The BBC recently hosted a discussion between Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi of Great Britain, and Richard Dawkins, which took a decided turn to the bizarre when Sacks accused Dawkins of being a “Christian atheist” — as opposed to a “Jewish atheist” — and accused him of anti-Semitism for criticizing the God of the Old Testament.
Lord Sacks complained about a passage in Prof Dawkins’s book in which he said that the God of the Old Testament was the “most unpleasant character in all fiction”.
Prof Dawkins said that his remark that the stories of the Old Testament suggested God was “jealous”, “petty”, “pestilential”, a “megalomaniac” and a “bully” was a joke. But Lord Sacks replied: “There are Christian atheists and Jewish atheists, you read the Bible in a Christian way. Christianity has an adversarial way of reading what it calls the Old Testament – it has to because it says ‘we’ve gone one better, we have a New Testament’.
“So you come prejudiced against what you call the Old Testament and that’s why I did not read the opening to chapter two in your book as a joke, I read it as a profoundly anti-Semitic passage”
Prof Dawkins expressed incredulity. “How you can call that anti-Semitic?” he said. “It’s anti-God.”
Lord Sacks insisted: “It is anti the Jewish God, Richard.”
All of this is quite absurd. I’m not sure why Dawkins would say he was joking; what he said was entirely correct and appropriate. The fact that the god he was calling jealous, petty and a megalomaniacal bully happens to be the Jewish god — and the Christian and Muslim god, by the way — does not make him anti-Semitic in the least. The God of the Bible is, in fact, portrayed as all of those things. Thomas Jefferson called that deity “cruel, capricious, vindictive and unjust,” and that is undeniably true.
And the idea that considering the Old Testament deity to have all sorts of heinous traits is a Christian way of viewing the Old Testament is simply ridiculous. Christians find ways to excuse and rationalize away the cruelty and barbarism of the Biblical god just as Jews and Muslims do, and they do so for the vile passages of the Old Testament just as Christians do for the New Testament and Muslims do for the Quran. But the conception of god in all three of those religions is barbaric and repulsive from start to finish.
62 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
edmundog
September 18, 2012 at 1:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I assume by it being a “joke”, he was just pointing out that his choice of words was meant to be entertaining and humorous, while still accurate.
cry4turtles
September 18, 2012 at 1:21 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Isn’t a christian athiest kind of like dry rain, or warm ice, or a calm wind?
geoss
September 18, 2012 at 1:33 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Dawkins always maintained his overview of god in TGD was meant to be funny.
Because it’s true.
Raging Bee
September 18, 2012 at 1:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The Jewish religious right seems to be falling back on the charge of “sntisemitism” more and more often these days. I think it shows they’re losing touch with reality.
Christianity has an adversarial way of reading what it calls the Old Testament – it has to because it says ‘we’ve gone one better, we have a New Testament’.
Atheism has a similar adversarial way of reading all religious texts: it says “we’ve gone one better, we have reason and common sense without the baggage of useless superstitions.”
Isn’t a christian athiest kind of like dry rain, or warm ice, or a calm wind?
Actually, no — there is such a thing as Christian Atheism, at least according to one guy at Speakers’ Corner. As I understand it, the core doctrine of Christian Atheism is that the only way to consistently live and act according to the teachings of Jesus, is to become an atheist: get rid of all supernatural beliefs, reject all religious authorities, stop pining for Heaven or some ficticious Golden Age, live in the present (which is where God put you), take responsibility for your own actions, use the brain and conscience God gave you, and do the right thing for yourself and others, according to your own best judgment, without waiting for some god or spirit to tell you it’s right, and without worrying about rewards or punishments in the afterlife. I’m not saying Dawkins is in that camp, but it is a plausible doctrine as such things go.
Ed Brayton
September 18, 2012 at 1:42 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yes, there actually are people who call themselves Christian Atheists; Richard Dawkins is certainly not among them, of course. It was just such a bizarre accusation to make.
d cwilson
September 18, 2012 at 1:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Not true. Christians, especially fundjelical types, love them some good old-fashioned smitey-hammering on the infidels as described in the book of Genesis. These are people who think the Flood was just the opening act and are eagerly awaiting the day Jeebus returns to toss all the nonbelievers into the flames.
