![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rhuFirst, I want to apologize for not drawing the distinction between the literal reading of the Christian scriptures and the beliefs of many contemporary followers of Christianity. My point was not to impugn those mainstream Christians who do not believe that non-Christians are prima facae damned; my point was that Trudeau was setting up his punchline using commonplaces that (1) had their origins in the literal reading of Christian scripture, (2) developed through two millennia of Christian thought that does hold that way, and (3) are still held by many evangelicals (some of whom, as I understand it, regard even Christians of other sects as un-Saved).
Second, I want to comment on Abe Foxman. In one word, Oy. Look, Trudeau made a poor judgment call. I and others felt it was appropriate to explain to those who would read our comments why this particular joke made us uncomfortable. I sent my observations in to the Doonesbury site, where they were posted along with others; my hope in doing so was to raise awareness of the historical context in which some of us were reading the strip. I didn't feel that an apology from Trudeau was called for (although it certainly would have been appreciated had there been one). But then Abe Foxman and the ADL demand an apology, and what the hell good does that do? Now if Trudeau apologizes, he looks like he's doing it because "the Jews" made him, and if he doesn't apologize, the whole situation looks to the target audience like a justification of the anti-Jewish reading of the strip: good Christian refuses to kowtow to the Jews who run the media. If Foxman had meant it, he would have sent a private note to Trudeau suggesting that an apology would be received well by Trudeau's public. The only reason Foxman did what he did is that it gets press for the ADL. Well, see if I send them a check again anytime soon --- and if that's not self-defeating (for the ADL and, God forbid, for me) then I don't know what is.
Third, some of the responses on the Doonesbury feedback site were disheartening. A small number of readers accused me and the others who had written in of "hunting for hurts" or being "small-minded." I'd like to think that I'm fairly broad-minded, in fact, and that I wasn't looking for a reason to be offended but was merely explaining why the strip made me uncomfortable. A subtle difference, perhaps, but a crucial one. I didn't respond, because how could I? But they're precisely the people that we need to reach, to have them understand that these words reinforce societal attitudes that, if left unchecked, grow into actions.
Which leads to fourth. Clearly there's no direct causal relationship between a single comic strip which inadvertently included anti-Jewish code phrases and this afternoon's horror in Washington, D.C. The perpetrator, may his name be blotted out, had a decades-long fixation on "the Jews" ruining this country via, inter alia, financial mechanations. Yet the two are also not completely unrelated.
We must not forget that there are people on the fringes of society who hate. Most importantly, we must ensure that they stay on the fringes of society. Whether they hate Jews, or "non-Whites", or Muslims, or Democrats, or women or LGBT individuals or whomever, whomever they hate, once we start to dismiss their hate as unimportant, as not worth the effort to fight, we let their hate become acceptable, and then we let their hate become normal, and then we let their hate become expected, and sooner or later --- but all too often sooner --- we let their hate destroy us.
"Marginalize hate." It's a crappy bumper sticker, but it's the only way we'll survive.
Second, I want to comment on Abe Foxman. In one word, Oy. Look, Trudeau made a poor judgment call. I and others felt it was appropriate to explain to those who would read our comments why this particular joke made us uncomfortable. I sent my observations in to the Doonesbury site, where they were posted along with others; my hope in doing so was to raise awareness of the historical context in which some of us were reading the strip. I didn't feel that an apology from Trudeau was called for (although it certainly would have been appreciated had there been one). But then Abe Foxman and the ADL demand an apology, and what the hell good does that do? Now if Trudeau apologizes, he looks like he's doing it because "the Jews" made him, and if he doesn't apologize, the whole situation looks to the target audience like a justification of the anti-Jewish reading of the strip: good Christian refuses to kowtow to the Jews who run the media. If Foxman had meant it, he would have sent a private note to Trudeau suggesting that an apology would be received well by Trudeau's public. The only reason Foxman did what he did is that it gets press for the ADL. Well, see if I send them a check again anytime soon --- and if that's not self-defeating (for the ADL and, God forbid, for me) then I don't know what is.
Third, some of the responses on the Doonesbury feedback site were disheartening. A small number of readers accused me and the others who had written in of "hunting for hurts" or being "small-minded." I'd like to think that I'm fairly broad-minded, in fact, and that I wasn't looking for a reason to be offended but was merely explaining why the strip made me uncomfortable. A subtle difference, perhaps, but a crucial one. I didn't respond, because how could I? But they're precisely the people that we need to reach, to have them understand that these words reinforce societal attitudes that, if left unchecked, grow into actions.
Which leads to fourth. Clearly there's no direct causal relationship between a single comic strip which inadvertently included anti-Jewish code phrases and this afternoon's horror in Washington, D.C. The perpetrator, may his name be blotted out, had a decades-long fixation on "the Jews" ruining this country via, inter alia, financial mechanations. Yet the two are also not completely unrelated.
We must not forget that there are people on the fringes of society who hate. Most importantly, we must ensure that they stay on the fringes of society. Whether they hate Jews, or "non-Whites", or Muslims, or Democrats, or women or LGBT individuals or whomever, whomever they hate, once we start to dismiss their hate as unimportant, as not worth the effort to fight, we let their hate become acceptable, and then we let their hate become normal, and then we let their hate become expected, and sooner or later --- but all too often sooner --- we let their hate destroy us.
"Marginalize hate." It's a crappy bumper sticker, but it's the only way we'll survive.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-11 02:44 am (UTC)What's the difference between "hate" and "hatred?"
