This is the best thing I’ve read in probably a month, and it’s am absolute must-read for anyone who’s ever wondered about the political and theological confluence of events that became the religious right.
It’s 3 years old, but I just read it this afternoon, so it’s new to me. Also, it’s long, but I found myself entertained and interested all the way through.
It is, of course, of special interest to those among us who would like to live by Biblical principles, since there’s a fair amount of talking about just exactly what those principles are.
It’s broken up into 5 parts:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
The author, bradhicks, is awesome in several other ways as well. It’s worth poking around his LJ, especially for some of his political writing.
PS. This was originally posted at my LiveJournal page, but I decided to repost it here for the general quality of conversation.
If you think that your faith is in Jesus Christ but that faith allows you to callously neglect, feel contempt for, or actively despise the poor and unfortunate, then yours is not a gospel of Jesus Christ, but of the Devil himself.
Quite true.
There’s some stuff that bugs me in this. First, he conflates the GOP with the “god hates fags crowd”. This is misleading, because Fred Phelps is a Democrat, and got a double-digit fraction of the vote in the Democratic senate primary in Kansas. Ditto with civil rights — the GOP in 1964 mostly voted for the Civil Rights bills, while the Dem caucus was split. This contradicts Brad’s claim that in 1964, the GOP was the party opposed to “uppity Negros”.
It is of course the case that Fred Phelps is a lone nut, and many rather vile preachers are in the Republican party. Still, it’s a bit unfair to list him personally as an example of GOP badness. On the other hand, both parties do have a share, and there’s some pretty reliable Dems — I’m thinking of Al Sharpton — who are pretty vile preachers. I don’t think I’d like to make a judgment of human worth between Sharpton and Dobson. Dobson didn’t personally preside over riots in which people got killed.
I also take issue with his claim that there’s no biblical basis for Christian anti-gay sentiment. Quoting Brad: “Of all of those details [of the religious law], the only one that the apostles felt worth preserving was a rule requiring that Christians abstain from sharing the food offered at the ceremonial meal at pagan religious ceremonies. That’s it. Other than that? Do what Jesus said.” I think few ministers think that Jesus negated the prohibition on incest, which is textually hard to separate from the prohibition on men having sex with men. Thomas Aquinas has a more complete account. See the Prima Secundae .
I’m not endorsing Christian anti-gay sentiment, just saying that they have principled reasons that can’t be waved away if you want to convince them to change their minds.
Also, he says that “You see, the Pharisees were exactly like modern Republicans. The Pharisees were a sect who believed that the Roman occupation of Israel was God’s punishment on the Jews for not being holy enough, not being pure enough. So the Pharisees taught a regimine of rules about sex, hygiene, and diet that went even farther than God Himself did in the original holiness code.” Modern Judaism is directly descended from the pharisees, and is very aware of this fact. The claims that Brad attributes to the pharisees are generally accepted by religious Jews, and have been for two thousand years. His hysterical denunciation of the Pharisees [the Jews] makes me a little queasy.
Brad claims “History [of ancient greece] does not record a single example of a man who was only attracted to men or to women, nor a clear and unambigous example of a woman who’s only attracted to men or to women.” This is not actually true — the Greeks did have this concept. See this speech of Aristophanes in the Symposium, where he explains why some men like men, and others women.
Lastly, this is a guy who closes by saying I consider monotheism itself to be toxic to human freedom . This is exceedingly silly, and makes me take him less seriously. Christian Europe was in many ways more free, and more egalitarian, than Rome or Greece beforehand. It was to a large extent more ethical. We forget how brutal the Romans and Greeks really were.
It’s nearly as silly as his claim that the Republicans are the party of Satan. Don’t you think that should make you just a little suspicious?
Ari, do you copy and paste this comment into every blog that links to the essay?
Naah, it’s cool Jake. I asked Ari to repost his comment here, since I think more useful and valuable conversation will occur in this forum.
Which, speaking of valuable conversation, I’ll respond to his post in a bit.
Phew, that’s a relief. I apologize to you, Ari. I’m keen to see some elaboration on his penultimate paragraph.
I am very concerned about his claim that:
I don’t think I’d like to make a judgment of human worth between Sharpton and Dobson. Dobson didn’t personally preside over riots in which people got killed.
To which I say, “Neither did Sharpton.” Claiming Sharpton personally presided over the riots is not only demonstrably false (although you could truthfully claim that he made inciting remarks), but ignores the history of tensions between the communities that had existed in Crown Heights for years in favor of a simplistic explanation that blames everything on the anti-semitism of a single public figure.
Ari’s claim doesn’t give me confidence that the rest of his comment is reliable.
I’ll be taking a scattershot approach to responding, since I’m at work, and I’ll just post as inspiration strikes.
Thus
Well, for literally decades, we’ve been told the exact opposite frequently and with a straight face, and yet you find this claim silly? If we want to have a secular democracy where religion has no place in politics, fine. If not, hey, that’s fine too.
