Matthew Yglesias (March 05, 2007) - Klein Slanders People of Faith (Media)

What's more, I don't really think it's fair to condemn people for holding them.

What? I think it's not only perfectly fair to condemn people for holding them, it's a moral imperative so long as I believe that bigotry is immoral. When we encounter people who believe that blacks are inferior to whites, we call these people racists and condemn their views. Would we find their views less objectionable so long as they were motivated by some arcane religious belief? I don't see why hatred based on sexual orientation should be any more respectable than hatred based on race; bigotry of any stripe is still bigotry when sanctioned by a church.

As for believing that other religions are "inferior," this is less clear, but I think there are plenty of practical reasons to prefer that religious types hold more liberal, universalist sentiments than a desire to convert the heathen nations.

Posted by Christmas | March 5, 2007 6:48 PM

For Klein's herd religion is little more than a kind of fashion accessory, proof that you're not one of those menacing atheist types. But you have to wonder about people like this guy. Politicians get power and fame and often significant amounts of money by the most middlebrow posturing and pandering if not quite the dumbest people in America certainly the least imaginative (you can pinpoint the near-exact moment this country went astray when the big three started asking the station wagon cum mini van set to design cars for them). But what does Klein get? A column in Time?

Religion puts the cult in culture. Religion without absolute belief is also without not only its coercive power, but its transformative power.

Posted by Linus | March 5, 2007 7:04 PM

One of the distinguishing features of Christianity since its inception has been its claim to represent the "one true God," and to offer an exclusive path to salvation through Jesus Christ. If you really believe members of other religions are worshipping false Gods and are condemmed to hell, then it would seem that, all thing considered, their religion is inferior.

Some people who showed up on Klein's left wing list probably believe this. Maybe Klein views the whole country awash in wild eyed extremists, or maybe he really needs the help of an editor.

Posted by AJ | March 5, 2007 7:20 PM

I believe the usage here would just be Pentecostals, unless you were doing a -ist/Islamist/Pentecostalist thing to denote a fundamentalist interpretation of the belief system.

Posted by Jerry | March 5, 2007 7:23 PM

What? I think it's not only perfectly fair to condemn people for holding them, it's a moral imperative so long as I believe that bigotry is immoral.

Dan Savage offers the opposing point of view:

Here’s why I’m bummed that Hardaway apologized: This could have been a wonderful teaching moment.

Not another packed-off-to-anti-gay-rehab teaching moment—where did Isaiah Washington go anyway?—but a perfect opportunity for gay groups and gay people to patiently make a this very important point: No one has to like homos. You can sign off on full civil rights for gays and lesbians without having to think we’re nifty or be all that comfortable with the idea of sharing a locker room with us. (Hell, I’m sometimes not comfortable sharing a locker room with other gay men.) The gay and lesbian civil rights movement would make more strides if we could separate the issue of liking us from the issue of not discriminating against us.

Posted by Steve | March 5, 2007 7:23 PM

I don't see why hatred based on sexual orientation should be any more respectable than hatred based on race; bigotry of any stripe is still bigotry when sanctioned by a church.

Sure. Hatred is bad. Bigotry is bad. I don't think the belief that "persons who do x will go to hell" constitutes bigotry per se. Observant Muslims aren't "bigoted" for believing that those of us who drink alcohol are going to hell.

An observant Catholic believes that all non-procreative sex acts are immoral, and that people who engage in them are going to hell. They likewise believe that gay men, as a subset of those who regularly and unapologetically engage in non-procreative sex acts, are going to hell. I don't think that's necessarily a "bigoted" view.

Now if you find a Catholic who's all "God hates fags" all the time but can't ever seem to find time to remember that God hates divorcées and God hates masturbators and God hates everyone who uses a condom then, sure, you're looking at a bigot. But the bigotry isn't in his traditionalist Catholic belief that gays are going to hell. The bigotry is that he's doing what bigots do -- singling out a particular disfavored group he doesn't like for condemnation while ignoring the flaws (by his own lights!) of others.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | March 5, 2007 7:24 PM

(passed along without editorial comment that will get me into an arguement with any of the readers , or into trouble with God :-)

Every Catholic (and Lutheran) hears the Nicene Creed during Mass (at The Eucharist) and the Creed says that the church is "one, true, holy, Catholic and Apostolic". That other religions are inferior (not being "one, true" etc) is a core belief of the Catholic church.