Michael Heath
September 18, 2012 at 1:51 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Besides Raging Bee’s method of being a Christian Atheist, one could be a cultural Christian who doesn’t believe in god. Given that a very large share of Jewish in this country and other western countries are atheists*, it’s not surprising that a British rabbi could read Dawkins books and assign him an analogous label to Jewish atheist.
*The book, Society without God, doesn’t just cover belief in two nordic countries, it also considers Jewish Americans who remain Jews but also are atheists.
machintelligence
September 18, 2012 at 2:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
cry4turtles @2
Heavens, no! Christian atheists even come in two flavors:
I’m reminded of an Irish joke:
No One
September 18, 2012 at 2:01 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Sacks in anti-Hellenic. He defines Greek culture through the lens of the tragedies. “The Greeks had no hope”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roFdPHdhgKQ
It’s an odd thread/meme that keeps rearing it’s head.
Geds
September 18, 2012 at 2:14 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Heath @7: Besides Raging Bee’s method of being a Christian Atheist, one could be a cultural Christian who doesn’t believe in god.
I’m going to second this. I think a lot of people tend to be atheists in specific reaction to their previous religion or their area’s dominant religion. So in a cultural sense it might make perfect sense to accuse someone of being a Christian atheist if, say, they have completely ignored Jewish tradition and interpretation and say that a Jewish person is wrong about the Bible because of a Christian interpretation of the text. It would make no sense, for instance, for Dawkins to try to score points against a Jewish scholar on the grounds that the Jesus prophecies are untenable. The Jewish scholar would respond with, “Well, yeah, that’s why we aren’t Christians.”
In this case, though, I think it’s a case of a Jewish scholar trying to score those cheap points. Although it could be that Gentiles look at what Yahweh did in terms of, “Man, that guy was a bloodthirsty jerk,” while Jews look at it in terms of, “Look at what he did for our benefit.” That, I suppose, would be a bit adversarial. And it would be like those various figures in sports who you hate when they’re on the other team and love when they’re on yours. It’s much easier to overlook the trash talk and dirty play when it’s your guy trash talking and hand checking the other guys.
Bronze Dog
September 18, 2012 at 2:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
An alternative interpretation of “Christian atheist” is an atheist who is “culturally Christian.” Unfortunately, becoming an atheist doesn’t automatically remove bigotry that can come from growing up in a bigoted Christian environment. That’s what I think Sacks is trying to use as his narrative.
Unfortunately for his argument, Dawkins and other atheists point to the Old Testament because it’s barbaric, and commonly used by fundie Christians to justify their bigotries. Christians usually get the emphasis because they’re often the ones with greater influence where many of us live. Fundie Jews do it, too, though they’re generally less likely to make headlines and thus probably get less atheist attention for it. I currently see no basis for asserting that Dawkins is doing anything different for Jews than what he does for Christians.
If Dawkins really is being antisemitic, I’d want to see better evidence than Old Testament criticism. There are highly plausible, non-bigotry explanations for the Old Testament getting a lot of criticism. Also, from my experience, fundie Christians and fundie Muslims both assert that we pay special attention to their religion while being soft on the other because we’re bigoted against them and love the other. Sometimes they’ll assert that we’re Jew-lovers or even Jews ourselves. I find it hard to take such assertions seriously when we have so much reason to criticize all of the groups and finite resources.
yoav
September 18, 2012 at 2:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I would probably be considered a jewish atheist by the good rabbi so I guess he won’t object to me saying that the stories of the Old Testament suggested God was “jealous”, “petty”, “pestilential”, a “megalomaniac” and a “bully”, I would also add “asshole”, “homicidal maniac” and “racist piece of shit” to the list, and no Mr Sacks I’m not joking.