However, if one party claims the mantle of righteousness, declares itself the party of god, and aggressively pushes the idea that their political opposition is ungodly, then I hardly think that it’s out of bounds to actually compare their stated goals to the stated principles of their faith.
To accept that as silly is to accept a double standard and a rigged game.
I can understand why you would want us on the left to play your rigged game, but hopefully you can understand why we will refuse.
—Myca
As to Sharpton — I actually had friends who lived in Brooklyn in the 1990s. The word they used for the Crown Heights rioting was “pogrom” — with all the implications of Church sponsorship. They were really upset by Sharpton out there working up a community whose members went on to kill. He wasn’t physically at the head of the mob; but he was certainly saying things that functioned as incitement to violence — and he should have known it. Quoting wikipedia; Sharpton said to a crowd at one point If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house. The ADL at the time felt he was inciting anti-Semitism.
I don’t think you’ll find a comparable case where Dobson et al were on the spot, working up a crowd within a day and within a mile of a riot.
As to “party of Satan.” Of course, members of both parties think they’re right, and the opposition is wrong. I’m not bothered by that. I’m not even bothered by them viewing it in religious ways. I’m merely perplexed that you take Brad seriously, given how preposterously dogmatic and overwrought he’s being. I assure you, when Republicans use such phrases in my hearing (which is seldom, given that I’ve lived my life in left-wing college towns), I grimace.
I assumed you were posting that link to start a conversation; generally you get better conversations when you “assume good faith”, as Wikipedia puts it. Saying party of Satan is at best inflammatory, and is certainly silly. If you want to discuss how Christian the GOP platform is, fine; that’s not a good way to start a conversation. Given that, I assume that Brad isn’t interested in discussion, but rather in inflaming and provoking, which is what makes me wonder about his dedication to facts.
I actually had friends who lived in Brooklyn in the 1990s.
Funny, so did I. In fact, I lived in Manhattan at the time and followed the coverage pretty damned closely.
As to the rest of your comment, I already said that you could truthfully say that Sharpton had made inciting remarks. There’s a world of difference between the two. I notice you entirely ignore the circumstances & tensions that existed in that community before a black child was accidentally killed by a car driven by a hasidic man. Those circumstances & tensions were obvious causes of the subsequent violence.
I don’t think you’ll find a comparable case where Dobson et al were on the spot, working up a crowd within a day and within a mile of a riot.
Nor is Dobson an advocate for the downtrodden & oppressed, as Sharpton was. There is a little bit of a difference in the circumstances & living conditions of Dobson’s audiences and Sharpton’s audience in Crown Heights, don’t you think? Think of Hurricane Katrina and who was described as looters and who was described as foraging for supplies.
What Sharpton did and said was wrong and it was anti-semitic. However, he did not, “personally preside over riots in which people got killed.”
I’m aware there were tensions. I’m don’t think that’s an excuse for shouting “kill the jew” and murdering someone based on their religion. I don’t think it’s an excuse for Sharpton to be whipping people up, instead of calming them down.He was on the spot, and was deliberately stirring people up in an environment in which any reasonable person would understand that rioting was the probable consequence. I withdraw “presiding”; would you prefer “encouraging rioting”?
Myca, thanks for posting this. It was very informative. I have a lot to digest now.
Ari wrote:
Ari, I think this needs clarification. The above passage sounds as if you think Jake said or implied that the tensions excused advocating or carrying out the murder of Jews.
Is that actually what you’re claiming?
No, I’m not claiming that. I take for granted that there’s universal agreement that previous tensions are no excuse for murder. Rather, I was attempting to argue by analogy that just as tensions are no excuse for violence, they’re no excuse for incitement, even if, as in this case, it did not include explicit calls for violence.
I was in a rush, and didn’t take the time to spell that out clearly enough; no personal slight was implied, and I apologize if one was felt.
Other than being wrong on the facts, and wrong on the reasoning, it’s a great piece.
Wrong on the facts:
1) The “say a prayer and be saved” idea dates back at least to the mid-1800’s–it was popularized by Charles Finney. To what extent he originated it is hotly argued, but that he taught it isn’t. It certainly didn’t originate in 1964.
2) The apostles, in Acts, kept 2 pieces of the old holiness law, not just one. (Acts 15) “Avoid porneia AND meat offered to idols.” Porneia is often translated as “fornication”, but “sexual misbehaviour” would be a better translation.
3) Opposition to abortion didn’t start in 1973, or even 1873; it dates back to Thomas Aquinas at least.
Wrong on the reasoning:
Hicks makes the classic mistake of trying to contrast “what Jesus said” and “what the apostles said”, so that what the apostles did “counts less” than what Jesus said. This makes almost as much sense as contrasting “what Bush said” and “what the Bush administration did,” and claiming that Bush’s performance as president should be judged only on the former.