Posted by Robert Earle | March 5, 2007 7:29 PM

Why do you believe there are no inferior religions? As an agnostic/atheist I don't believe in any religion but some religions seem more pernicious than others.

Posted by James B. Shearer | March 5, 2007 7:31 PM

On the second point, Klein is evidently part of the "centrist" crowd that is more intent on "getting along" with the powers that be than in actually considering the implications of religious thought. Indeed, I cannot think of any religion that does not implicitly assert its own superiority over every other religion. Consider the First Comandment: Thou shalt have no other Gods before Me. Historically, religions divide the population into mutually incompatible belief systems. There has been a lot of hand-waving talk in recent decades about ecumenical beliefs, but I don't really that kind of widespread tolerance really has much hold among "people of faith".

Posted by RickD | March 5, 2007 7:45 PM

Is there any person alive who refuses to hold a passport on principle?

Posted by James Kabala | March 5, 2007 7:53 PM

"the Creed says that the church is "one, true, holy, Catholic and Apostolic" "

That should be a lower-case "c" in catholic, meaning the whole body of believers worldwide. The creed doesn't say that the Catholic Church is the one true church (the Catholic Church does, however). The most avowed, Catholic-hating Christian could say the creed without contradicting their beliefs.

Posted by Greg | March 5, 2007 7:56 PM

They likewise believe that gay men, as a subset of those who regularly and unapologetically engage in non-procreative sex acts, are going to hell. I don't think that's necessarily a "bigoted" view.

If there existed a religion that claimed that all blacks were going to hell, we'd probably agree that that was a bigoted religion, right? Given that sexual orientation, like race, is an unalterable trait, and given that Catholicism adopts a scheme that condemns all homosexuals to hell, it certainly looks like Catholic doctrine with regard to gay people is pretty damn bigoted. You may argue that the Catholic Church, with its "love the sinner hate the sin" approach, is condemning homosexuality, not homosexuals, but this only leaves it with the logic of those opponents of same-sex marriage who insist they aren't driven by homophobia: it's not that the law (or the Church) is discriminating against gays, it's that the law (or the Church) extends the same right to everyone else... and that right is the right to be heterosexual. This is asinine logic, and I generally expect you to see through it.

Posted by Christmas | March 5, 2007 7:59 PM

Dan Savage offers the opposing point of view

Savage isn't arguing that Hardaway isn't a bigot, or that Hardaway shouldn't be mocked for his bigotry. He's arguing that Hardaway has a right to be a bigot. And sure, everyone has a right to be a bigot. But being as I am opposed to bigotry, and believing as I do that bigotry is immoral, I think I have a duty to condemn bigotry where I see it, whether it comes some random schmuck or some schmuck wearing a pope hat.

Posted by Christmas | March 5, 2007 8:02 PM

1. Klein's more convincing than MY, unless MY's narrow point is that such views aren't extremist. Whether they're "bigoted" or not in some ideal sense--who knows, who cares? Those people are wrong, the reasonable assumption is that if they hold such beliefs strongly, they'll try to act on them, and that makes people I think of as "on my side" feel, quite reasonably, somewhat threatened. So, you know, don't like them. Which apparently means I'm with Klein on this one. Go read Dean Barrett's latest at HH's place.

2. Dan Savage is a douchebag. See if you can find the preening, self-congratulatory crap he spewed when he was for the war. Fuck him.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 5, 2007 8:13 PM

Have you noticed how focused Klein is on feelings here? How does one feel about other people's religions relative to one's own, how does one feel about America, etc. etc. He did the same thing with the left-wing critique.

In pundit discussions, there is this strange focus on feelings--internal, personal--as opposed to more objective things like cause, effect, incentives, rules, principles, etc.

Like, Republicans & pundits are constantly talking about how great it is that Bush is "resolute" and that we can't do anything that might undermine his or anyone else's "resoluteness" or we'll lose the war. But that's insanity.

Battles aren't won through "resoluteness," but by following a good plan with appropriate adjustments as events unfold. Inasmuch as being "resolute" makes an individual disciplined enough to follow the plan (and not run off the field of battle), being resolute is good, but the key thing one is looking for in a soldier isn't "resoluteness," which is an internal feeling, but discipline--which is a predictable pattern of behavior that you can use to win wars. And discipline alone isn't enough--you can be very disciplined as you get mowed down by a line of machine gun fire--just look at WWI. Lots of resolute dead guys there.

