Asymmetrical Information

>Somebody told you it was a real red-neck, weirdo >community, right?

You have got to be kidding me. Let me tell you as a Chicagoan: Barrington has one of the highest per capita incomes in the state, and probably compares well with the rest of the U.S. A high proportion of local CEOs and other top corporate muckety-mucks live there. It is about as redneck as Greenwich, CT.

The utter contempt of this jerkass for the flyover states is astounding. But then again, what would a sheep-humpin' Midwesterner like me know?

Many of the main-line Christian churches are Christian in name only. That is, they teach the philosophy of Christ (treat everyone kindly, etc.), but they don't accept the central message of Christianity: Christ was the Son of God, He died to save us from our sins, and through belief on Him (and only through Him, no one else) we can be saved in the Kingdom of God. (Only one God? How divisive!) It's to the point that you can be a minister in some of these churches as long as you are willing to teach people to play nice with each other. Believing in God, Heaven, and Hell are no longer requirements of the job.

As one who has been both and Episcopalian (childhood/youth) and an evangelical (teens) I've been both fascinated and repelled by the reaction to this movie.

I had no idea that any Christians anywhere had decided that the Jews were not responsible for Jesus death. That's really pretty obvious from a straightforward reading of the 4 gospels.

Upon what do the more secular branches of Christianity base their religious beliefs? I can certainly understand differing opinions about the meaning of scripture, but if you throw the whole book out the window how can you still call yourself a Christian?

As I no longer believe in Christianity (or Judaism, Islam or Hinduism for that matter) as anything other than powerful historical mythology I'm somewhat amused when the factions that purport to believe these things fight amongst themselves.

As always it takes a clear vision expressed unapologetically to get all the powers that be up in arms. Gibson's view, right or wrong, is clear. Those with vested interests in other views must resist.

The article in question is at:

http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2004/01/27/passion/index_np.html

[Jane: no link, bad blogger!] You'll have to get a day pass or subscribe. Silly Salon.

David Walser:

Americans are abandoning traditional Christian teachings because they don't make any sense.

Don P: I don't desire to debate the merits of any person's faith, or lack thereof, in this forum. I simply find it interesting that many churches no longer profess a belief in god. Why call yourself a church if your fidelity is to a moral philosophy and not a supreme being? Why, too, get upset because another person (Mel Gibson) offers a point of view you don't share? I don't stay awake worrying that a bunch of people believe I'm going to hell since I don't accept their religious views. Why get bent out of shape over a movie that portrays an event differently than you would have done? Make your own movie.

People are upset about the movie because they believe it to be anti-semitic, which it may well be.

I actually though Americans are abandoning modern Christian churches because the churches are abandoning traditional Christian teachings.

I wouldn't have a problem with most of his comments if they were coming from an atheist or at least someone without any church connections. But for a nominally Christian minister to be making comments along the lines of the Bible not being the place to go if you want the truth and complaining that there is too much focus placed on the crucifixion? I think it goes a long way to explain why so many North American congregations are hemorrhaging members. If curches aren't providing anything you couldn't get in the latest Deepak Chopra book, what's the point in going?

Okay, I actually sacrificed the time to click through the Salon ad and read the whole "interview". Megan's excerpts captured the important parts; the whole conversation is only 3 pages long. And that's with half the first page just giving background, including the vital info that Gibson's father has made "inflammatory, crackpot-conspiracy statements about the Holocaust, 9/11, Jews and Freemasons". Oh, and there's a "frighteningly well-organized Christian group called Outreach" promoting it. (They're Christian and they're organized, aieeee!)

Parts are a bit bizarre. Salon's subheading is A clergyman infiltrates the grass-roots campaign for Gibson's new Gospel film to catch a screening and reports that Jews, Arabs -- and Christians -- should be worried.

By "infiltrate", Salon means Stanger went to a showing (with his mom) when he was invited. He braved the wilds of... suburban Chicago (which is probably a big deal for someone from San Francisco. Note he did not brave the wilds of Orange County, tho that would have been a shorter trip).

The only mention of Arabs in the conversation is that Stanger thinks Aramaic sounds like Arabic: Some of those words in Aramaic sound a little bit like Arabic -- Arabic is a Semitic language too. I'm not sure what Arabs are supposed to be worried about, but I guess Salon would recommend they change to a language that doesn't sound so Aramaic...

I'm completely thrown by the language thing. Stanger says "It was so xenophobic: The good guys speak English; the bad guys speak these other languages." So does that mean Jesus (and the Apostles) speak English but no one else does?

No, because the very next sentence, Stanger says, "It wasn't a consistent view, because in the film Jesus was speaking the same language as his tormentors, but even so, I think it was meant to cause confusion and awe in the audience, to have these horrible people speaking either a Semitic or an ancient language like this." So who are these good guys speaking English?

I guess he meant was "It was so xenophobic: The good guys and the bad guys both speak these other languages." Which of course makes no sense. He's probably right in that Gibson wanted to create confusion or awe (or some emotion) in the audience, but if Jesus is also speaking the language, I don't think xenophobia fits at all. Unless, of course, you already think Gibson is a xenophobe and are looking for supporting facts...

I didn't quite follow this snippet from the beginning, either:
Wilson: Somebody told you it [Willow Creek] was a real red-neck, weirdo community, right?
Stanger: This guy I know said he wouldn't set foot in there -- not without shots, at least.

Is that supposed to mean shots of alcohol? Or is it some reference to guns? Do people in San Francisco actually talk in this disconnected way? I don't think I'd take my mom into some place I was worried about... and if I weren't really worried about it, I wouldn't bring it up.

In the end, this is just a bull session between two (very leftist) friends about Gibson's movie. It sounds like Stanger's thoughts haven't settled down yet, and he's projecting his own ideas onto it ("it's anti-Semitic because Aramaic sometimes sounds like Arabic!"). How else to interpret lines like "The parts that are kind of overlooked are Jesus saying, 'Love your enemies'; 'Those who live by the sword will die by the sword' -- those lines are in there, but..."

It's clear he doesn't like the graphic blood aspect. And there's definitely a tone of, "What's the big deal, the Romans crucified lots of people!"

Maybe someone will write a thoughtful review of the movie, but this isn't it.

Well, but Don P, so far, the argument is that portraying the crucifixion as it is described in the gospels is anti-semitic. I think that telling people that they have to alter the central event of their religion because you don't like how it portrays someone's 2,000 year old ancestors, or because some anti-semitic wingnut might decide that this gives him a license for violence, goes beyond the reasonable demands of pluralism. Of course, if you've already decided that it's all a bunch of crap, it doesn't seem like a big deal to alter it . . . but in that case, why take so much umbrage when those same Christians ask you to alter all that evolution stuff that gives them so much trouble with their kids?

I think the Christian gospels clearly are anti-semitic, and the culture and religious practises of countries with a Christian heritage used to reflect that anti-semitism much more clearly than they do now. Christians have learned to downplay or ignore or "reinterpret" (ha ha) the more obviously anti-semitic passages in their sacred writings in order to conform to the greater acceptance and respect for Jews and Judaism that now exists in our society. Mel Gibson seems to be doing the opposite.

As for your bizarre reference to evolution, my umbrage concerns attempts to teach creationism in public school science classes. I'm not sure why you think that is inconsistent with my belief that Christianity is, as you put it, a bunch of crap.

But it's rather inconsistent with your apparent belief that people should be willing to alter their core beliefs if others find them offensive.

And DonP -- the Christian gospels were written by jews. I think it's possible to read them as a brief against the Jewish religious establishment, but lunatic to read them as a brief against the Jewish people.

That is not my belief. My belief is that Mel Gibson should not be making movies that fan the flames of anti-semitism. Many thoughtful people who have seen The Passion believe that that is what it does.

And DonP -- the Christian gospels were written by jews. I think it's possible to read them as a brief against the Jewish religious establishment, but lunatic to read them as a brief against the Jewish people.

Then I guess you must believe that until very recently Christians were lunatics, since "a brief against the Jewish people" is precisely how they have traditionally read their gospels. The 2,000-year history of Christian preaching against Jews has been a direct consequence of the doctrine that Jews share collective guilt as a people for the death of Christ. Until as recently as the 1960s, the standard Catholic liturgy included references to "the perfidious Jews"--not the individual Jews involved in the killing of Christ, but ALL Jews. When even the Pope acknowledges this sordid history of his Church, and feels the need to make an official apology for it (if you can call that an apology), you can be sure that it is deeply woven into the fabric of the faith.

And DonP -- the Christian gospels were written by jews. I think it's possible to read them as a brief against the Jewish religious establishment, but lunatic to read them as a brief against the Jewish people.

Er, are you not aware of the history of Passion plays with respect to anti-Semitism? Googling for "Oberammergau" should prove illuminating.

Don P,

If complaining about anti-Semitism is your thing, you might want to remove the log from your own eye first. The level of anti-Christian bigotry in your own comments is appalling.

Yes, that's right. The belief that Christianity is harmful nonsense is obviously "anti-Christian bigotry."

Yes, that's right. The belief that Christianity is harmful nonsense constitutes "anti-Christian bigotry."