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-11 02:48 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-11 03:04 am (UTC)"Marginalize hate" might not be a good bumper sticker (though I've seen worse), but it's what we need to do. All of it.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-11 03:53 am (UTC)The way you put things here makes me uneasy.
The problem originally was with what Trudeau said, wasn't it? What Trudeau said is ugly and disgraceful to me as a Christian - of the sort most people would consider to be evangelical, even, I think - and all the more so because he wraps himself in so-called Christianity to do so.
So if this is about what Trudeau wrote, and why it is wrong, why do I feel like you are criticizing Evangelical Christians here instead?
...
We must not forget that there are people on the fringes of society who hate. Most importantly, we must ensure that they stay on the fringes of society. Whether they hate Jews, or "non-Whites", or Muslims, or Democrats, or women or LGBT individuals or whomever, whomever they hate, once we start to dismiss their hate as unimportant, as not worth the effort to fight, we let their hate become acceptable, and then we let their hate become normal, and then we let their hate become expected, and sooner or later --- but all too often sooner --- we let their hate destroy us.
Once again, your phrasing makes me uneasy. What about those who hate Republicans? or Christians?
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-11 01:14 pm (UTC)The problem originally was with what Trudeau said, wasn't it?
Yes, and it still is. But the reason it's a problem is not simply the words that he used. The reason it's a problem is the historical context that gives a second meaning to those words.
What Trudeau said is ugly and disgraceful to me as a Christian
I am heartened by that, as I was by those comments on the Doonesbury boards by Christian ministers who called out Trudeau on what Reverend Sloan really would have said.
But sadly the fact remains that there are many people who call themselves Christians who accept the ideas behind that strip without a second thought. There are also non-Christians who do; but in this case the origin text is the Christian scriptures and the development of these ideas mostly in the pre-Vatican-II Catholic church, not to mention the works of Martin Luther.
why do I feel like you are criticizing Evangelical Christians here instead?
Because I erred.
Because I accepted the anecdotal evidence that led me to believe that of the various Christian denominations, the ones that still hew to the historical view of Jews as doubly damned for denying Jesus as Christ are the Southern Baptists, the Christian Coalition, Pentecostals, and other groups under the general umbrella of evangelicalism.
Because I neglected the fact that the matter of the recommunication of Bishop Williamson has reminded us that not all Catholics accept nostra aetate.
So when I meant to say that "Many of the Christian groups and leaders who still say such things today seem to label themselves as evangelical," I was wrong on two counts: I was not careful enough to say "but they are merely a vocal minority," and even had I done so, I was wrong to single out evangelism as a subset of Christianity where this vocal minority persists in preaching hatred.
Chatati b'dibur peh, I have sinned in a matter of speech; please forgive me.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-11 01:27 pm (UTC)Or whites or men or straights. Or Sikhs or Hindus or Baha'i or those who do not believe in any deity. But the list was already getting long.
Yes, my list was skewed towards groups who have been on the receiving end of dangerous levels of hate rhetoric --- and worse --- in the United States in recent years. (I justify the inclusion of Democrats on the basis of Sarah Palin's campaign rallies; to my knowledge no one at a Joe Biden rally called for the death of the Republican candidates.)
And (with the exception of "Democrats") these are also groups which are minorities, less powerful, and to a greater or lesser degree outsiders from our society. In a word, vulnerable.
I ended my litany with "whomever," and repeated it for emphasis. Certainly hatred of Christian white Republicans is equally repugnant. And where it is present in the world it too must be fought.
But it is not the most effective example of fringe hatred in the United States today, and that's the simple reason why those groups weren't on my list.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-06-11 05:43 pm (UTC)I don't deny that Foxman grandstands, and that it sometimes makes me uncomfortable. The ADL has never received a penny of my money. However, suggesting that the ADL demanding an apology for a cartoon that transparently trades in antisemitic tropes is bad because it will make it look like the Jews run the media is preposterous and plays into the hands of the anti-semites.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-08-04 05:46 am (UTC)Those groups that believe any"eternal" separation or punishment for His chosen people, deny the Old and New Testaments. God made a promise to Abram and God does not lie! Nor is He "willing that any should parish".
Those that limit the power of an entity that created "existence" from nothingness through or by its "thoughts", do not comprehend the full truth.
This entity we call God, exists outside of time. We live inside time. (I use the personal pronoun, he, for easier understanding.) He knows what has passed, what is passing, and what, for us, will pass. With Him, there is no future. It is done. Within the power of His mind, He is not so vindictive as to send babies to "Gehenna" or deny any human ever born, the opportunity for Grace. How? I don't know. I don't have the power to understand. I just trust in His power to fulfill all his promises.
As for fearing those groups mentioned above, no one mentioned that small group of radical Muslims who follow a belief that all those, (men, woman and children) who do not convert, must be killed. Just as some twist the Ancient Jewish Writings and those who take a line or two out of the context from a full letter, written by someone like Paul the Apostle, we will all have to live, or die, with the results.
The 9-11 tragedy was no accident. Poison in a city water supply; a home-made "dirty bomb"; Ricen in your Oatmeal; These things will not be aimed at the Jews, Catholics, or Atheists only, they will be for us all! We must work together to keep our children and their futures safe. My friends in Vietnam never asked what his buddies religion was, it didn't matter. You trusted him to watch your back, be he Black, Skin Head, Agnostic, or Sgt. York...