It should be perfectly obvious that feelings don't win battles. And yet it's not. Our discourse is so bizarrely focused on feelings that we actually think they win battles.

Maybe this is why Joe Klein can't tell the difference between my feeling that my own religion is better than another one, and a political belief it's OK for me to treat other people as subhuman because I've got a better religion than they do.

Feelings aren't generally what make people extremists. It's perfectly normal and non-extreme to want to murder the man who slept with your wife. What makes you an extremist is when you do it, or you say it's OK to do it, or when you encourage someone else to do it. And you become a political extremist when you say we should pass a law making it OK to do it.

Enough talking about feelings. Everybody supports the troops. Everybody's resolute as hell. Can we stop talking about our feelings and start talking about things like HOW we get it done?

Posted by anonymous | March 5, 2007 8:13 PM

Re: What? I think it's not only perfectly fair to condemn people for holding them, it's a moral imperative so long as I believe that bigotry is immoral.

Oh, nonsense! I think Pepsi is superior to Coke, does that make me a bigot? First off, when we are talking about religion we are talking about an ideological/philosophical system, not about "black people" and "white people". There's nothing wrong with holding that one such system is better than another. In fact we all do this all the time. "I think liberalism is better than conservatism" Or "I like the Democratic party better than the GOP". Or "Science is a better way to understand the world than religion". But for that matter even when talking about people we are allowed to make judgments as to who is better: "Bill Clinton was a better president than George Bush". Is that bigotry? Would it be even if you disagreed with it?

Posted by JonF | March 5, 2007 8:16 PM

Is there any person alive who refuses to hold a passport on principle?

John Gilmore?

Posted by Royko | March 5, 2007 8:18 PM

If there existed a religion that claimed that all blacks were going to hell, we'd probably agree that that was a bigoted religion, right?

*cough* Mormans *cough*

Posted by Ed Marshall | March 5, 2007 8:22 PM

JonF, next time you might take the time to read my comment and note what I'm actually writing about before you decide to respond.

Posted by Christmas | March 5, 2007 8:38 PM

I hold no such beliefs

Seriously? You don't think some religions are inferior to others, on some identifiable criteria? It's pretty clear to me that everyone does.

What decent self-respecting liberal wouldn't say that FLDS is an inferior religion to Episcopileanism or Unitarianism? Not on theological grounds, necessary, but on consequentialist ones, for starters.

As far as I can tell, on that one criterion at least, everyone with a brain and/or a conscience is a right wing extremist.

Posted by djw | March 5, 2007 8:48 PM

I don't see how any rational person could refrain from holding that some religions are inferior to others, whether that person is a religious believer or not. The are many, many, many religions in this world, and these religions are characterized by belief systems, systems of moral injunctions, rituals, etc. - all things that are subject to moral and/or rational appraisal. That they should all turn out to be equal, with no one religion superior to or inferior to any other religion would be some kind of miracle. Perhaps Matt is just being coy, or has his tongue in his cheek, but it seems weird to suggest that only other religious believers are prone to think some religions inferior to others. Or maybe he thinks they are all equally depraved and all wallow equally in ignorance and moral idiocy. But I can't believe he really believes that either.

Posted by Dan Kervick | March 5, 2007 8:57 PM

I'm not saying there's a contradiction, but there's definitely some very subtle distinctions being made between this post and this post.

On this view, a person who led an entirely exemplary life in terms of his impact on the world (would an example help? Gandhi, maybe?) but who didn't accept Jesus as his personal savior would be subjected to a life of eternal torment after his death and we're supposed to understand that as a right and just outcome. That, I think, is seriously messed up.

I'm not posting this to be a gotcha-bastard from four or five months ago--I remembered it because I thought it was a really profound point. That if you think God is right and just, then the classes of people you believe God sends to damnation says something about you.

If someone believes that a right and just God condemns both sex outside of marriage and same sex marriage, I don't think it's unreasonable to think of that as bigotry. Even if that belief never informs their politics.

I'd have to agree, though, that it may not be productive to actually call it out as such.

Posted by Consumatopia | March 5, 2007 9:33 PM

That they should all turn out to be equal, with no one religion superior to or inferior to any other religion would be some kind of miracle.