Don P says, "Christian gospels clearly are anti-semitic."

Don, can you quote some actual text from the Gospels that supports your claim? Based on your comments here, I don't think you've ever actually thoroughly read (let alone understood) what is written in the Gospels.

As someone very familiar with the Gospels, I can't see any evidence that the Gospels are anti-Semitic. Yes, they clearly state that the Jewish authorities of Jesus' time arranged for the Romans to execute Jesus. On the other hand, Jesus, his disciples, and a large majority of his followers were also Jews, and that is also abundantly clear.

Jesus wept over Jerusalem. He spent a lot of His time in synagogues, teaching and debating with the religious authorities of the day. Elsewhere in the Bible, one of the major debates of the time was whether or not the message of the Gospels should be kept to the Jews or allowed to be preached to others (the Gentiles). Jesus and His followers were Jews, without doubt. Real Christians understand and accept that, and that the Jews are God's chosen people. We know that we're "adopted sons and daughters," as the Bible says.

Even today, one of the most vocals groups of supporters of Israel are evangelical Christians.

I haven't, as yet, seen the movie, but if Mel Gibson has succeeded in faithfully reproducing the events of Jesus' crucifixion, Jews will be seen as *people* both good and bad - like all of us. I can't see how that can be construed as anti-Semitic.

I don't doubt that there are people with a less-than-thorough comprehension of the Bible will attempt to twist the Gospel message into one of hate - just as there have been throughout history, as Don points out. (It's so ironic and tragic that it happens, since the word "Gospel" means "good news"). However, the failings of those who (purportedly) are Christians are *not* the fault of the Gospel message. If you think they *are*, then you must also accept that the recent actions of Islamic terrorists are due to their Islamic beliefs. I am more than ready to differentiate the violent actions and beliefs of extremists from the mainstream beliefs of those that non-violently follow their personal religious convictions, whether Christian or Muslim. Aren't you, Don?

For a quick read of how Christians believe they should behave towards others - even those of other faiths, read the parable of the Good Samaritan in the Gospel of Luke, chapter 10, verses 25 through 37. Anyone that can read this parable, and then claim that Christianity or the Gospels are anti-Semitic just doesn't get it or is willfully ignoring the real message.

Maybe Josh thinks we all read German, which is what mostly comes up when you Google for "Oberammergau". It's a town in Germany that puts on a famous Passion Play every ten years. Here's a discussion of the changes made in the 1990 and 2000 plays to reduce the complaints of anti-Semitism.

Historically, the European Christian church has been anti-Semitic, at least in modern terms. And one of the supposed reasons for this was that "the Jews killed Jesus". (As opposed to more concrete reasons, like they had lots of money and were a convenient scapegoat.) That said, it sounds like Don (and Josh) think it's not possible to portray the story of Jesus' death without "fan[ning] the flames of anti-semitism." As Megan points out, the Gospels were written by Jews; perhaps we should edit them extensively before letting the hoi polloi see them?

I think this "anti-Semitic" claim is just more of the modern multi-culti stuff where we have to bend over backwards to avoid offending anyone. It sounds like Gibson was more interested in depicting the events described in the Gospels than bending over backwards.

Another few years, and movies won't have Nazis with German accents, because that'll be considered offensive to Germans. (And a little further down the road, signs saying "Bush=Hitler" will be considered insensitive to Nazis...)

Gosh, PJ/Maryland, there's a "search for English results only" link right there at the top of the results page.

And I'm not saying that it's not possible to portray the story of Jesus' death without fanning the flames of anti-Semitism, I'm saying that Jane's comment that it's insane to read the Gospels as anti-Semitic is... not exactly borne out by history. But hey, if you want to ignore the history of this particular issue, I can't stop you.

Pete Nelson:

No, I don't intend to get into a debate about actual quotes from scripture, because you'll just insist that any anti-semitic understanding of the text is a misinterpretation.

I will just point out, per my earlier post, that until recently the near-universal Christian understanding of the gospels was profoundly anti-semitic, and that that strongly suggests that it is your revisionist reading that is the incorrect one.

But, hey, different Christians have been "interpreting" their shared sacred writings to say all sorts of mutually contradictory things for thousands of years. That's partly why you're splintered into so many different denominations and sects, and why Fred Phelps and Bishop Spong can both claim to be "followers of Christ."

Oh dear. I was just trying to figure out how to say this without Godwin's Law kicking in. Too late.

Don P [sarcastically]:

Yes, that's right. The belief that Christianity is harmful nonsense is obviously "anti-Christian bigotry."

Well, I don't know. Is the belief that Judaism is harmful nonsense anti-Semitic bigotry? Is the belief that Islam is harmful nonsense anti-Muslim bigotry? I'm inclined to say not, but that is certainly how such views would be widely perceived.

For my part, I can understand anyone thinking Christianity is wildly implausible, or even that it's a transparent pack of lies, and I don't mind anyone saying so. But don't try to tell me that no intelligent person could possibly believe such rubbish. I've met too many counterexamples.

Anyway, back to the Gospels. Pete Nelson said it well, but I'll just add this. The Gospels are, or at least present themselves as, historical narrative. Suppose — purely hypothetically, you understand — that they are accurate historical narrative. And no, don't, please, go into discrepancies among them. Pick one. Suppose it all happened exactly as John, say, said it did. Would John then be anti-Semitic? I don't find that an easy question.

Oh dear. I was just trying to figure out how to say this without Godwin's Law kicking in. Too late.

Don P [sarcastically]:

Yes, that's right. The belief that Christianity is harmful nonsense is obviously "anti-Christian bigotry."

Well, I don't know. Is the belief that Judaism is harmful nonsense anti-Semitic bigotry? Is the belief that Islam is harmful nonsense anti-Muslim bigotry? I'm inclined to say not, but that is certainly how such views would be widely perceived.

For my part, I can understand anyone thinking Christianity is wildly implausible, or even that it's a transparent pack of lies, and I don't mind anyone saying so. But don't try to tell me that no intelligent person could possibly believe such rubbish. I've met too many counterexamples.

Anyway, back to the Gospels. Pete Nelson said it well, but I'll just add this. The Gospels are, or at least present themselves as, historical narrative. Suppose — purely hypothetically, you understand — that they are accurate historical narrative. And no, don't, please, go into discrepancies among them. Pick one. Suppose it all happened exactly as John, say, said it did. Would John then be anti-Semitic? I don't find that an easy question.

Sorry about that. I have no idea why that post came up twice. I only sent it once. Advance apologies if this one gets doubled too.

I've always been amused by Christians getting hung up on "who killed Jesus," and especially on the kind of Christians who need to fine someone to blame -- usually Jews -- for killing their Lord.

For one thing, Jesus volunteered for the job. Despite his doubt in the garden, he was a willing victim.

Second, the sacrifice, scapegoating and resurrection is *the central tenet of Christianity*. If Jesus had *not* been killed, there would be no salvation. So rather than blaming, those Christians should be thanking whoever was "responsible."

Finally, if I knew for a fact that I would be coming back to life in 72 hours, I'd jump headfirst into one of Saddam's shredders.

Michelle Dulak:

Is the belief that Judaism is harmful nonsense anti-Semitic bigotry? Is the belief that Islam is harmful nonsense anti-Muslim bigotry?

No. They're all nonsense. They're all harmful.

For my part, I can understand anyone thinking Christianity is wildly implausible, or even that it's a transparent pack of lies, and I don't mind anyone saying so. But don't try to tell me that no intelligent person could possibly believe such rubbish. I've met too many counterexamples.

Well, clearly, many undeniably intelligent people have believed such rubbish and many continue to do so. Just as many other intelligent people have believed and continue to believe other rubbish that contradicts Christian rubbish. Intelligence may be an obstacle to irrationality and superstition, but it's no cast-iron defense against it. Fortunately, traditional religious belief is in decline, and to the extent that they survive, western religions are evolving into a kind of philosophical deism. The process is further along in Europe, but the U.S. is on the same path. Already, the meaning of the term "Christian" has become very vague, because so many people with such wildly diverse beliefs all claim that label. If Christianity can mean anything, then Christianity means nothing, which is what I think will eventually happen.

Any responsible reading of the Gospels would include how Jesus "came to fulfill the Law, not destroy it". Even after the crucifixion instigated by the Sanhedrin, the apostles saw themselves as being exclusively Jewish until well into the history in Acts, and explained in Paul's Epistles. But these books are not the Gospels.

The only way you get "anti-semitism" out of the Gospels is to ignore how almost the complete character cast in the Gospels were Jews and then to equate egregiously the Sanhedrin's Saduccees with the entire Jewish community in Roman Palestine. If you really want another good critique of the moral corruption of the Sanhedrin, you can do some research into the Essenes and note how they came to reject how the Jewish authorities were running the Jewish community's spiritual life, much as John the Baptist and Jesus came to criticize that "brood of vipers".

Warning, warning, grammar pedantry ahead!

Jane called Father Stanger an "episcopalian minister". "Episcopalian" is a noun, the proper adjective is "Episcopal". So Father Stanger is an Episcopal priest (or minister), who ministers to a congregation of Episcopalians. (I could also say Father Stanger is a foolish twit, but that wouldn't illustrate my point.)