Christoph Burschka
September 18, 2012 at 2:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yeah, but is he a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?
tbp1
September 18, 2012 at 2:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I had a friend once who described his family as “Jewish Unitarian atheists.”
I’m sure no one here will have any trouble figuring out what he meant by that.
typecaster
September 18, 2012 at 2:55 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
There’s another sense in which religious background retains some influence in an atheist’s thinking. I remember reading an article comparing atheists who were previously Catholic with those who were previously Protestant. The tendency was for former Catholics to prefer hierarchical political arrangements such as monarchy, while former Protestants tended to prefer flatter social structures with more democracy. I’m not aware of any surveys that might show similar differences between atheists of Christian vs Jewish background, but I’d be interested seeing the results.
Of course, any such differences would be unrelated to the sorts of things that Jonathan Sacks thinks form the distinction – he just wants to divert the conversation into a place where he can claim to be the victim.
Marcus Ranum
September 18, 2012 at 3:02 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Wouldn’t the correct response to that have been, “what, are you that stupid?”
John Horstman
September 18, 2012 at 3:06 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Don’t worry, speaking out against genital mutilation is also considered anti-Semitic by a lot of people. My response is always, “If you’re defining Semitism as necessitating cutting bits off of infants’ genitals, then yes, I’m opposed to that and thus anti-Semitic. However, by using that definition, you’ve made anti-Semitism into a necessary ethical position if one is to support human rights like the right to bodily integrity/agency.” The same can be said here – if worshiping a murderous, misanthropic, insecure, cosmic asshole is a necessary part of ‘Semitism’, then I’m anti-Semitic, and that’s a very good thing. (I think it’s a bad rhetorical move to dilute anti-Semitism by conflating it with pro-social ethical positions, especially by simply – possibly disingenuously, in an attempt to bully a critic into silence – failing to distinguish between hating Jewish people and criticizing the absurdity that is the Yahweh myth, but then Sacks sure seems like an idiot or asshole, so maybe that shouldn’t be surprising.)
As for “Christian atheist”, Sacks clearly means culturally-Christian, but atheist. His charges aren’t a lot more coherent, but I’m not really confused by that bit.
BrianX
September 18, 2012 at 3:23 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Special pleading at its dumbest, or just incoherent? You deicide.
Doug Little
September 18, 2012 at 3:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Couldn’t you call Jefferson a Christian atheist? He did reject the supernatural from the bible but still apparently had a thing for the philosophy of Jesus.
zmidponk
September 18, 2012 at 3:37 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Wait a minute, if the God of the Old Testament is the Jewish God, why is he in the Christian Bible at all? Indeed, why is the Old Testament itself in there, if, as according to Sacks, the New Testament is basically a replacement of it? It seems to me that Sacks has got his theology wrong, as well as misunderstanding what Dawkins is saying in his book.
cry4turtles
September 18, 2012 at 3:46 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Wow, that’s interesting stuff. Perhaps I’m a cultural christian athiest, or would I also be an unwilling, demographical, cultural christian athiest? So many labels to consider.
Mattir
September 18, 2012 at 3:50 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The culture we come out of definitely influences our atheism. I am a Jewish atheist, today celebrating Rosh Hashanah. Dawkins, having been raised firmly in a Christian culture, is a Christian atheist, presumably celebrating Christian holidays, with Christian ideas about god/heaven/hell/sin/etc. It is extremely easy to underestimate the differences between Judaism and Christianity (and between different flavors of each, for that matter). The problem with what Dawkins said is that the Old Testament is a piece, but only a piece, of Jewish scripture and religious tradition, and taking one’s ideas about a deity solely from the text of the Old Testament is like drawing conclusions about US constitutional law from the Constitution, without reference to either the amendments or Supreme Court jurisprudence.
And can I say, as a bit of a rant, how irritating it is to have atheists-from-Christian-cultures yammer at me about how I shouldn’t celebrate Jewish holidays or identify as Jewish because “ZOMG Christmas is like totes non-religious and no one should need anything different!111!”? Happens all the freaking time and is massively annoying and condescending.