You would have to get specific, but I don't think you are right. I do think that once you purge the outliers from each of the major traditions you do wind up with a fairly homogenous set of morals and such. The rest is really just aesthetics and taste.

Posted by Ed Marshall | March 5, 2007 9:36 PM

Re: JonF, next time you might take the time to read my comment and note what I'm actually writing about before you decide to respond.

I did respond to what you wrote. If you meant something different than what you posted, perhaps you should have written it. From what you state ("I think it's not only perfectly fair to condemn people for holding them...") I assume you are objecting to Matt's position that there's nothing wrong with holding to religious beliefs that involve A) prohibitions on behaviors not shared by society at large and B) a belief than one's own beliefs are better than many others. But perhaps you object pronoun "them" refers to some other antecedent, not to Matt's two matters at hand?

Posted by Jonf | March 5, 2007 9:50 PM

Dan Savage has it exactly right (thanks, Steve). It's this coercive pc that riles up the neo-Weimar dispossessed more than anything. So long as your religious affiliation, or sexual identity has the same chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happinesss- it doesn't matter if they're "hated" by subsets of generic Americana. With the possible exception of Lakota Indians- there isn't an ethnic group out there that doesn't have types that I find offensive and I don't mind saying so. Any idiot who "hates" all the x,y,or zs is a fucked-up idiot and they should have the right to be that way so long as they're not the ones running society.

Posted by Trevor | March 5, 2007 9:54 PM

I do think that once you purge the outliers from each of the major traditions you do wind up with a fairly homogenous set of morals and such. The rest is really just aesthetics and taste.

Or, at least, the intra-religion differences completely overwhelm the inter-religion differences, assuming you look at it with sufficient coarse-graining.

Posted by Consumatopia | March 5, 2007 9:55 PM

Catholic doctrine certainly does not hold that all who engage in non-procreative sex acts are going to hell. It's true that official doctrine is that all such acts are sins, but of course sins may be forgiven. Nor does it hold that all non-Christians are going to hell: see Lumen Gentium, para. 16.

Posted by Pithlord | March 5, 2007 10:10 PM

You would have to get specific, but I don't think you are right. I do think that once you purge the outliers from each of the major traditions you do wind up with a fairly homogenous set of morals and such. The rest is really just aesthetics and taste.

Well, sure, and it turns out that all human beings are roughly the same height if you exclude the outliers from one's sample of human beings in the calculation of height. So I accept that if you ignore all the interesting differences among religions, there are no interesting differences among religions.

Suppose two religions are roughly equivalent in the moral views they espouse, but that one accepts and helps propagate through its schools the vast majority of received opinion in the physical sciences, while the other explicitly preaches an absurd batch of "revealed" empirical truths in opposition to large swaths of those opinions. Isn't a rational person justified in regarding the latter religion as inferior to the former?

Posted by Dan Kervick | March 5, 2007 10:16 PM

Matthew, of course it's fair to criticize people for believing that homosexuals are condemned to Hell and that Christianity is a superior religion, the same way it's fair to criticize any sort of bigot, whether or not they have political power.

Posted by MIke M. | March 5, 2007 10:19 PM

"Given that sexual orientation, like race, is an unalterable trait, and given that Catholicism adopts a scheme that condemns all homosexuals to hell, it certainly looks like Catholic doctrine with regard to gay people is pretty damn bigoted."

The statement above is completely wrong.
A) To my knowledge, there is no scientific research that states sexual orientation is an unalterable trait. The Council for Responsible Genetics reviewed all of the recent studies and concluded the scientific argument for a biological basis for sexual orientation remains weak. Sexual orientation may be considered an unalterable trait in the legal world but it is not in either science or theology.

B)Catholicism did not 'adobt a scheme' that condemns all homosexuals to hell. According to Catholic theology you could be gay and still go to heaven. A gay person would either need to be celibate or like every other person lead a good life and confess one's sins. Catholics would believe that most people are going to hell including a fair number of heterosexual Christians.

C)Catholic doctrine on sex without procreation applies to everyone. "Christians who are homosexual are called, as all of us are, to a chaste life." The vast majority of people in the world are committing a sin in according to the doctrine. Heterosexuals are advantaged only in that there is a possiblity to engage in intercourse for procreation. Catholic doctrine may be completely ridiculous but it is not bigoted.

