persecute Jews with a "they started it" argument. Which is exactly what the PEZ and MK did when they framed choseness. Rabbinic Judiasm (which is Judaism following the Roman conquest) deems "choseness" to be chosen NOT to control other populations. The Noahite laws, which apply to everyone whether Jewish or not (in the Jewish religion), specifically command the non Jews to create fair governments that the Jews could live under as 1 of 7 requirements. The Jews are "chosen" to follow the more stringent 613 commandments, which include following the laws of the just governments of non-Jews. Just saying that it creates categories of people is not unique to monotheism (or religion - see "America First"). And I don't think it tracks that creating groups in any context necessarily leads to genocidal intent and practice.
I mean, you just did it again.
that got me too! Libs are masters at unintentionally doubling down on rascist ideasYou are conflating my criticism of monotheism with a direct criticism of Judaism. I am saying the core value of monotheism (i.e. there is one god and its the one I picked) has created a colonial mindset in all monotheistic religion. You're saying "I did it again", but I'm doing it for all. I mean the Arab conquests soon after Muhhamad's death is the same as well.
Monotheism, as an ideology, has stolen a lot from us in terms of ways of thinking, belief, and added division in its stead. This continues to be true in major geopolitical states including America, Israel, Iran, and many, many more countries.
I think you are trying too hard to conflate the colonial/genocidal mindset with monotheism when the evidence doesn't really support it. Was Ancient Rome not colonial and genocidal? Greece? Egypt? They also had slaves. They conquered everyone they could. The exterminated whole swaths of peoples. They didn't need monotheism to do that. You could argue that the legacy of those polytheistic societies (specifically Egypt for the ancient Jews, Rome for Christians) laid the groundwork for the same genocidal/colonial mindset. But the main point is that the colonial and genocidal mindset is easier to understand from a class/material analysis than one tied to any specific theology. The monotheist theologies were used as a tool to organize and mobilize populations because that was the easiest tool to grab and it was couched in a language that the populations already spoke, but polytheists and other non-monotheists are just as capable of using their theological tools to do the same. For a more modern example, see for example the relationship between Hindu and Buddhist sides over Sri Lanka. Neither are abrahamic monotheisms, yet the colonial and genocidal tendency and forces are still at work.
Okay, to be clear, in the discussion you're jumping into, one of the interlocutors has stated that Jews are inherently genocidal.
I'm an atheist and I don't particularly value religion but I do value people and there are many good people who do value their religion and I won't stand for them being painted as inherently genocidal and neither should you.
There's a time and place for nuance but I don't know that this is it.
I'm saying the entire structure of monotheism has created a system of colonial thought and destruction across much of the world. Even the good theists I have met (and I have met many) will think less of or sorry for someone in the out group.
It's not Judaism, it's not Islam, it's not Christianity: it is the colonial ideology embedded in these ideologies that I'm saying are a negative force on the planet.
I was replying directly to the comment above, not so much the context. You are right to point that out.
Religious people aren't inherently genocidal. Their religion is. If you follow a book that says gay people must be put to death, you follow a homophobic book. Wether you actually believe that is up to you and God, but that's what is taught.
There are good religious people, they're the ones ignoring most of what their literature says.
Religious people aren't inherently genocidal. Their religion is.
is this nuance? I will say though, this is a great Sam Harris impression. Antisemitic Sam Harris is actually an interesting bit
Help me understand, and I actually mean this, this isn't a framing device for a dumb point though it looks like one. I mean this, I would rather be taught.
If the religious texts say genocidal stuff, why is it wrong to say if an institution believes in it, it believes in genocidal stuff? I can understand if sects qualify or revise it and I wouldn't call them that, but why is saying, for instance, "Christianism is homophobic" wrong when that is what the bible teaches? Again, if one church recontextualizes it, or says it was just Paul who said it, God is Love, fine, but can that sect speak for all Christianity when even in context the book preaches homophobia?
The main problem i have with this entire train of thought is that it's completely untethered from anything material and is therefore fundamentally wrong no matter what conclusions you're trying to draw. Well actually my main problem is that you're using this thinking to make (whether intentional or not) an anti-semtic conclusion which makes it way worse. But I'm going to focus on the first thing, because that's where i think where you're making a common mistake and stumbling into antisemitism.