Michael Heath
September 18, 2012 at 4:06 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Christoph Burschka writes (with a wink):
Dr. Dawkins grew up in the Anglican, Church of England culture and according to The God Delusion IIRC, occasionally finds himself in their worship services. So that’d make him an Anglican atheist.
Stacy
September 18, 2012 at 4:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Can’t resist:
Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 atheist, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912 atheist?
Rodney Nelson
September 18, 2012 at 4:19 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
In Trevanian’s novel The Main, there’s a scene where two French-Canadian police officers enter a Catholic church. Even though neither of them had been in a church for years, they both remember the smell of Catholic churches. The author comments: “They were non-Catholics, which is different from being a non-Protestant or a non-Jew.”
Dawkins qualifies as being a non-Christian, probably a non-Anglican.
laurentweppe
September 18, 2012 at 4:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Well, there is more and more opportunities to notice and state the obvious about said religious right’s corruption, incompetence, insularity and unfettered bloodlust. A desperate bully is most certainly not loosing touch with reality: that’s where his desperation comes from.
But the thing is, the british rabbi may not be a member of the religious right: remember that, not so long ago antisemites where quote-mining the Old Testament and the Torah to justify themselves and used «God is described as “jealous”, “petty”, “pestilential”, “megalomaniac”» to «Jews are jealous, petty, pestikential, megalomaniac», making it a touchy subject for some.
***
Or you could simply use religion as a proxy for race, and join the “Obama’s not white, ergo Obama can’t be a Real True Trademarked Christian” crowd
Artor
September 18, 2012 at 4:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ Bryan #18
“Special pleading at its dumbest, or just incoherent? You deicide.”
I’ll happily commit deicide, if you can show me where to find the deity and provide a weapon that works.
Dawkins must be anti-semitic, because he NEVER, EVER criticizes the New Testament, right?
lofgren
September 18, 2012 at 4:31 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If the Rabbi went on to elucidate exactly how Dawkins’ interpretation of the old testament has been tainted by his cultural Christianity, and then to show how the God of the Old Testament is in fact a swell guy according to Jewish interpretations that Dawkins failed to consider, I would consider the accusation of being a “Christian” atheist to be fair criticism. Not the anti-semitism, because Dawkins’ error would be one of ignorance and cultural myopia, not targeted at the Jewish people but simply insufficiently considerate of their interpretations, which is neglectful but can be forgiven in a book that primarily targets Christian interpretations anyway.
Ichthyic
September 18, 2012 at 4:42 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
FWIW, Coyne did a post on this very same thing a few days back.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/09/15/britains-chief-rabbi-calls-richard-dawkins-a-christian-atheist/
Those wanting to see another perspective (mostly similar to Ed’s) and review of that “debate” might want to check that out.
Dawkins posted his direct response in the comments there.
For those that don’t know Jerry, he’s the UoC evolutionary biologist who wrote “Why Evolution is True”.
eric
September 18, 2012 at 4:55 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So, Dawkins calls God jealous and Sacks labels him an anti-semite for it.
This guy also called God jealous. I wonder if Sacks would call him antisemitic too.
Stacy
September 18, 2012 at 6:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
As Icthyic said in comment @ #29, Jerry Coyne posted about this a few days ago, and Dawkins commented.
Looks like Dawkins and Lord Sacks have reached an understanding. From Dawkins’ comment:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/09/15/britains-chief-rabbi-calls-richard-dawkins-a-christian-atheist/
imthegenieicandoanything
September 18, 2012 at 9:48 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Here’s where “anti-Semitic” is not so much an insult as a joke, if not, weirdlly, a compliment. Richard D. couldn’t care less about this professional conman’s cultural background or biological make-up, but about the validity of the ideas expressed. To have this do-nothing claim otherwise provokes chuckles because it confirms the dishonesty of everything he says otherwise.
Whatever flavor of horseshit they come in, god believers are all the same kind of bad.
PatrickG
September 18, 2012 at 10:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Stacy: LOL.