A better target within Catholicism to go after is the Letter on Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons from 1986. It is the Letter that stated, homosexuality is an objective disorder. The Letter was a reaction to the results of the Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics in 1975. From the Letter, "In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good." Catholic teaching on homosexuality has been quite malleable since Vatican II.
However, both the Declaration and the Letter are in regards to the proper teaching priests should give to Catholics. Objective disorder is an unctous term but I am not particularly concerned about the intricacies of pastoral care in Catholic Churches nor the precepts given to the faithful in synagogues or mosques.

Critiquing any theology especially in political terms seems like a waste of time to me. If you want to argue everyone should have the same rights why get ensnared in a theological debate. I don't know how arguing against the religious view that homosexual sex is immoral advances the political goal of universal civil rights.

Posted by Theo | March 5, 2007 10:23 PM

"They likewise believe that gay men, as a subset of those who regularly and unapologetically engage in non-procreative sex acts, are going to hell. I don't think that's necessarily a 'bigoted' view."

That's not what Catholicism believes. OR, more accurately, gay men doesn't mean gay men engaging in sex. A man can be gay - attracted solely to other men - and still decide to never act on it. And, I would argue that's a much more fair and accurate theology than one insisting that no one is gay.

Now, personally I disagree that gay men should refrain from having sex, but I do prefer Catholicism to Evangelicals on this issue.

Oh yeah, I'm a Mainstream Protestant Christian. I would not label other religions "inferior" - I would say they are attempts to understand God, and they do not close off heaven, but they are less correct than the Christian understanding. But I would say it's hubristic to suggest that others' beliefs are inferior - that's for God to judge, and not for us.

Posted by MDtoMN | March 5, 2007 10:25 PM

Suppose two religions are roughly equivalent in the moral views they espouse, but that one accepts and helps propagate through its schools the vast majority of received opinion in the physical sciences, while the other explicitly preaches an absurd batch of "revealed" empirical truths in opposition to large swaths of those opinions. Isn't a rational person justified in regarding the latter religion as inferior to the former?

Every major religion on this planet has it's stumpjumpers and it's cosmopolitans. So you have Pentecostals, Ultra-orthodox Jews, Salafists, and Astikas, and you can go right down the line as far as you want and find similar ilk. If you are saying they are noxious, I agree. if you are saying that any of the major religions are more likely to produce those folks, I disagree.

Posted by Ed Marshall | March 5, 2007 10:33 PM

"If there existed a religion that claimed that all blacks were going to hell, we'd probably agree that that was a bigoted religion, right? "

Well, conveniently enough, there does exist such a religion, the Elijah Muhammed version of Nation of Islam, which has it that all white folks are going to hell, or something pretty much equivalent. Feel free to rant about their bigotry.

I'm not sure quite what Judaism has to say about this. Being the Chosen Folk, obviously means the rest of us are not Chosen, but exactly what are the implications of this. If they have no effect while you live on earth (which they don't appear to) AND if there is no consequence in terms of getting into some sort of heaven, then it seems a bit of strange deal. Certainly to me there's an implication that us non-Jews (and in "real" Judaism this is an ethnic thing, not a conversion thing, no different from being born black or white) are destined for hell.

Posted by Maynard Handley | March 5, 2007 10:34 PM

"and that right is the right to be heterosexual."

Not quite. What you mean by heterosexual (or, at least, what the general public thinks of as heterosexual) is not how our Roman Catholic postulated person concieves of sex. Most people would view a heterosexual person who prefers, say, anal sex (or oral sex) to still be a heterosexual. For our potential Roman Catholic, since all non-procreative sex is immoral, there's no difference in sinfulness between two men engaging in anal sex and a heterosexual couple doing the same. Whereas the general public views the two things as completely different.

And I don't think that sexual orientation is of an entirely different class, than, say a genetic predisposition to alcohol abuse. The genetic alcohol abuser effectively does not have the same "rights" as someone who is not a genetic alcohol abuser - he cannot drink alcohol at all without passing into potentially immoral extreme intoxication, while the non-alcoholic can imbibe moderately as she wishes. It's not the genetic alcohol abuser's "fault" of his unalterable genes but he does have fewer "rights" because the nature of that particular temptation to him.

Posted by burritoboy | March 5, 2007 10:37 PM

believes that homosexuals are condemned to hell.

versus "love the sinner, hate the sin".

As noted in a comment above,a proper Christian would pray for the salvation of a sinner, not root for their eternal damnation.