Religion is a part of culture. Culture is an outgrowth of the base of society/system. The system itself is driven by material reality. Culture can work to reinforce and strengthen the system, in fact that's the main point of it, but it doesn't dictate the actions of the system. Colonialism, imperialism, genocide aren't caused by religion, anymore than they could be caused by a movie or a song.
This relationship is also why religions are malleable. Religions change and peoples relationship to them changes because they are in a subservient relationship to material drivers. The easiest thing to look at is the period of religious upheaval in Christianity coinciding with the emergence of capitalism (Protestant Reformation, 30 years War, English Civil War, development of Calvanism, etc.) - and the need for theology to either adapt to be compatible or become discarded.
The kind logic you're using is predicated on idealism the belief that ideas are the primary driver behind reality and actions. That applied to religion is the MO of nu athiest pseudointellectuals like Golden Girls fortune heir Sam Harris. He's known for making your exact same arguement but in an Islamophobic way - the target being Muslims and not Jews.
It's hard to understand how you don't get that saying Judaism is genocidal is incredibly antisemitic. But a lot of people repeated Harris's bullshit and claimed they weren't Islamophobic by hiding behind one hadith or another as proof that Muslims are evil. Some may not have understood. Harris may not have even really understand how rascist he is because is exceptionally stupid. So you might not mean it. If you don't want people to call you antisemitic you need to do a little self-criticism and examine what you really think and want to say here.
So you don't think religion plays a part in the Israeli genocide of Palestinians and the American public's support of the genocide?
Also, not atheist.
I think religion is one of the primary factors for how powerful and stalwart the resistance is against said genocide. What would you say about the only major defenders of the Palestinians being all Islamic?
I say that mostly Islamic people are the only ones not failing Palestinian people.
You don't have to be athiest to espouse cringe ass nu athiest thought. #1 the idealist delusion that religion and thought dictates actions and reality and not the other way around.
The genocide is not caused by religion or "bronze age morality" any more than genicide is caused by individual rascist thoughts or beliefs. Isreal is a settler-colonial project and an extension of US imperialism. That's what is driving the genocide, not bronze age morality.
No, a ton of Israelis are secular and they support this just as much as religious Israelis, and this is clearly about land and wealth. The American government is supporting the genocide, and it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with supporting a white supremacist settler colony that functions as an unsinkable aircraft carrier in a resource rich region.
I do, but the culprit is the Christian religion, which is what Zionism is. The fact that they recruited Jewish foot soldiers for their crusades doesn’t give the excuse to parrot Protocols of the Elders of Zion characterizations of the Jewish religion devoid of 2,000 years of historical context. It’s also the reason that the American public supports the genocide, because American culture has been dominated by Christian crusaders whose theology is based on genocidal settler colonialism ever since the so-called Pilgrims (who were themselves Zionists) landed in Massachusetts.
To paraphrase @AYJANIBRAHIMOV@lemmygrad.ml, a Jew from Lemmygrad, from his PM
There are alternative views on that subject, which make the religious justification shaky, by Jews themselves
Well , according to Torah Ha-Qudesha , {the arrival of Jews onto the promised land} will happen after the Mashiah has arrived and not as the zionists claim it . Because the zionists have already broken the misva and have transgressed other misvas too
According to Rambam (Moshe Ben Maimon) ...
there is no obligation on all Jews to go and live in Eretz Yisrael, because if they were to do so it would be violating the Three Oaths (according to our sages ) . The Jewish people may not go up en masse to take over Eretz Yisrael They may not fight with the nations of the world ( the gentiles ) . They may not attempt to force an end to the exile and bring the redemption on their own. (Ketubot 111a .)
They broke it and tarnished it to the ground
Individual Jews may live in Eretz Yisrael, but not as part of any organized effort to control the land.
In other words , we should not ... ( and I repeat again ) we should not take the land of others and neither steal from its people .
The Almighty h-shem has already put guardians and custodians to the land and it's sacred places that are very important and beloved to us observant orthodox and traditional jews , and it's the Palestinian Arabs , not the zionists .
Not any more than it's a Christian, Muslim, or secular value, is probably what they mean.
More specifically, that hating the atrocities committed by an ethnostate ≠ hating the dominant ethnicity of that state since that behavior isn't ethnically intrinsic.