(Here’s a random link which contains the joke, which apparently no other commenters found funny. Atheist Apostates, every last one of you.)
John Phillips, FCD
September 18, 2012 at 10:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
PatricG, do you have any idea how often many of us have seen that joke. It’s a bit like the joke that PZ has sort of banned for overuse, you know, the one about a guy on his roof in a flood refusing all kinds of aid until god shows up. It’s funny the first few times, after that, meh.
PatrickG
September 18, 2012 at 10:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
John Phillips, FCD:
Having seen that joke many, many times myself, I still find it funny, and worth drawing attention to. But really, I just wanted a chance to call y’all Atheist Apostates.
gardengnome
September 18, 2012 at 11:02 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The charge of “anti-semitism” does indeed seem to be used more and more as a tool to silence critics (or even commentaters) these days.
John Phillips, FCD
September 18, 2012 at 11:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
PatrickG, yeah I thought that Atheist Apostates seemed conveniently placed at the end there :)
StevoR
September 19, 2012 at 1:37 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@36. gardengnome wrote :
Or could it perhaps just be that anti-Semitism is becoming more common and more people are actually being anti-Semitic and saying anti-Semitic things these days instead?
That notion occur to y’all?
georgebean
September 19, 2012 at 1:40 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Neither the OT God nor the NT God’s a “moral being”, if it comes to that. The OT God has temper tantrums but he (at times) implies “me bad” by promising to keep his cool from here on out-the NT God promises the calculated, (indeed pre-ordained in Calvinist interpretation) and wholly disproportionate meting out of justice with eternal torment.
Did Dawkins really retreat? Or was his “just joking” another of the billions of Dawkins mashup strawmen? If he DID back it up a bit, I’m not completely surprised. Dawkins spent a few too many years in his own culture’s own cloistered “belief system” to distance himself from it as objectively as he should do as true “skeptic”. And I say that as a life-long atheist who is frustrated beyond belief that he screws the arguments up all too hell-consistently. He’s unable to be as objective to alternative religious believers and concedes too much to believers in the system he grew up in. It’s as if he recognizes much of his cartoony stridency sends the wrong message to Jews but can’t conceive the same, the cartoony “truths” and stridency is predictably mistranslated by Muslims.
Ichthyic
September 19, 2012 at 1:46 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That notion occur to y’all?
yes, actually. It occurred to a lot of folks over at Coyne’s blog too, including Jerry.
it was also rejected as being irrelevant to the case at hand, and rightly so.
Ichthyic
September 19, 2012 at 1:47 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Did Dawkins really retreat?
you know, you can read both his initial statement, and his responses.
his main response is posted verbatim just a few posts above yours.
Ichthyic
September 19, 2012 at 1:51 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
contains the joke, which apparently no other commenters found funny
oh, it was kinda funny, when Emo told it the first time about 30 years ago.
joachim
September 19, 2012 at 1:51 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Dawkins, in TGD several times refers to the “Notorious Jewish Lobby”, bying into the anti semitics canard that the Jews Control The Government.
He also equates the Jewish struggle for survival in Israel, which followed the Holocaust, with the Nazi Lebensraum, and suggests…like Sam Harris…that Jewish “refusal to assimilate” makes them to blame for the persecutions they have suffered. Blame the victims, Richard.
So,Yes, Dawkins is anti semitic.
StevoR
September 19, 2012 at 1:55 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Also does anyone here really think anti-Semitism (or shall we call it Judaeophobia) should be pointed out and criticised wherever it is found even in the atheist community much as racism and sexism are?
StevoR
September 19, 2012 at 1:59 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Typo fix :
I think those here who are trying to minimise and overlook anti-Semitism should feel ashamed of themselves and also percieve that there’s a nasty anti-Semitic undercurrent to quite a few discussions here esp. regarding Israel.
kraut
September 19, 2012 at 2:13 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“Blame the victims, Richard.”
Yeah, I get it, the British blew themselves up and the Palestinians just left the country to blame the Jews later for injustice done.