SamChevre,
Thanks for the info. I do have a question about your last paragraph, though. Shouldn’t what Jesus said count for more than what the apostles said? I’ve always thought that Jesus is God and that God’s word counts for more/is unassailable whereas the apostles were merely men. Have I been mistaken?
Gosh, I wish I wasn’t at work, so I could address some of this in depth.
One bit:
This is somewhat misleading, as Aquinas can be cited (and has been cited) just as legitimately to back up pro-choice arguments, since he did not believe that a fetus, post-conception but pre-quickening, had a human soul.
Link.
—Myca
I was trying to find a cite to Thomas on this question, and checked the Catholic Encyclopedia. They don’t mention Thomas, but do assert that abortion=murder goes back to the Sixth Ecumenical Council of 678. I’d love to see more citations on what the early Church did.
The Cath. Enc. article on Abortion is online, and might have useful references: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm . It is of course not an unbiased guide to early church practice, but it’s nonetheless a useful one.
Myca,
Aquinas can certainly be used to back up certain pro-choice ARGUMENTS–he did not think that fetuses had fully formed souls. However, his position was strongly and unequivocally anti-abortion–just not anti-abortion on “fetuses are full human beings” grounds.
(Is this making sense? Here’s an analogy. I think that only humans have rights, but that we have duties toward animals; I thus oppose beating animals. I would be supporting the argument, but not the conclusion, of the guy who argues that it’s OK for him to beat his dog, since it has no rights. I’d be supporting the conclusion, but not the argument, of the PETA guy he is arguing with.)
Jake,
Brad Hicks and I are arguing from the “biblical literalist” tradition. In most forms of that tradition, all the Bible is the word of God; the quotes from Jesus are not “more the word of God” than the rest.
Myca,
You are correct about Aquinas. However, his position on ensoulment was based on primitive embryology. Basically, the point at which it begins to look like a person must obviously be the point at which it becomes a person. It is reasonable that the church’s position could shift. However, the position that ensoulment happens at conception has been around since at least the 1700s. I don’t have a link, unfortunately.
There is a lot in that long essay that deserves attention, such as Hick’s attempt to equate the goals of the modern Republican party with that of the party in 1870. He’s clearly not an historian.
There was one thing in particular that made me question his abilities to speak on this subject. In part four he says: “the leaders of the evangelical Christian movements and the leaders of the Catholic church simultaneously agreed to substitute a false gospel.”
This faith not works theology is a Protestant problem. Twelve years of Catholic school in the 80s and 90s and I never got any of the “false gospel” he rails against. I also find it dubious that “leaders of the Catholic church” did anything of the sort of “simultaneous” agreeing on anything. All through the Reagan-era Catholic clergy worked diligently in areas of social justice. Catholic voters on the whole remained very Democratic throughout the decades following this supposed coup to preach a “false gospel”. Proscriptions against abortion and homosexuality come not from a literalist interpretation of the Bible but 2000 years of thoughtful tradition, theology and interpretation.
Unfortunately, this is a (very long) conspiratorial puff piece.
It should be clear that Brad wants to show what biblical literalism implies here, and that his Pharisees are characters in a book. It should also be clear that Paul settles much of this in Romans 13:8-10, saying that “love thy neighbor” is the only moral commandment for Christians. So yes, the Christian Bible does reject the prohibition on incest unless you can justify it by argument from this fundamental principle (though obviously the fact of recessive genes provides a strong argument in many cases). I don’t know where you see this anti-apostle business, Sam. Paul tells us clearly what part of his moral writings matters the most.
Do y’all think that biblical literalists did not change their behavior in or (more likely) after 1964 in the way that Brad describes?
Pingback: How Republicans Conspired To Create The Current Clusterfuck More Commonly Known As Fundamentalist Christianity « Our Descent Into Madness
It should also be clear that Paul settles much of this in Romans 13:8-10, saying that “love thy neighbor” is the only moral commandment for Christians.
That’s exactly backwards, hf, from the normal understanding of this passage.
Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
The usual understanding of this is that one who loves his neighbor will fulfil all the duties to his neighbor that the Law specifies–not because they are legal requirements, but because they are what a loving person acting lovingly would do.
Sam, you just argued that the ‘duties’ are guidelines for helping one’s neighbor in an earlier time and place, and that Christians should ignore any commandment that doesn’t still further this goal today.
Jesus also hysterically denounced the Pharisees.
I don’t think saying that Jews descend from a group of people 2000 years ago who were mistaken on theological and political positions should make anyone queasy. At the same time, I’m surprised that more people don’t find it queasy when it’s said that Jews killed Christ, or the more general belief that an entire race of people are going to burn in a sulfurous Lake of Fire for all eternity.
So if you’re only arguing for a *tradition* or a point of view, to what extent is parsing the text a “classic mistake” – as opposed to another point of view?