I have no doubt that is deeply irritating for folks who don't consider their activities to be sinful.

Posted by Tom Maguire | March 5, 2007 10:48 PM

"I'm not sure quite what Judaism has to say about this. Being the Chosen Folk, obviously means the rest of us are not Chosen, but exactly what are the implications of this."

Maimonides, the greatest of all Jewish theologians and philosophers, argues that non-Jews need only follow the seven Noahide laws:

1. humanity must establish laws
2. do not curse God
3. do not worship idols
4. do not kill
5. do not rob
6. do not eat flesh from an animal that's still alive
7. no illicit sexuality

Non-Jews do not need to worship God, believe in God or follow any Jewish law (except for the above 7). Obviously, the Noahide laws do pose a problem if your religion demands idol worship or human sacrifice. But most religions around today easily pass muster.

Posted by burritoboy | March 5, 2007 10:56 PM

The most avowed, Catholic-hating Christian could say the creed without contradicting their beliefs.

Indeed, as discussed here, that's what distinguishes the LDS from other denominations.

I commented about this at Digby's place, but the Founding Paternalists weren't too distant from a world defined by interdenominational war. Love-the-sinner might be what's written, but burn-the-heretic is what's been practiced more often.

Have you noticed how focused Klein is on feelings here?

Yup. It gives him an escape clause on his co-columnists Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, who foreswore feelings a long time ago on behalf of the neocon cause.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 5, 2007 11:59 PM

Ed,

I assume we may simply be talking past each other due to a mere difference over what is to count as a religion and what counts only as a sect or denomination within a religion. If only something as grand and amorphous as "Christianity" counts as a religion, then it is true that Christainity has both cosmopolitan and worldly denominations and backward and introverted denominations, and it shares this diversity with other major world religions.

So then, would you accept that some sects are inferior to other sects? And what do you think Klein and Matt meant in affirming that there are no inferior religions (or that the view that there are inferior religions is an "extreme view"). Do you think Klein only means to disparage the view that Christianity, say, is inferior to Islam while allowing that some sects withing Christianity might be inferior to other sects within Christinity?

Posted by Dan Kervick | March 5, 2007 11:59 PM

"The most avowed, Catholic-hating Christian could say the creed without contradicting their beliefs."

Well, since the Nicene Creed DEFINES (as far as the Catholic, Anglican and I am guessing most Protestant churches are concerned) what it means to be a Christian, this is not much of a claim. The whole POINT of the Creed is that it codifies as explicit beliefs a bunch of things that non-Christians consider pretty weird. Explicit is the tri-partite nature of god. Explicit is that Jesus was the son of god, the virgin birth, the resurrection. Explicit are bizarre statements like
"I believe in Jesus Christ ... begotten, not made..". Presumably the made not begotten heresy was some big deal back in 300 AD, but who now knows what it was about?
Interesting is the statement "I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church"; as has been pointed catholic here refers to encompassing the whole world, not the RC church, and is, I am guessing, among other things, a contrast to Judaism with its vision of a limited chosen people. No my point is, if you HONESTLY believe the Creed, is your take on it that your particular church is this holy catholic and apostolic church and the rest are all fakes? This is, after all, what they believed, and most seriously, during the reformation.

My larger point is that
• The creed is a bunch of specific theological stuff that most "christians" would not consider the essential parts of their faith. They'd go on about following Jesus' example and suchlike, maybe a few bible stories, but they wouldn't make a big deal about the fact that god is tripartite or even worse, that Jesus was begotten, not made. Saying that most christians believe is is very misleading in its implications.
• Even at its own level, the Creed conveys precisely the point of this thread. If you DO actually believe it, every line, what about that "one holy catholic and apostolic church"? This is not a problem for most US christians because westerner christians fudge it --- they make a big song and dance about belief, then leave out whatever beliefs are inconvenient, and are then surprised that there are other people in the world who haven''t mutilated their beliefs in the same way.

Posted by Maynard Handley | March 6, 2007 2:11 AM

My scale on the relative superiority of religions.
Hope this helps.