A reference to the “notorious Jewish Lobby”: AIPAC’s stated purpose is to lobby the Congress of the United States on issues and legislation related to Israel(read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee)
is a reference to the power that organization really wields in not controlling but heavily influencing Americas politics in the middle east.
But we already now: any, and I really mean any, criticism of the Israeli government is immediately deemed by some antisemitism.
But it is like crying wolf once too often: if every action or opinion is considered anti semitic, nobody eventually will give a shit when the really destructive antisemitism will hit the synagogues and the jews in some other country, because nobody will pay attention anymore.
Ichthyic
September 19, 2012 at 2:34 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think those here who are trying to minimise and overlook anti-Semitism should feel ashamed of themselves
you know who should feel ashamed?
people who imply there should be a discussion about anti-semitism in a thread that has nothing at all to do with it.
You know, Jerry’s jewish, right?
strangely, he found nothing in Dakwins approach that had anything to do with antisemitism, and you can READ DAWKINS OWN RESPONSE.
so, fuck off with the red herrings, eh? they’re old, and they stink.
now, when anti-semitism really DOES apply, and, as many have noted, it does still exist, then your posts might be on target.
kraut
September 19, 2012 at 2:35 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“Lord Sacks insisted: “It is anti the Jewish God, Richard.”
Is Sacks an idiot or just dense? And there in my ex catholic upbringing I had thought both were the same, with some fancy footwork in the NT about the integration of the sun and the holy ghost.
Now lets see: I am a catholic atheist, because I reject that one, but also a Jewish atheist because they are the same – essentially. I am also am a Taoist atheist, because I don’t believe in that pantheon, a classical Greek atheist, a Norse atheist, a Hindu atheist, a Shintoist a shamanic atheist…how many more are there…
kraut
September 19, 2012 at 2:41 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
actually, I think the NT did not try to integrate (they denigrated) the sun (god)it was the son whom they so mercilessly killed..ahh now, that were the Romans..but they just followed a judgement in the Sanhedrin, so yes, jesus was killed after all by the jews. What a fucked up story, that.
But from what I read on another overflowing threat, we should abstain from criticizing religion (or make fun of it, or in any way tell what we think about that shit) because the offense takers might react violently…
democommie
September 19, 2012 at 8:13 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“Or could it perhaps just be that anti-Semitism is becoming more common and more people are actually being anti-Semitic and saying anti-Semitic things these days instead?”
I don’t think that anti-semitism is becoming more common. I think it’s more likely that the fraction of people that are anti-semitic is fairly constant, but they’ve become emboldened by events, just like the racist Teabaggists have “taken off the gloves” re: the PotUS being BLACK!
“But from what I read on another overflowing threat, we should abstain from criticizing religion (or make fun of it, or in any way tell what we think about that shit) because the offense takers might react violently…”
That would be what YOU infer from what you read, moron. People on that thread you’re speaking of (and, yes, I’m fairly certain it’s the one about the piece-of-shit propaganda screed that defames islam) are arguing, primarily about whether ALL speech should be protected. There are some there who’ve argued that we should be circumspect in our criticisms (they are wrong) while others there are saying that we should not. Few if any of the comments on that post say we should not be critical–sorry if that doesn’t fit your goggle-eyed, spittle flecked narrative, asshole.
iangould
September 19, 2012 at 8:52 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Dakins is on record as advocting the conversion of Muslism to christianity so he celarly has soem sort of heirarchical view of religions.
My personal view is that he views Chriastianity as superior since it gave birth to the pinnacle of human evolution known as Rcihard Dawkins and is therefore clearly superior to all those other piles of primitive darkie claptrap.
Oh and regardless of what soem American fundamentalists in the 21st century may thinkm, the primitive vicious etc. nasture of the Old Testament God has been a maisntay of antisemitism sicne at least Martin Luther. (The usual argument is that The jews perverted God’s true message of peace and understanding.)
Michael Heath
September 19, 2012 at 8:58 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
iangould @ 51,
Are you writing comments from a smartphone without your reading glasses?
iangould
September 19, 2012 at 9:12 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
No, I’m writing comments after two nights of essentially no sleep.
Raging Bee
September 19, 2012 at 9:13 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
oh, it was kinda funny, when Emo told it the first time about 30 years ago.
And Loftus’ retelling of the joke might have been kinda funny, if he hadn’t followed it up by bashing atheists for “demanding complete conformity” to…something or other he doesn’t specify.
Raging Bee
September 19, 2012 at 9:16 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed: you need to re-varnish your cache server. Use the good stuff this time, not the cheap stuff that doesn’t last, okay?
some bastard on the net
September 19, 2012 at 10:19 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If you’re just talking about the ‘be nice to everybody’ parts of Jesus’ philosophy, then shouldn’t Jefferson be called a Hammurabi Atheist or a Golden Rule Atheist? I’m fairly sure that the concept of being nice to people predates the entire bible itself.
Sastra
September 19, 2012 at 10:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Technically speaking, the rabbi could call Dawkins out for having a Christian perspective (as opposed to a Jewish one) for using the term “Old Testament” instead of the Tanakh (or Torah or Pentateuch.) But to accuse him of anti-semitism for this is massive stretching.
Judging by Richard’s comment, the rabbi was worried about him promoting the assumptions I’ve seen from the few self-designated “Christian atheists” I’ve actually met: Jesus is the most amazing, astonishing, unparallelled role model for humility, love, compassion and simplicity ever! All atheists — all people (including Jews) should strive to emulate this practically perfect man. Thus, the ‘Christian atheist’ — “there is no God, no heaven, no hell — but I love Jesus because he’s so wise!”
Another version of this is “if only Christians could be more like Christ!”
Since this “practically perfect man” exists only in the heads of those who worship him and the character in the book is enthusiastically preoccupied with salvation, damnation, and the end of the world, this is odd and insulting advice. Jesus did not totally change God from bad to glad. God just got more patient.
Ace of Sevens
September 19, 2012 at 10:30 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@51: Where did Dawkins say that? I know Ayaan Hirsi Ali has said such things, but wasn’t aware of Dawkins doing so.
Ichthyic
September 19, 2012 at 4:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@51: Where did Dawkins say that?
I too recall no such words.
However, even if it were completely accurate, it has fuck all to do with THIS accusation of him being an anti-semite by this rabbi, wrt to this debate.
another red herring.
John Phillips, FCD
September 19, 2012 at 11:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
iangould, admittedly it is a while since I read him, but if IIRC, Dawkins’ argument is nothing to do with how bad Islam might be compared to Xianity because Xianity is so good, but because Islam hasn’t yet gone through its own version of the enlightenment. I.e. Xianity has lost much of its power and, generally speaking, today’s Xianity is a much watered down version, much to the apparent regret of at least some of its adherents or authorities :). Thus, in one sense, if we must have believers, better a watered down enlightenment ‘weakened’ Xian believer than an Islamic believer encumbered by an Islam that hasn’t gone through an equivalent enlightenment.
kraut
September 20, 2012 at 2:46 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“That would be what YOU infer from what you read, moron. People on that thread you’re speaking of (and, yes, I’m fairly certain it’s the one about the piece-of-shit propaganda screed that defames islam) are arguing, primarily about whether ALL speech should be protected”
And if you idiot would be able to read you wouldn’t even have to infer that my limit to free speech is the actual incitement to violence. Oh, and islam is now defamed, how fucking sorry…that piece of shit religion just cannot be defamed enough…together with all the rest of the supernatural shite, including judaism and christianity.
I just fucking hope I did by doing so not incite you to some irrational action, as you seem to have so well apologized for the muslim rabble.
democommie
September 21, 2012 at 5:59 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“I just fucking hope I did by doing so not incite you to some irrational action,”as you seem to have so well apologized for the muslim rabble.”
Oh, dear, the SaurKraut seems to have his lederhosen in a bunch.
“as you seem to have so well apologized for the muslim rabble.”
And you’re a lying fuckbag, too.