There, I feel better now.

Don P.: Your problem is with religion in general, and not with Christianity. If for you life begins with one cry and dies with another, then that's fine for you. But to conflate with intelligence with atheism or agnosticism when many luminous intellects in world history have been specifically religious in how they interpreted the world is both empirically a dubious argument and argumentatively condescending.

My goodness, DonP and Josh -- if you thought you were going to find me defending the revolting anti-semitism that appeared in various Christian churches, you were very much mistaken. It was indeed an idiotic reading of the gospels . . . but as others have pointed out, it was a convenient reading that allowed people to harass an outgroup that was noticeably more successful than the general population, and often allowed the authorities to seize their land and valuables . . . hardly an unbiased reading of the gospels.

I had no idea that any Christians anywhere had decided that the Jews were not responsible for Jesus death.

I think that Phil came closest to explaining it.

My own religious upbringing (which I no longer subscribe to as an Objectivist) was that Christ died for the sins of everyone in the World since the time of the Garden of Eden in which case who it was who actually killed him (e.g. Roman and Jewish authorities) was considered incidential (if that is the correct term).

I seem to recall that in the Bible (for those who wish to argue this from a theological standpoint) that it makes it clear that a son shall not pay for the crimes of his father and vice versa. In which it would seem from a biblical standpoint to be inconsistent to blame "the Jews" for something that another person did 2000 plus years ago regardless of whether they were also Jewish.

Don P says "the near-universal Christian understanding of the gospels was profoundly anti-semitic."

Don, all I can say in response is that you seem to be long on opinions and short on facts.

Certainly, there has been anti-Semitism amongst people claiming to be Christians, and continues to be today. Those "Christians" espousing anti-Semitic views, whether now or historically, are and were wrong - plain and simple. Anyone actually *reading* and *understanding* what the Bible says can come to no other conclusion. If, Don, you can actually point to passages from the Bible that are anti-Semitic, in word and intent, I'm all ears (or is it eyes, in this case?). On the other hand, I pointed you to a passage that clearly says, in Jesus' own words, that Christians are to treat others, even those of other faiths, with kindness and charity, even when it's inconvenient. (In Jesus' time, the Jews and the Samaritans generally hated each other. In Jesus' parable, a Samaritan comes to the aid of a Jew that had been attacked and seriously injured by bandits on the road, even paying an innkeeper to take care of the wounded Jewish traveller. Jesus commands the *Jewish* religious leader that had questioned Him to "go and do likewise").

Don, my reading isn't "revisionist;" it's the same understanding that many (perhaps even "most") evangelical Christians have. I keep emphasizing *understand* because, as you point out, lots of people *say* they are Christians. Jesus even predicted that this would happen in Matthew 7:21: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

Don, you are conflating the actions of those who *claim* to be Christians with the actual message of the Gospel. One does not equal the other - just as the actions of Islamic terrorists are not the same as the message of the Koran.

In the case of the Koran, jihad against non-believers is actually called for in certain circumstances, but moderate Muslims have not accepted this as a call for violence.

On the other hand, the Bible does not *anywhere* that I have ever seen call for violence against non-Christians. Those that have used violent means of promoting Christianity are misguided at best. In my opinion, actually, violence in the name of Christianity is an abomination to the Christian faith.

Christians certainly aren't perfect. We make mistakes, but we believe we can be redeemed from those mistakes and overcome them (that's the point of the Gospel, after all). What you're doing, Don, is classic "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." The messenger is *not* the message. Your dislike of the the messenger(s) doesn't invalidate the message. I think if you read the Gospels with an open mind, and tried to understand what is actually being said, you might have a different view of what Christianity is really about.

Tim Roberts:

The fact that there have been many individual intellectually distinguished Christians is not a good argument for the intellectual merits of Christianity, although I'm sure it provides comfort to many intellectually undistinguished Christians who cannot escape the sneaking suspicion that their religion might actually turn out to be a bunch of crap, after all.

You can find intellectually distinguished adherents of almost any religion or belief system, including many that contradict Christianity and one another. As I said before, intelligence is no foolproof defense against superstition, irrationality, childhood conditioning, or the seductive power of wishful thinking.

Studies show that the more intelligent and educated a person is, the less likely he is to be religious. Religiosity correlates INVERSELY with intelligence and education. And before you tell me that you personally know two PhDs at your own church, I will remind you again that the existence of exceptions does not disprove the rule.

Studies show that the more intelligent and educated a person is, the less likely he is to be religious. Religiosity correlates INVERSELY with intelligence and education.

Really, which studies?

Not to defend the piece as a whole, but I grew up going to a small Catholic church in downstate IL and went to Willow Creek a couple times after I moved to Chicago. (I think that's the "community" the interviewer refers to, not Barrington.)

Can't speak for the interviewer's use of "red-neck," but from my short observations I wouldn't argue with the rest of the description. It freaked me out, too. It's not an easy place to slide into....I'd say it's a fascinating sight to see but I wouldn't want to join.

Thorley Winston:

These ones, for example. The link summarizes the results of over 30 studies that indicate an inverse relation between IQ and religiosity.

Religious groups and individuals themselves often unwittingly admit that intelligent and educated people tend to be nonreligious when they disdainfully refer to the prevalence of secularism and disbelief in academia, in the media, in the arts, amoung scientists, and so on. These groups tend not to be religious and tend to be critical of religion (much to annoyance of Jane Galt).

In contrast, if you go into a blue-collar town in the middle of Flyoverland, you'll likely find high levels of religiosity.

Don P.: What your last post just proved is that your prior point about intelligence and religion had no basis whatsoever beyond its status as a personal opinion. To put your assertion in the statistical balance, what you have done is made a correlation between two independent and unrelated phenomena. Similarly, I could say that more people get sunburns in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern Hemisphere. The correlation is there, but it says nothing about why it is true, and conveniently ignores the simple fact that more people live above the equator than below it along with a multitude of other geographical and economic factors.

Tom Roberts:

What your last post just proved is that your prior point about intelligence and religion had no basis whatsoever beyond its status as a personal opinion.

Um, what point of mine about intelligence and religion was that? And how does my last post "prove" that this point has no basis other than "personal opinion?" I don't think you read either of my last two posts very carefully. You certainly don't seem to have understood them.

To put your assertion in the statistical balance, what you have done is made a correlation between two independent and unrelated phenomena.

First, a correlation is a relationship. If two phenomena are correlated, they are related by that correlation. But I assume that what you meant to say above is that intelligence/education and religiosity are CAUSALLY unrelated. What evidence do you offer to support that claim?

Hi, I'm going to ignore the trollish behavior here and return to David Walser's comments: Well said, David. From Stanger's comments, I couldn't figure out what Stanger was doing as a priest. But in his parish he's in charge of liturgy, so I guess he likes dressing up, smells and bells, and all that.

The contempt from both interviewer and interviewee was astonishing -- the interviewer was eager to have not only the movie, but the crucifixion and the audience dismissed. And the reverend gave the interviewer everything that was asked and more.

Thanks for the entry, Jane. You did a good job of being fair.

IB Bill:

Stanger is contemptuous of the movie and of Gibson because he believes them to be anti-semitic. Others who have also seen the movie or read the script also found them anti-semitic. Perhaps you should wait until you have seen it yourself before dismissing their opinions.

Ok, Don, you challenge Tom to provide evidence that religion and intelligence (or the lack thereof) are causally unrelated. On the other hand, you offer zero evidence that religion and lower intelligence *are* causally related. I looked at the list of studies you provide. Several of the studies showed no correlation whatsoever. None was more recent than 1980. Several were from the 1920's and 1930's. None of the summaries discussed methodology in detail, so it's impossible to ascertain whether or not the studies are valid, but most looked like they were simply surveys. Surveys often suffer from self-selection and other biases, which make them less than reliable. Yet, you assert that the supposed inverse correlation between intelligence and religiosity is a "rule!" That's quite a leap of faith there, Don, if you'll pardon the expression. ;-)

Besides all of this, what does the (supposed) intelligence of the adherents of a religion have to do with its validity? I suspect we could do a survey of college professors and find that they tend to support socialism or communism more than the average population (especially if we chose a random university like, say, *Berkeley*). We could also reasonably assume that the IQ of these college professors is higher than average. And there you have it, the survey would say there's a strong positive correlation between socialism/communism and high IQ! Does that mean that socialism or communism are superior economic systems than capitalism? I suppose that's arguable, but the evidence says no. But the people that support capitalism are dumb! How can it be that they're right?

Your argument is, frankly, beside the point, and it just doesn't hold water.

The original post was about Mel Gibson's movie being anti-Semitic. You piped in on how the Gospels *themselves* are anti-Semitic, but you've offered no evidence, other than that some people that say they are Christians are anti-Semitic. When I challenged that, you had nothing to say. Then you fall back on the old "religious people are dumb" bit, again with the flimsiest of "evidence" to support your assertions. You cast yourself as rational, but you keep making arguments and assertions with little to no evidence to back them up. I probably don't understand the breadth and depth of your thinking, though, since I'm just one of those dumb Christians.

Don P -- so the rambling about the anti-semitism of having Jesus speak Aramaic, the whinging about this ridiculous fixation on the crucifixion, and his open contempt for those with a different belief structure than his (and may I point out that whatever your personal prejudices may be, Reverend Stanger professes to be a Christian and believe in God) -- attitudes which seem to have prefigured the screening, are the sort of high-end reasoning we expect from your high IQ types?

And hey, weren't you the chap arguing six months ago that IQ was a meaningless construct unrelated to anything in teh real world?

I was raised episcopalian, and this guy makes me realize why the church is dying, and deserves to. The thing that was most laughable to me was his complete misinterpretation of Gibson's reasons for using the original languages - he somehow seems to think it was out of some xenophobia, even though none of the characters speak english. (doesn't xenophobia require a clear labling of "the other"?) What Gibson was going for (and has said on many other occaisions) is that having characters in a historical drama speak English makes the artifice obvious, and takes away from the documentary feel he was going for. I would think even a San Francisco Episcoplian could figure that out...

Gaaah! I just went to the website of Grace Cathedral, linked in the article, and I read this:

http://www.gracecathedral.org/church/images/church_rc_welcomeText.gif

If they want to be Buddists, fine - but why do they persist in pretending they're Christians?

On the anti-Semitism of the Gospels, I've only been able to think of one scene where the Jewish people (as opposed to the Sanhedrin, or Pharisees, or "chief priests and elders") are maligned. (I mean that in the sense of "speak evil about"; not having been in Jerusalem at the time, I can only speculate about what actually happened.) In Matthew 27:20-26, the crowd shouts for Barabbas, and when Pilate washes his hands and says "I am innocent of the blood of this just man. The responsibility is yours.", the crowd replies "Let his blood be on us and on our children."

This is the scene mentioned as having the most changes in the revised Oberammergau plays. My New American Bible has a footnote saying "probably the evangelist's commentary on the responsibility for Jesus' death." (The other Gospels describe similar events, but Pilate doesn't wash his hands and the crowd limits itself to crying for Barabbas and yelling "Crucify him.")

Don (et al) argues that the Gospels must be anti-Semitic because the Christian Church has been. But, in fact, through most of the Middle Ages, people weren't reading the Gospels (they couldn't read, after all), but hearing them preached in Latin. I think there's a correlation between increasing literacy rates and declining anti-Semitism over the centuries, though quantifying anti-Semitism would be hard to do. And how the (atheistic? non-Christian, certainly) Nazis fit into that is anyone's guess.

Back to the movie, though....I remember a similar dust-up about 14 years ago about another movie called "The Last Temptation of Christ".... several groups had their objection to that movie, for whatever reason, but I don't recall anyone coming out and saying that it was anti-semitic....

Don P.,

"Americans are abandoning traditional Christian teachings because they don't make any sense."

*Blink, blink*

Really? o_O

Before you get *too* excited over the notion of American Christianity being in decline there's an interview with Philip Jenkins from the Atlantic Monthly that you may wish to consider:

http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/int2002-09-12.htm

"I almost see three different demographic trends here - you have Europe, which is de-Christianizing at an amazing rate; you have Africa and Latin America, where Christianity is growing very fast; and the U.S., where Christianity is holding on very well. It's still the default religion for the great majority of Americans...I think that's one concept that we tend to misunderstand in the United States. We have this idea that America is becoming a very religiously diverse society. For instance, there's a very interesting book by Diana Eck called A New Religious America, about how America is becoming the world's most diverse society. In fact I disagree. I think it's becoming a more Christian society?a society in which Christians are if anything more numerous and more dominant, because the more Latino a country becomes, the more you get those kinds of religious traditions. One figure I always quote is that by 2050 a third of Americans will probably be claiming Latino or Asian roots. The great majority of those are going to be coming from Christian backgrounds."

Also of interest from that interview is this statement by Mr. Jenkins, "...This shows that Brent Staples has probably never looked inside a church outside midtown Manhattan, because when you go anywhere else in the country, the churches are trying to build ever bigger car parks."

Your premise seems false. In light of this you may want to reconsider your conclusion as well. My suspicion is that poor Mr. Stanger spoke from sour grape. ^_~

- S.P.M.

"I couldn't put my finger to it, but there was this atmosphere of giddiness and anticipation"

Giddiness and anticipation? In a church? When they are about to watch a movie about their savior? Appalling!

Seriously, why is this guy a reverend if he doesn't think this sort of thing is worthy of excitement? I may belong to a synagogue and not a church, but if I thought my Rabbi didn't feel a sense of joy about things to do with G-d and worship, I would be very inclined to switch synagogues.

And exactly how is Aramaic anti-semitic? There are a number of prayers that we say (e.g. on the High Holy Days) that are Aramaic...are we being anti-semitic?

None of this is to actually defend the movie. I believe the movie will be anti-semitic...but I can't blame Mel Gibson too much as my understanding of the NT (and I can't claim to have a wonderful understanding of another religion's holy book) is that it has some strong currents of anti-semitism. I believe that if Gibson keeps to his source material, it will be partially anti-semitic. But from a purely historical view, I don't think that that should be edited out to make way for current sensibilities. If "it is as it was" according to the text that Gibson is using, then Gibson has done his job.

Not that I would see it anyways...

For the people here who have argued that the NT is not anti-semitic:

Some of the arguments you have offered here have centered on the fact that Jesus' diciples were Jewish...but Jews tend to consider converts to other religions as members of the other religion (and possibly as betrayers of Judaism).

What this means is that the story of Jesus consists of
1-bad Jews who were against him and sought his death with evil hearts and
2-good ex-Jews who followed him and should now be considered Christians.

The understanding of the gospel writers, however, was that they weren't a new religion. The messiah had arrived, and they expected that eventually, the jewish people would recognize this. The sense of being a new religious tradition comes later. In a sense your framework is true -- they expected that good jews would join them, because a good jew recognizes the messiah. But I don't think you can argue that it was anti-semitic, in the sense of believing that jews, or practicers of the jewish faith, are inherently bad. Now, many people have interpreted it that way--but just looking at today's constitutional debates is enough to realize that people can read in all sorts of things the writers never intended.

The medieval Catholic Church was able to work around this semantic issue of the early Church fathers as Jews. The rule was that "Biblical Jews" were to be respected, but that there were no such Jews in Europe at the time, since Judaism had taken a wrong turn with the Talmud around the fall of the Roman Empire. All the Jews around were not worthy of respect.

By accepting the Talmud, today's Jews have cast our lot in with the Pharisees. The medieval Church recognized this distinction and put the Talmud on trial.

It's not enough to say that Jesus only criticized the Temple leadership, not the Jewish people. All of Judaism since the fall of Rome has been defined by identification with rules that are counter to the spirit of Christianity. I had a conversation with my father-in-law about some of the rules Jews observe on Shabbat, like not turning on light switches, and his response was that these were the sorts of rules the Pharisees believed that Jesus came to disagree with. From a Christian point of view, he was befuddled by the importance of ritual and laws to Judaism. That is fine. That is why we are two different religions.

When the Jews of Palestine did not accept Judaism, the church fathers had no problem writing us off as a different group from them. The synoptic gospels were written at a time when there was still hope that the Jews would accept Jesus as Christ. This hope gradually fades through the course of the synoptic gospels when arranged in chronological order. It's all but gone later.

"Constantine's Sword" is an excellent resource for a reading of the New Testament in light of the identity struggles of the early church with relation to Judaism.

"But this little interview with an episcopalian minister, from Salon, doesn't predispose me to listen too carefully to its critics."

The interview was roundly slammed by Salon's readers in the letters page today. I would not consider it fairly representative of much at all, any more than Pat Robertson's quotes are fairly representative of Christian beliefs and can be used as an excuse to marginalize every person of faith.

I can only imagine such an animated discussion thread with regard to a whole series of other movies which arguably have been far more anti-something, or have more aggressively distorted historical reality.

It's a movie. It is not a history book. It is not required reading in some high school history class. It is not a brief filed in a court of law purporting to prove someone's guilt or innocence beyond the shadow of a doubt, or even to establish the preponderance of the evidence.

It might be interesting to compare, to the extent it is possible, the historical accuracy of Gibson's film with the historical accuracy of Michael Moore's films, or the historical accuracy of James Brolin's latest tour de force.

The Holocaust was anti-semitic. The Inquisition was anti-semitic. The Al Sharpton-led riot which resulted in several deaths in Harlem was anti-semitic. Some people's anti-semitism is apparently different from other people's anti-semitism.

I am sure some will argue that the first movie about 9-11 will be anti-islamic. Oh well!

Jane,

I'm not arguing that the gospel writers were anti-semitic: it would be a silly assertion for me to make, I don't have that kind of information and, as you point out, they were in a completely different framework of how they would see themselves and their contemporaries.

What I am saying is that, from today's perspective of who is Jewish and who is not, within the NT itself (and, more specifically, the story of Jesus), there is the breakdown of bad Jews, good ex-Jews. As seen by Jews today, we do not see any good Jewish characters in the story. The diciples simply do not seem to be (or, more forcefully, they are not) Jewish and it is the Pharisis who are 'obviously' Jewish.

On another note, I read the full article that Leonard linked to (thanks Leonard!). I was astounded by the actual text of Stranger's claim that Gibson shouldn't follow the Gospels because they aren't 'historically' accurate. Um...isn't Gibson trying to make it Biblically accurate?

And Stranger's lack of understanding extended from not understanding why Gibson to not understanding Christianity: "The idea that G[-]d is so pissed off that G[-]d needs blood to satisfy him -- that is such a primitive notion." Um...isn't that sort of the basis of the ENTIRE Christian religion (of course, Stranger's nasty way of putting it is unnecessary)? That Jesus was needed to be the blood sacrifice for everyone else? Otherwise he was just a philosopher (not that I'm knocking philosophers, but why would you start a religion on the basis of worshipping a philosopher?).

Dina -- I see from your email that you're a fellow Penn person; clearly this accounts for your cogent and intelligent argument. ;-)

I think when we analyse anti-semitism we have to look at two things: how was the text meant, and how is it reasonably read?

I think we agree that it wasn't meant to be anti-semitic; that the gospel writers did not mean to argue that all or most jews are bad people.

I would also argue that it cannot be reasonably read as anti-semitic. We don't, after all, argue that the gospels are anti-Italian, even though there aren't any nice Romans in it (excepting, perhaps, the soldier who stabs Jesus to hasten his death), and there are quite a few exceptionally nasty ones. We reasonably decide, first, that the behavior of specific Romans in the bible is not an indictment of the entire Roman empire, and second, that even if it were, said indictment would not reasonably apply to their great(20) grandchildren.

I don't think the gospels portray all observant jews within the Perushim tradition as "bad" (the mob outside the window is nasty, but then mobs are.) It does portray the leadership as bad, but I think that I could (to take a group at random), argue that the Satmar hasidim are led by a bunch of corrupt bastards who have, through their bad leadership, induced their followers to foolish or even bad behavior, without arguing that all Satmars are bad -- much less that all of their descendants, unto the 20th generation, should be punished for the behavior of a 21st century leadership.

(Let me be clear that I know nothing negative about the leadership of the Satmars. This is only meant as an example.)

Of course, I may be using a more restrictive definition of anti-semitism than you are (though I would argue that the sort I'm worried about is the dangerous kind). And the fact that the gospels can't reasonably be read as anti-semitic doesn't mitigate the fact that lots of people have done so anyway, to horrific effect. I hope that Gibson has been careful -- that bit from Matthew doesn't add much, and it does carry nasty connotations, and with three other gospels to choose from, why not leave it out?

But I think the critics have gone too far (as you are also arguing). The crucifixion as portrayed in the gospels is the central event of the Christian faith. Demanding that devout Christians edit the word of God because some people are prone to reading idiotic and extreme things into it in order to sate their own prejudices goes beyond what a reasonable pluralistic society expects of its members.

I would like to respectfully point out to Dina that in NT times, Jews who became followers of Jesus were not "Ex-Jews", they were still considered Jewish (not something you can exactly renounce) and free to practice the traditions.
The changes came after Gentiles became believers. The question of what laws were to be followed was raised. It was decided that Jews could still follow the Law if they wished but Gentiles were not obligated. This was a big problem in the first century. The term "Christian" was at first used by non-Christians, it was derogatory.
It is true that Jews who were against Jesus were shown in a bad light. The OT prophets also present the bad side, no?
BTW, this Episcopal-ian should really be a Unitarian or something not so Christian.

Well, it seems this topic's been thrashed to death before I got here, so I'll only add a couple brief comments .

There used to be studies that purported to show that religiosity and industrial development were inversely correlated, but they have proven to be wrong as predictors for the U.S.: by those measures, we should be at about 5% religious observance, and in fact we are at about 70-90% (depending on which measure you use).

As far as anti-semitism and the Gospels go, this is well-trodden ground: what it boils down to is, people will believe what they want to believe. The understanding at my church--where we do a responsive, live-action interpretation of the Passion--is that when "The People" (that is, the congregation as a whole) shout out "Crucify Him!" and "His blood be upon us, and upon our children!", it is--far from being an accusation against the Jews--an assumption of guilt by all of us as sinners: a recognition, in fact, that as sinners, we crucify Christ again and again.

I grew up in the Unitarian church, and I tend to view it as a social club for fuzzy-thinking liberal unbelievers whose Calvinist roots don't allow sleeping in on Sunday morning. There are also Jewish unbelievers who changed their name, got their nose bobbed, and want to go to a nominally Christian church without having to actually believe in anything. So this is disturbing - can the Unitarians stand the competition from fuzzy-thinking liberal Episcopalians without any discernible Christian belief?

You need to try to see the situation from the perspective of someone living at the time to understand that the 'anti-semitism' exhibited by early christians, and the ideas that got incorporated into the church aren't anti-semetic at all.

The jews that accepted the Messiah saw themselves as living within the promised (by the jewish leaders) time of the Messiah. They could not understand why other jews would deny the very Messiah that had been, for so long, promised.

There had to be something wrong with jews who would not accept the jewish Messiah.

Look at it that way and then consider that this subject was not speculation to these people--they had broke bread with Jesus, they had listened to him--some of them AFTER they had buried him. The people we are talking about are those that had first hand experience of the Messiah that they'd been promised.

And those who didn't accept him? Surely there must be some reason. Surely there must be a reason why they called for his death--and they found one.

Satan.

Why do you think that is the common charge against all those--but particulrly jews--who were not christian? They must have been tempted by the devil--how else could you deny the Messiah that had walked mong them?

What other reason could there be? After all, the devil had attempted to tempt Jesus himself.

Think about it

Pete Nelson:

We cannot be absolutely certain that there is a causal relationship between higher intelligence/education and lower religiosity. We cannot be certain of such a relationship for any kind of belief. But the circumstantial evidence for it is overwhelming. People who lack the knowledge and/or intelligence to critically evaluate factual or truth claims are more likely to accept irrational or implausible claims than people who possess those skills. This is also evident in the inverse correlation between education and religiosity between countries and in the inverse correlation between development and religiosity over time. People in the developing world, who are likely to lack anything but a very rudimentary education, are much more religious than people in the developed world. And people in developed countries used to be much more religious when their countries were much less developed. Non-religious people also invariably cite education or reason to justify their disbelief. They will argue, for example, that religious claims are inconsistent with the nature of the world as revealed by science, or that religious claims contain internal contradictions or inconsistencies that render them implausible. These arguments reveal the causal relationship between intellectual process and lack of religiosity.

"Intellectual process", my ass. Most non-religious people I have met justify their non-belief exactly as Don P has done: either by pointing to the fancied awfulness of religious people or by flat assertions-- which they usually turn out to be unable to even try to justify-- about the supposed incompatibility between religion and science. The thing I like least about being an unbeliever is that it puts me in such bad company.

Possible definition of a liberal: Someone who believes that denouncing Caiaphas makes you an anti-Semite but denouncing Ariel Sharon does not.

David Hecht:

With regard to the relationship between socioeconomic development and religiosity, the U.S. is something of an anomaly. The clear relationship in the world as a whole is that the more developed a country is, the less religious its people are likely to be. The most religious countries in the world tend to be amoung the poorest and least developed. The least religious countries in the world tend to be amoung the richest and most developed.

So why doesn't the U.S. fit into this pattern? I don't think anyone knows for sure, but I think the most likely explanations are that Americans are actually significantly less religious than they superficially appear to be and that the peculiarities of American history and government have acted to sustain religiosity. The first point is illustrated by the many complaints in this thread by more conservative or orthodox Christians that large numbers of American Christians are Christian in name only; they either flatly reject many traditional tenets of Christianity, or they have "reinterpreted" those tenets into a kind of amorphous "spirituality" that bears little relationship to Christianity as it has been understood and practised for most of its history, and little relationship to any form of organized religion.

In short, even many Americans who still identify themselves as Christian have largely abandoned traditional Christian teachings and have instead formulated a personal spirituality that combines bits and pieces of different religions with an essentially secular moral philosophy. For these people, Christianity is more a framework or terminology for the expression of their spiritual beliefs than it is a religion in the traditional sense.

If theists have lower measured IQs than atheists, does that mean theists did worse on a culturally-biased, meaningless test?

I noticed that the studies on the relative intellect of theists and atheists cited tended to become more indirect in the more recent studies (i.e., studying students at "elite" schools). Is the effect on theism on IQ diminishing?

Jane,

"I think it's possible to read them as a brief against the Jewish religious establishment, but lunatic to read them as a brief against the Jewish people."

"the gospels can't reasonably be read as anti-semitic"

As has been pointed out here, the gospels were read as a brief against the Jewish people by virtually all Christians, throughout virtually the entire history of Christianity. So lunatic or not, the anti-Semitic reading evidently is attractive and extremely dangerous. On this evidence it is also far from "unreasonable," unless you regard a host of Christian thinkers, including even Aquinas, as unreasonable.

The business about Gibson's father, in this light, is more than just a few idiotic comments. In fact, both Gibson and his father belong to a sect of Catholicism that explicitly rejects Vatican II. The pre-Vatican II church, as I'm sure you know, subscribed to the anti-Semitic reading. This does not make Gibson an anti-Semite, but it surely raises some concern about the message of the film.

Don,

Once again, you've lots of assertions with no data whatsoever to back them up. You say "But the circumstantial evidence for it is overwhelming." Well, where is this overwhelming evidence? Oh, its only *circumstantial* evidence. I see.

You claim that people in the less-developed world (who must be less intelligent or educated, according to your pre-conceived notions) are more religious that in the developed world.

Well, Don, what about the U.S.? Presumably, the U.S. is developed, yet it's also (as someone pointed out above) a quite religious country.

You make lots of generalizations, Don, that I'm sure sound plausible to you, yet you ignore counter-examples (or say they're exceptions to the "rule"), and fail to take into account other possible explanations.

You might consider that things are not always as they seem initially, and perhaps be more open-minded.

David Hecht:

With regard to the relationship between socioeconomic development and religiosity, the U.S. is something of an anomaly. The clear relationship in the world as a whole is that the more developed a country is, the less religious its people are likely to be. The most religious countries in the world tend to be amoung the poorest and least developed. The least religious countries in the world tend to be amoung the richest and most developed.

So why doesn't the U.S. fit into this pattern? I don't think anyone knows for sure, but I think the most likely explanations are that Americans are actually significantly less religious than they superficially appear to be and that the peculiarities of American history and government have acted to sustain religiosity. The first point is illustrated by the many complaints in this thread by more conservative or orthodox Christians that large numbers of American Christians are Christian in name only; they either flatly reject many traditional tenets of Christianity, or they have "reinterpreted" those tenets into a kind of amorphous "spirituality" that bears little relationship to Christianity as it has been understood and practised for most of its history, and little relationship to any form of organized religion.

In short, even many Americans who still identify themselves as Christian have largely abandoned traditional Christian teachings and have instead formulated a personal spirituality that combines bits and pieces of different religions with an essentially secular moral philosophy. For these people, Christianity is more a framework or terminology for the expression of their spiritual beliefs than it is a religion in the traditional sense.

Yes, indeed, I've repeatedly pointed out that people have been reading it that way. My point is that it's not reasonable to ask people to censor their central holy book because some people have read it badly. It's the central event of their faith; they think the words were divinely inspired. Those who are seeking tolerance for their religion can't then demand that others edit theirs to accomodate it with the sensibilities of others. We don't need censorship to combat anti-semitic acts; we have a pretty efficient system in this country for combating the actual acts.

Paul Zrimek:

I have no idea why you think evaluating religious claims in light of knowledge and understanding acquired through science is not an intellectual process. I think the incompatibility between science and Christianity is clear. The whole history of the relationship between the two in the West is the advance of science into areas of knowledge previously claimed by religion, and the retreat of religion in the face of those challenges. Science will continue to relentlessly test religious claims and discard those that fail. In the last hundred years or so, religion has faced a particularly acute challenge from the science of evolutionary biology. Officially, most forms of Christianity have come to terms with evolution, but that acceptance is superficial and uneasy, and the challenge that evolution presents to the Christian worldview is clear from the millions of Christians who continue to either resist evolutionary explanations or reject the science outright. Evolution reveals a history of life that is violent and chaotic, devoid of any suggestion of direction or purpose, and indifferent to suffering or moral concern. It is difficult to reconcile this picture of the world with the idea of a loving and omnipotent creator God. In a way, this is just an aspect of a broader problem, the Problem of Evil, that has plagued Christianity since its inception, but evolution brings that problem into sharper relief than ever. Moreover, evolution is now advancing into areas of knowledge that even many sophisticated, liberal Christians wish to keep it from. Evolutionary biologists are now beginning to explain human mental phenomena like love, free will, our moral sense, our aesthetic sense, even our propensity to believe in religious and other irrational claims, in terms of evolutionary processes. The Christian may say we love our neighbor because we were made in the image and likeness of God. The scientist says, no, we love our neighbor because that emotion helped us to leave more surviving offspring in our ancestral environment.

Don P, you don't get it at all. Christ commanded us to love our neighbor; you say we do it automatically, because it provided an evolutionary advantage. Personally, I finding loving all my neighbors rather difficult. Don't you?

Pete Nelson:

You asked for references to evidence in support of my claims. I’ve already given you a link to a piece that summarizes some of the studies that show an inverse correlation between intelligence/education and religiosity.

Regarding the decline of religion in America generally, the largest and most comprehensive recent study is the American Religious Identification Survey by the CUNY Graduate Center. That study found that “the proportion of the population that can be classified as Christian has declined from 86% in 1990 to 77% in 2001.” In historical terms, this is a staggering rate of decline, and if the trend continues suggests that Christianity will be a minor religious sect in America, akin to Islam or Buddhism now, by the end of this century. The study also found that during the same period of time the percentage of Americans with no religious affiliation almost doubled. Again, this suggests that the U.S. is rapidly secularizing, just as Europe has been doing at an even faster rate.

Another good source is the book God is Dead: Secularization in the West by Steve Bruce. The book's title really says it all. Bruce focuses mainly on Britain, but notes that the same trend is evident throughout the developed world, including the United States.

With regard to the compatibility of religion and science, in addition to the studies referenced in my earlier link, the most recent significant survey of religious belief amoung scientists is one published in Nature by Edward Larson and Larry Witham. In this letter, they summarize the findings of their survey as follows: “The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever -- almost total.”

Michelle Dulak:

Well, it depends which Christian you ask, doesn't it? Yes, the vast majority would probably say that Christ commanded us to love our neighbor (though they have very different ideas about what "loving your neighbor" implies in terms of actual behavior). But different Christians tend to have very different views of human nature. Liberal Christians tend to downplay the traditional Christian notion of human beings as fallen creatures, cursed by Original Sin, and are instead likely to say things like "I believe that people are basically good." And their tendency to support liberal political and social positions flows from this view. Conservative Christians, in contrast, tend to view human nature more as fallen and corrupted. And from that view flows their tendency to support conservative social and political positions that emphasize the stick rather than the carrot to direct human behavior.

"We don't need censorship to combat anti-semitic acts; we have a pretty efficient system in this country for combating the actual acts."

Jane,

It's not clear whether you are responding to me with this comment. In any case, I am not, and I don't think anyone else here is, advocating that the movie be censored. Let Gibson do what he wants.

But remember that others have a right to criticize his movie, to point out relevant facts of history, and even to label the movie anti-Semitic if that is their interpretation.

My point was that in characterizing the anti-Semitic reading of the gospels as variously, "lunacy," "idiocy," or even "unreasonable," you are minimizing the degree to which they lend themselves to such a reading. How else could they have been read that way by so many for so long?

Bernard Y.: They were read that way because the readers had a motive to do so. You need to review the history of the pre Constantine church, but in essence what started out as a Jewish splinter group uncomfortably in contention within an oppressed ethnic part of the Roman Empire within 30 years separated entirely from its ancestral religious affiliations, due in no small part to the efforts of Saul of Tarsus on the part of the Jewish religious authorities.

That his conversion to Christianity features so prominently in Acts and his epistles is due to that historical event being of prime significance in the relations between the new sect and Jewish hierarchy, which eventually came to be dominated by the Pharisees as pointed out in a prior post. The eventual destinations of Jews and Christians diverged radically, with the Jews making peace with the pagan administration after two bloody revolts in Palestine and the Christians undergoing persecutions throughout the empire but eventually taking power in parallel with the civil authorities under Constantine. But the signficance of that preliminary persecution by Saul and his associates was retained as a scriptural portion of Christian heritage long after its historical relevance lost all meaning.

Eventually, under medieval Roman church leadership, the Jew was portrayed as a traitor to his God and Prophets and used as a symbol of how Sin operates both individually and historically. Other convenient transformations (such as Magdalene being transformed gratuitously into a prostitute by Gregory the Great in a famous sermon in the 6th century) helped the church to bring its message to an illiterate following. Notably, the Greeks were much less prone to such liberal interpretations. But the central process is that of grafting on what now can only be considered myths to the fundamental scriptural documents. This process was incidently one of the primary gripes of the Protestant reformers against the Romans.

Don,

You've linked an interesting study, but if you'll read what I've written again, I never disputed that religious affiliation is declining in America. In fact, I claimed that there are lots of people that *say* they're Christians, but in fact, really are not. In my opinion, the views of those people cannot be used as a reliable indicator of the views of "real" Christians. The study you cite bears out my assertion: "...there appears to be a considerable gap between 'identification' with a religion and reported 'membership' or 'belonging' to a an institutional embodiment of that faith community."

The problem is that you, like many people do, confuse self-identification with true belief. As an example, if questioned, my father would say he was "Lutheran," but we never attended church at all when I was young. He didn't really have much of an idea what the Bible actually said. I came to own personal belief later in life, based on my own careful reading and study of the Bible and the tutelage of some intelligent and caring people. My father was a "cultural" Christian, but not really a Christian in the sense that I mean it.

If your contention is that "cultural" Christians have used the Bible as justification for anti-Semitism, you won't get any argument from me. It's undoubtedly true. But if you contend that anti-Semitism is inherent in *what the Bible says,* well, you are just not correct. "Real" Christians understand what the Bible says regarding the Jews, and that is why so many evangelical Christians are supporters of Israel. The study you cite, I think, indicates that lots of people that used to *say* that they are religious are now more willing to say that they have no religious affiliation. They're just being more honest. The actual number of "real" Christians, in my opinion, hasn't changed that much.

I'm treading on some shaky ground here, because Christians come from so many different traditions, but I believe that if a survey was done of Christians that self-identify as evangelical (including Catholic evangelicals) and who attend church regularly, you'd find my assertions (without any backing facts) to be true.

Once again, Don, science is not in a position to draw conclusions about the validity of Christianity. I pointed out the fallaciousness of that argument earlier. You can survey scientists until the universe ends (or Jesus returns, whichever means most to you), and the results will say *nothing* about religion's validity. Evolution poses no challenge whatsover. I, personally, believe that evolutionary theory correctly describes the rise of life. In my opinion, that has nothing whatsoever to do with who Jesus was or what He did.

You seem to be confused by the difference between people's *opinions* about what is true, and actual *truth*. All the scientists in the world might think something is true, and they might all be sincerely wrong. It happens all the time. Remember "phlogiston?"

There's all kinds of problems with the study in the letter you cite. First of all, it (and you) assume that natural scientists are in some way smarter than everyone else, ignoring the fact that there are briliant people in all walks of life. What of the opinions of other intelligent and accomplished people? Second of all, you assume that because these scientists are accomplished in their particular fields of study, they somehow have some greater ability to know the "truth" in fields in which they have no expertise whatsoever. Third, you (again) ignore the possibility of selection bias in the survey. Many, maybe even most, scientists have subscribed to a mechanistic worldview, which denies the reality of anything that cannot be experienced with the five senses. It isn't at all surprising that a large majority of them deny that other possibilities exist. It doesn't in any way make them *right*. It's actually a rather anti-scientific view, when you really think about it.

Don, I've heard all your arguments before many, many times. None of them are any threat whatsoever to the continued validity and rationality of Christianity. However, your *faith* in the ability of science to explain everything is admirable.

Jane Galt's "explanation" for the near-universal, near-2,000-year anti-semitic interpretation by Christians of their sacred writings is that it was a product of social hatred born of Jews' economic success. I see no serious evidence for this claim. And it wouldn't support her previous claims that such an interpretation is "lunatic" or "idiotic" even if it were true.

Basically, Galt's post was motivated by her knee-jerk reaction against anything she perceives to be Political Correctness. That is why she characterizes the fears by the film's critics that it may provoke further mistreatment, and even violence, against Jews as "offending sensibilities." She just refuses to consider in any serious or substantive way the possibility or likelihood that such fears will be realized because of the way Jews are portrayed in the picture.

I wonder if she also thinks that "the reasonable demands of pluralism" would not justify criticism of an adherent of the Christian Identity or Christian Reconstructionist sects for producing a film that, in line with his own religious beliefs, calls for the execution of homosexuals and adulterers.

Don P:

Aaargh. You still don't get it. You wrote:

The Christian may say we love our neighbor because we were made in the image and likeness of God. The scientist says, no, we love our neighbor because that emotion helped us to leave more surviving offspring in our ancestral environment.

And I said that you were making an evolutionary argument that presupposed that we have an instinct that prompts us to love our neighbors. I say there's no such thing. There is an instinctive love of kin; there is no instinctive love of non-kin, of strangers, even of the guy in the next apartment.

Loving your neighbor is difficult. The whole premise of your argument above is that it's easy, almost automatic. Why command what everyone would do anyway? You might as well command people to sleep every 24 hours or so.

Liberal Christians tend to downplay the traditional Christian notion of human beings as fallen creatures, cursed by Original Sin, and are instead likely to say things like "I believe that people are basically good." And their tendency to support liberal political and social positions flows from this view. Conservative Christians, in contrast, tend to view human nature more as fallen and corrupted.

Thereby demonstrating that it's the conservative Christians who have better sense. Would anyone looking at the state of the world today really conclude that people are "basically good"? Do slavery, prostitution, graft, violence, ethnic cleansing, genocide register with you?

And from that view flows their tendency to support conservative social and political positions that emphasize the stick rather than the carrot to direct human behavior.

Not exactly. "Conservative political positions" tend to be attacked for overemphasizing the carrot. Sometimes it's called "greed."

Don P --

I would say that the reasonable demands of pluralism would require allowing that film to be aired.

I would not say that the reasonable demands of pluralism require us to endorse it.

But if you genuinely see no difference between making a film based on the Gospel account of the crucifixion of Jesus, and making a film calling for the execution of your fellow citizens, then I don't think that we have the basis for rational discussion.

Just to follow up on something David Hecht wrote far above: in German musical settings of the Passion story (like Bach's St. John and St. Matthew Passions), it's the congregation that calls for Jesus' death; it's every worshipper who has to shout "Crucify him!" And then, immediately afterward, also sing a chorale that says, essentially, "I did this to You." If that is anti-Semitism, then at least it is an anti-Semitism that casts all believers as Jews.

Jane, you wrote: "I would also argue that it cannot be reasonably read as anti-semitic. We don't, after all, argue that the gospels are anti-Italian, even though there aren't any nice Romans in it ..."

There's a problem here in that the Romans who had a hand in murdering Jesus were Gentiles/heathens (considered Gentiles by the storytellers of the time, heathens by later interpreters) and thus somewhat excused for their crime by ignorance, while the Jews who had a hand were of the Chosen People and should have known better or possibly even knowingly disobeyed God's will.

Thus the Jews were guilty of the greater crime in murdering Jesus.

Of course, I find it all ridiculous, (and agree with an earlier poster that his own self-sacrifice being Jesus' ultimate plan anyway, why blame anyone for it?) but it's worth it to note that such interpretations were widespread in the Christian world for centuries.

At which point you have to wonder whether it is useful to separate "what the Gospels actually say" from "what is done in the name of the Gospels". It begins to sound like the old, "Well, the USSR wasn't REALLY socialist, ya know ..."

Michelle- The Anglican Communion (F. Stranger's sect) also picked up on that "me too" role reversal for the congregation during Passiontide services.

Ironically, the alternate historical role would be to play the Apostles trying to hide from the authorities and figuring out ways to make themselves as unapostolic as possible. The mob crying "Barrabas" at least was being honest compared to Peter trying to lie his way out of tight spots. Most churches don't emphasize how most of the Christian leadership ran and hid, leaving their women to take care of dealing with the messy details on Golgotha. I'd figure that Gibson isn't going to be very complimentry to our present patron day saints as if he follows scripture literally, we'd see two Marys and a formerly unknown Joseph of Arimathea holding the bag as the rest of the present day pantheon of heroes was figuring that the good times were over and fishing in Gallilee wasn't such a bad job after all. We'll see when the movie debuts for the rest of us.

Michele Dulak:

I say there's no such thing. There is an instinctive love of kin; there is no instinctive love of non-kin, of strangers, even of the guy in the next apartment.

And you know this, how? The evolutionary theory underlying love of non-kin is called reciprocal altruism. There are situations in which two or more actors may all benefit by behaving altruistically towards one another, even at some immediate cost to themselves. We would thus expect human beings to have evolved an instinct or tendency for such altruism. The theory yields testable predictions that have been substantially confirmed through experiment and observation.

Loving your neighbor is difficult. The whole premise of your argument above is that it's easy, almost automatic.

No, that is not a premise of my argument at all, let alone the “whole premise.” The strength of an evolved emotion or instinct is likely to be proportional to the magnitude of its benefit, and some are likely to be more beneficial than others. The benefit, and thus the strength of the instinct, will also vary depending on the nature of the environment or situation in which it is engaged. A particular situation may also engage multiple instincts that may either reinforce or conflict with one another. An instinct that was beneficial in our ancestral environment may be harmful in our modern one. It’s complicated. So your claim that if we have an evolved tendency to love our neighbors at all, that tendency should be overwhelming is just silly. If you’re really interested, I suggest you read a good popular treatment of evolutionary psychology, such as The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond or How The Mind Works by Steven Pinker.

Would anyone looking at the state of the world today really conclude that people are "basically good"? Do slavery, prostitution, graft, violence, ethnic cleansing, genocide register with you?

Well, they might point to the gradual increase in human welfare over time. The rise of liberal democracy. The rise of science. But I don’t think either conservative or liberal Christians know what they’re talking about. Their answers are essentially a matter of faith, just like your claim that there is no instinctive love for non-kin. They’re trying to answer questions about human nature with religion, and religion cannot answer such questions. The mind is a product of the brain. The brain is a biological organ shaped by evolution. To understand our minds, we need to use science. Appealing to divine revelation, sacred writings, or other religious sources isn't going to work, any more than it has worked for our understanding of any other aspect of the natural world.

Although this won't add much to the discussion, I just want to throw some anecdotal evidence to the pot:

I grew up Roman Catholic just outside of Philadelphia, Pa. Almost everybody I knew was either Irish-Catholic, Italian-Catholic or Jewish. In fact, there were even a couple of jewish kids who attended Catholic school with me (they got to skip religion class) simply because it was a good school that cost very little and the public schools were not very appealing.

I recall learning that the Jews were the Chosen People, and that no matter what they would go to heaven. The fact that Jesus was chosen instead of Barabas was because it was "in fulfillment of the Scriptures" (which we still say in church every Sunday). The only "bad people" I really recall learning about was Judas (who was forgiven) and Peter for denying that he knew Jesus three times (just like Jesus said he would; also forgiven). Jesus' famous last words from teh cross were "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they have done." We discussed that line several times in religion class (comparison with Abraham and Isaac, turn the other cheek, etc.). At no time during the twelve years I attended Catholic school did I ever hear anything that could remotely be deemed anti-semitic. To the contrary, it was repeatedly emphasized that the jews were part of our religion, and that there would be no New Testament without the Old Testament.

Until I attended college, in the South, I never heard anyone claim to hate jews for killing Jesus. The first time this argument was raised in my presence I laughed loudly and openly at such a stupid idea. "If they didn't kill him, we wouldn't have a Savior. Instead we'd still be jews waiting for teh Messiah." The logic of my argument was not exactly accepted, but I didn't hear the Jesus-killers meme in person ever again.

My point is that while I'm sure that someone can make an intelligent argument that the NT is anti-semitic (such as Dina soberly offered above), in the twelve years of religious instruction that I received it was never apparent. In fact, based purely on my own experiences, I was taught to respect jews and the jewish religion.

Don P:

Sigh. Yes, I have heard of reciprocal altruism. Yes, I can see why it might be evolutionarily advantageous. What it has to do with your argument I cannot guess. You cited, on the one hand, a religious command to "Love your neighbor," and, on the other hand, a scientific argument that we do instinctively love our neighbors. When I point out that we generally don't love our neighbors, at least not without some deliberate effort, you respond that it's just one instinct among many, might be counterweighed by other, stronger instincts, by circumstances, &c., has been verified by scientific studies, &c. You are missing the larger point, which is that the Christian command is an "ought," while the instinct is an instinct.

Assume you are right, and there is an instinct in favor of treating non-kin generously. Even so there would be many situations, as you also say, in which that instinct would be overridden by other, stronger instincts. The command says that you have to disobey those other, stronger instincts and love your neighbor. Even at risk to yourself or your reproductive capacity (and since the countervailing instincts are all there for the sake of your reproductive capacity, on an evolutionary model, there is presumably risk).

Doing something instinctively is just a clean different thing from doing it because you have been taught to.

I wondered whether people really were "basically good," given our rather nasty history, and you responded that

Well, [liberal Christians] might point to the gradual increase in human welfare over time. The rise of liberal democracy. The rise of science.

But I wasn't asking whether people were getting better; I was asking whether they were "basically good." Given that the last century probably saw more human beings slaughtered by other human beings than the rest of recorded history put together, I'm inclined to be cautious even about the progress.

Pete Nelson,

I don’t think you understood the ARIS survey. What it shows is a dramatic decline in the proportion of Americans who even consider themselves to be Christians. This is in addition to the Americans who identify themselves as Christians but who reject much of traditional Christian teaching and who you therefore consider to be “phony” Christians, Christians in name only. This helps to explain the anomalously high levels of (apparent) religiosity in America as compared with other developed nations, and is thus further evidence that religiosity falls as socioeconomic development rises.

As for religion vs. science, you repeatedly state your “opinion” that there is no conflict without offering any evidence to support it. One would think that the people who are in the best position to determine whether religious claims are compatible with science are the people who know science best, and those people overwhelmingly reject religious claims. In the study I cited earlier, biologists expressed some of the highest levels of doubt or disbelief, which further suggests that the biological sciences in particular, especially evolution, most strongly undermine religious claims.

So, Don, we *finally* get to the crux of the matter - you're a mechanist and atheist. So, there is no way anyone is going to convince you that any religion is valid under any circumstances. To you, the one true faith is science. You believe that no reality exists, or *can* exist, beyond what you are able to experience with your own five senses.

I hope you recognize that you've taken a position based on your *faith* in science as the only possible mechanism for discovery of truth, since anyone with an truly open mind would at least recognize that there are questions for which science has no answer, and furthermore, cannot *ever* have an answer.

After all this, Don, I'm surprised to discover that you're a religious man! ;-)

My point, Don, was not that "evaluating religious claims in light of knowledge and understanding acquired through science is not an intellectual process." Obviously it is. What I am saying is that it is an intellectual process which few of those who invoke the authority of science against religion have actually carried out, even in the rare instance where the person doing the invoking is competent to do so. Remember the sound advice that C.S. Lewis' Screwtape gave to his nephew the apprentice tempter: "But the best of all is to let him read no science but to give him a grand general idea that he knows it all and that everything he happens to have picked up in casual talk and reading is 'the results of modern investigation.'"

Michelle Dulak:

Sigh. Yes, I have heard of reciprocal altruism. Yes, I can see why it might be evolutionarily advantageous. What it has to do with your argument I cannot guess.

Good grief. I just explained it to you. Love is an emotion that induces those who experience it to behave altruistically towards the object of their love. Altruism towards non-kin can be “evolutionarily advantageous,” as you put it. Therefore, a mutation that creates the emotion of love for non-kin will be selected for, because organisms that possess the mutation will leave more surviving offspring than organisms that don’t. The mutation spreads, and eventually becomes fixed in the general population. Voila! There’s your evolved, instinctive “love of neighbor.” Yet you assert, without any justification for your claim, that there is no such thing as an instinct to love one’s neighbor.

You are missing the larger point, which is that the Christian command is an "ought," while the instinct is an instinct.

I just don’t see the point of this claim. So what if the command is an “ought?” How does that suggest that it’s true? The point about science is that it can explain our moral sense—our sense of how we “ought” to behave (including that of the men who wrote the Bible)—in terms of “blind” natural processes.

Don,

Our responses crossed paths. Such is the danger of this medium.

Once again, Don, you're confusing opinion with actual truth. So, biologists have the highest levels of doubt. What of it? Have you ever heard of "selection bias?" Clearly, to advance to the highest levels of education in the biological sciences practically *requires* one to reject religion, as few PhD advisors in biology would be willing to take on students professing any strong religious beliefs. Wouldn't you agree? It's no different than not finding hard-right Republicans in Women's Studies programs. The various disciplines, over time, tend to become dominated by those that all think alike. It happens throughout academia.

Don, I did offer evidence that there is no conflict between religious belief and science - my own beliefs. If such a conflict exists, why don't I experience it myself? As it happens, I have a Master of Science degree (in Computer Science). I'm reasonably well-read in the various sciences, and I am a Christian. As I said before, I think evolutionary theory is correct. Holding that belief causes no conflict whatever with my beliefs as a Christian. I'm not unusual in that regard, either. There are many Christians that believe similarly.

Sure, there are *lots* of Christians for whom it does cause a conflict. They haven't dealt with the issues in the same way that I have. I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about this, and have had some personal insights about how science and my personal faith are compatible.

Others disagree with me. That's OK, as far as I'm concerned, since whether or not they accept evolution has nothing to do with the larger question of their own relationship with God. As a Christian, that relationship is much more important to me that whether or not their beliefs regarding evolution are in line with biologists'.

Of course, since you don't believe in God, that won't make any sense to you. Your faith in science, unfortunately, keeps you from considering that other possibilities exist.

Tom Roberts,

I can't say I'm very familiar with the history you discuss, or the gospels, for that matter. I do recall reading that one motivation for blaming the Jews was the desire of the gospel writers to avoid antagonizing the Romans, but I'm not sure if that relates to your point or not.

My argument is purely empirical. We can discuss the gospels all we want,and read and analyze them for anti-Semitism, but that would be a theoretical exercise. Clearly, there are many people, like Pete Nelson and Jane, for example, who see no evidence of anti-Semitism in the gospels, while others do see such evidence.

leaving the realm of theory, however, the empirical facts are clear. The gospels were read as anti-Semitic, and not by a lunatic fringe but by the intellectual and political leaders of Christianity. Therefore they can, reasonably, be so read. Further, this reading produced disastrous consequences, over a period approaching two millenia.

Is it really absurd to claim that there is some cause for concern over Gibson's presentation?

Pete Nelson:

So, there is no way anyone is going to convince you that any religion is valid under any circumstances.

I guess that would depend on what you mean by "valid." I believe that the central claims of religion are false, for the reasons I have explained.

You believe that no reality exists, or *can* exist, beyond what you are able to experience with your own five senses.

I never said I believe that no reality can exist beyond the natural world. I admit the possibility of such a reality. But I have no reason to believe that such a reality actually exists. Even if it does exist, I have no way of determining its character or properties. The supernatural reality posited by Christianity is only one of an infinite number that might possibly exist. How have you determined either that there is any kind of supernatural reality at all, or that if there is such a reality its characteristics are as described by (your version of) Christianity?

I hope you recognize that you've taken a position based on your *faith* in science as the only possible mechanism for discovery of truth,

I don't know if science is the only possible mechanism for the discovery of truth, but I see no reason to believe that there is any other mechanism. If you disagree, ide