Tier One
Irish Catholics (excluding the Black Donnellys and Boston College fans)
all other Catholics (well maybe not the southern Italians)
Jews
Moslems (exluding the Nation, though I am fond of bean pies)

Tier Two
Hindus (by far the coolest false gods)
Buddhists (I pefer the pudgy buddha to the skinny buddha)
atheists
Protestants (excluding Anglicans and Irish Protestants)

Tier Three (kind of a mixed bag)
animists
followers of other eastern religions
Mormons
Anglicans
Scientologists

Tier Four
Neo-Paganists (where are the neo-megaliths)
agnostics (pick a side already)
Zoroastrians
Irish Protestants

Posted by Jehovah | March 6, 2007 5:39 AM

Hilarious, Jehovah. I'm not used to laughing this hard so early in the morning.

I'm disgusted by all religions, with their male-centric, male-oriented, manly God dogma. That alone tells me no religion has the "right" answer.

Posted by tinfoil hattie | March 6, 2007 7:43 AM

If there existed a religion that claimed that all blacks were going to hell, we'd probably agree that that was a bigoted religion, right?

*cough* Mormans *cough*

Blacks were denied the higher ordinances that would allow them to enter the highest of LDS heavens, the Celestial Kingdom. They would be admitted to the middle heaven, the Terrestial Kingdom, which sounds like a pretty pleasant place to spend eternity. In any case, the LDS president recieved a revelation in 1978 that blacks may become priests and enjoy full membership in the church.

One thing I've always admired about the LDS church is their ability through revelation to radically change church doctrine nearly instantaneously.

Posted by Jeff R. | March 6, 2007 8:05 AM

Given that sexual orientation, like race, is an unalterable trait, and given that Catholicism adopts a scheme that condemns all homosexuals to hell, it certainly looks like Catholic doctrine with regard to gay people is pretty damn bigoted.

A couple of other people mentioned this, but just to reiterate: Catholics absolutely don't condemn all homosexual to hell. They only condemn those homosexuals who act on their feelings to hell. Homosexuals who remain celibate are A-OK in the eyes of the church.

That probably sounds like an absurd distinction to most secular people (I find it a little silly myself), but keep in mind that most of the church's own leaders have taken vows of celibacy, so you can't accuse them of not practicing what they preach. They believe that no one should engage in sex unless it's for purposes of procreation. That rule obviously affects homosexuals more dramatically than it does heterosexuals, but they plainly didn't adopt the rule to single out gay people. The Catholic Church's problem is prudishness, not bigotry.

Posted by Tim | March 6, 2007 12:19 PM

Is it bigoted to believe that liberals are superior to conservatives? How is that different that believing that X-religionists are superior than Y-religionists.

Posted by Al | March 6, 2007 12:25 PM

I think in the context of his article "inferior religions" doesn't men what Yglesias imputes. "There are inferior religions" sounds different than "religions other than mine are inferior".

If you are fine with some religions (say any form of Christianity, Judaism, deism) which you can't belong to tall, but think some 'other' religions create uncivilized people (namely, Islam) then you're probably just racist. And I think this does describe a non-trivial but also non-ubiquitous segement of the population.

Posted by Tony V | March 6, 2007 2:41 PM

For those of you who have yet to heareth, I, Sullyman, am a gay Catholic (even though I disagree with the Church on the matter of homosextuel marriage, and all other matters, and would like to engage them in a kind of verbal joust some afternoon). I would like to offer my agreement with Joseph about this concern and perhaps others in time.

For further study let me refer you to my latest tome: "the Conservative Bosom: an Epistle for the Benefit of All Mankind". In it I proffer a noble yet restrained vision, a conservatism of doubt, yet mirth. It is available in the form of a scroll in fine bookstores everywhere.

Posted by Andrew M Sullyman | March 6, 2007 4:30 PM

One of the more insidious aspects of mixing church and state is that it forces rejection and condemnation of religious faith as a form of public and political policy. I miss the old pc days when religion was left, and respected, as a private matter.

Now, we no longer have a choice but to point out the insidiousness of many aspects of all organized religions.

Organized religion has many beautiful aspects. However, in the age of nukes and bio weapons, male dominated and dominating tribal religions are a clear and present danger to the survival of the human species.

Posted by erict | March 6, 2007 9:52 PM

hi

Posted by pppp | March 7, 2007 2:13 AM

hi

Posted by pppp | March 7, 2007 2:13 AM

Has any poster here ever heard a Catholic, especially Catholic clergy, condemn anybody to hell ? .. or did a 3rd party tell you they did ?

Posted by Neo | March 7, 2007 10:15 AM

Klein Slanders People of Faith

Comments (50)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories