Coulter and the Jews

Atrios and Andrew Sullivan agree that there's something fishy in Ann Coulter's desire to see Judaism wiped off the face of the earth so we can all be "perfected" by becoming Christians.

This is an uncomfortable thing for Jewish people to think about, but isn't that actually a very banal baseline belief of all Christians and Muslims everywhere? Jews don't evangelize like this, and I don't think Hindus do either, but our world's great crusading faiths certainly do and converting everyone is . . . the whole point! This is one reason -- probably the reason -- that whatever the electoral politics of the matter, it's probably not a great idea to encourage politicians to "talk about faith" more. For America to work as an enterprise you need people with deeply held but mutually inconsistent religious beliefs to all work and live together peacefully. Rubbing everyone's noses in the precise implications of other people's beliefs (Christians think Jews shouldn't exist, Jews think Christians are worshipping a false messiah, Protestants think Catholics worship idols, etc.) isn't really helpful.

Comments

Dude, we're only trying to help. Try to save someone from eternal damnation....

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 11, 2007 12:19 PM

Not all Christian faiths are evangelical, though. Most Americans aren't trying to convert anyone.

Posted by Steve | October 11, 2007 12:21 PM

I tend to just put stuff like that into the 'Inscrutable Gentiles' folder-- but for Coulter I'll make an exception and take it personally.

Posted by MattF | October 11, 2007 12:24 PM

I'd love to rail against Ann Coulter and all, but I'm more disgusted with Deutsch and CNBC for having her on the show in the first place. Deutsch can protest all he wants about how abhorrent Coulter is, but he knows the deal with her, and I see him as complicit in anything she says or does on his show.

Posted by strannix | October 11, 2007 12:26 PM

It's not true that all Christians believe that Jews must become Christians. There are lots of squishy liberal Christians who don't believe that.

But most Christians do believe it. And you're exactly right --- the motivating force behind the separation of church and state was the pragmatic recognition that unless we agree that the political sphere should not concern itself with ultimate questions of God and salvation, we'll just keep killing each other incessently and use the tools of political/state power to do so.

Posted by JWR | October 11, 2007 12:28 PM

Not true of Islam. Muslims respect and acknowledge the validity of all of the Big Three religions. For a Muslim, the worst possible condition is to be a "non-believer." Christians are the only one of Big Three that refuses to acknowledge the validity of the others.

Muslim: We're the best. But Christians and Jews also enjoy God's favor, because they're monotheistic.

Jew: We're the best religion for (ethnic) Jews. We don't really have an opinion about what other ethic groups do, but we definitely favor monotheism.

Christian: We're the only true religion. Everyone else is going to hell. Period.

Posted by Timosha | October 11, 2007 12:28 PM

Re: "This is one reason -- probably the reason -- that whatever the electoral politics of the matter, it's probably not a great idea to encourage politicians to "talk about faith" more."

What do you mean, "whatever the electoral politics of the matter"? If it will help get a Republican zealot defeated, why shouldn't he be asked if he thinks Jews are all going to hell?

Posted by Jim W | October 11, 2007 12:29 PM

Matt, I suspect Atrios' answer would be that if you *don't* rub people's noses in the precise implications of different faiths, you allow conservatives to perpetuate the fiction that this big, unified majority constituency -- 'people of faith' -- actually exists in this country. Perpetuation of that fiction benefits conservatives.

Posted by Ryan | October 11, 2007 12:30 PM

I don't think it's so much that Jews think Christians are worshipping a "false messiah" so much as that Christians don't understand the concept of the Messiah to begin with.

The predicted Jewish Messiah is not a God, but a regular person like Moses who is supposed to unite Israel and usher in a new state of world peace. It could be a King or a President (although it would have to be a Jewish person).

So I'm not sure it's that Jews think Christians are praying to a "false messiah" so much as praying to anyone other than the single God, which is not monotheism (ignoring the strained "holy trinity 3=1 patchwork theory).

Then, of course, there's the grand irony of the Ten Commandments, in which Christianity violates commandment #1 every time a Christian prays to Jesus, Mary or any other person born on earth.

I always giggle like a school girl when the fundies trot out the Ten Commandments as some Christian heritage document. It would be like Jews bringing out strips of bacon as part of Jewish heritage. A total contradiction.

Posted by WinSmith | October 11, 2007 12:32 PM

I confess, I'm not really offended. And it's not something that just hardcore christians believe, it's the basis of the religion, even if more liberal members try to find some wiggle room. Heaven = Jesus, right? Am I missing something? I'm not a Christian and don't like being proselytized to, but I don't find it offensive to accurately state the core beliefs of the religion. I would hope people wouldn't flip out if a Jewish person said on air that Jesus was not divine or a Hindu said that America was committing a great sin by eating cows. Now when Christians start saying "Christians are perfected Jews, Muslims, etc....so it should be US policy kill infidel leaders and convert their people to Christianity," then it's worth flipping out.

Posted by Benjy Sarlin | October 11, 2007 12:38 PM

To be the real important part of the interview is where Ann says that OF COURSE she would not consider it any of the gov't's business--the City of NewYork or the Repub party--

Oh wait....

Posted by JohnMcC | October 11, 2007 12:38 PM

Christian proselytizers are baffled that anyone would think it rude when they smugly tell nonbelievers they are doomed to burn in eternal hellfire. But Richard Dawkins is soooo disrespectful!

Posted by melior | October 11, 2007 12:39 PM

When anyone praises a candidate in warm and fuzzy terms for being a "person of faith," the only way to make sense of it is as a code-word for "a person of your own sect, or some sect close enough to yours that it doesn't make you uncomfortable."

Nobody believes in "faith" in some abstract, denaturated sense. Yet this pretension is widespread.

Maybe as more Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, etc. start running for public office, the tag "person of faith" will lose some of its value in conservative political discourse.

Posted by J | October 11, 2007 12:41 PM

Maybe as more Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, etc. start running for public office, the tag "person of faith" will lose some of its value in conservative political discourse.

Not true. For GOP, faith means Christianity, though they will never say it. Ann must be applauded for being more explicit about it, no matter how abhorent the 'it' is, than the GOP.

Posted by gregor | October 11, 2007 12:44 PM

Donny Deutsch books Ann Coulter on his show knowing that she's a polarizing figure who's given to saying outrageous things. He's an ad guy, he knows what sells. When I flipped through the channels and saw that she was his guest that night, I had a choice whether or not to buy what Deutsch was 'selling' on his show. I passed. I not saying we ought to ignore her altogther. We just need to handle her right, is all. Take Ms. Coulter's remarks at face value, counter them, and move on. She wants and needs outrage to perpetuate hereself. Handle her like a problem child - look her in the eye, tell her calmly - but firmly -'no', and move on.

Posted by Shawn | October 11, 2007 12:44 PM

I don't know about Yglesias's first paragraph--doesn't Yglesias wish to see conservative Republicans wiped out (i.e., by coming to see that their views are wrong, and that liberal Democratic views are right)? Why is that fishy?

I agree totally with the second paragraph. That's why an appropriate level of "ceremonial deism" in public life is good (so that religious believers can feel included, without enough specificity to highlight the differences between faiths), but any detailed public exposition of their beliefs by the Joseph Liebermans, Barack Obamas and Jimmy Carters of the world would be inappropriate. Of course, I suspect that a lot of politicians (e.g., Reagan, Giuliani etc.) don't have beliefs specific enough to be capable of exposition at any length.

Posted by y81 | October 11, 2007 12:47 PM

What Steve @2 said. There are plenty of Christians who are ecumenical and non-evangelical, and the same goes for Muslims, Hindus, etc.

Posted by Gabriel | October 11, 2007 12:48 PM

well, unfortunately Americans place a higher value on bogus expressions of "faith" from their leaders and lawmakers than they do on lawful, respectful, truthful conduct from those leaders. most Americans would admittedly rather vote for an ex-felon than for an atheist. politicians pander to Christian zealots because there is a high return on doing so, and they are people who don't so much care about issues as they care about having their ring kissed at regular intervals.

there are certainly self-described Christians who don't evangelize, but by the very rules of Christianity - you're supposed to. but let's face it, being a Christian these days pretty much consists of going to Church on Easter sunday and during advent season, and ... well, claiming to be a Christian. no matter whether you observe the sabbath, practice the Eucharist, etc. Americans just increasingly demand that anyone elected to power be "like them", no matter what they believe or what actions they actually take. Coulter is just describing the same basic tenet I was taught in the methodist church growing up - that Jewish people failed to recognize Jesus' holiness and have damned themselves by doing so, until they repent and accept Jesus as their savior. that IS what Christianity is at its' core. it is a reprehensible belief yes, but just pretending it's not there only delays the inevitable argument. America has this weird group of rapturists who think the 2nd coming is either at hand or currently taking place under George the idiot Bush, and Coulter is among them. i'd rather have truthful, if hateful, statements like Coulter's than the coded speech of Bush in addressing these things. that way more people can plainly identify who the loonies are, and deal with them accordingly. its a weird phenomenon in America - the zealous "belief" in a religion who's rules and rituals one selectively picks from to suit their own personal tastes. its an absolutely meaningless exercise quite far removed from the actual practicing of a religion...

Posted by onceler | October 11, 2007 12:49 PM

I don't get why anyone would take offense at someone saying they believe you would be better off believing X instead of Y. What is the difference between a Christian saying that you would be better off believing in Jesus Christ rather than Yahweh and someone else saying you would be better off believing in equality of the races rather than white supremecy?

Posted by Al | October 11, 2007 12:52 PM

If the end-times predictions of the Christians come true and Jesus appears on the earth , I assume it will be a fairly dramatic presentation. I picture Jesus flying through the air all over the world so everyone can see that he has arrived, and probably doing some really great demonstrations of his power.
Now if this comes to pass, will there really be any people on the earth who don't want to be on Jesus' team.
If I see him flying around I know I will convert on the spot.
Seriously, who wouldn't?
Buzz

Posted by Buzz | October 11, 2007 12:55 PM

Timosha, you're wrong about this:

Jew: We're the best religion for (ethnic) Jews. We don't really have an opinion about what other ethic groups do, but we definitely favor monotheism.

Jews want the rest of the world to practice the Seven Noahide Laws (the crux of which, yes, is monotheism.) Some Jewish groups, including Chabad Lubavitch, actively go around and try to get non-Jews to expressly follow them. Any non-Jew who follows the laws can go to heaven.

Posted by Sam | October 11, 2007 12:59 PM

isn't that actually a very banal baseline belief of all Christians and Muslims everywhere?

Um... no.

Posted by nascardaughter | October 11, 2007 1:02 PM

Ann Coulter thinks of herself as a Christian - that's odd.

Posted by BlindJoeDeath | October 11, 2007 1:04 PM

1) The problem is not usually with religious groups making attempts to gain converts -- well, maybe the Jehovah Witnesses can be a pain in the butt but if you show them a shotgun, they will usually leave.

2) The problem is with religious sects feeling they can use to power of the state to coerce nonbelievers and citizens in various ways.

The New York Times had an OpEd on Oct 7, in which the writer took John McCain to task for pandering to Christian evangelicals by agreeing that the Constitution established the United States as a Christian nation.

In its usual display of incompetence, the Times failed to note that the Constitution itself refutes that claim.

3) Here is a letter I sent to the Times -- which it,of course, will not print:
----------
To: Editor, New York Times

Re "A Nation of Christians" (Oct 7), John McCain's assertion -- that the Constitution
established the United States of America as a Christian nation -- violates both the Constitution and Christianity's Ninth Commandment.
Article Six states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any
Office or public Trust under the United States." When he took his oath as
Senator, Mr McCain swore before his God to uphold the Constitution --including this Article.
---------
4) I think the last point is particularly important -- McCain's pandering to Evangelical delusions not only violates the oath he took as a US Senator , it violates his duty as a Christian to not "bear false witness." If he continues, he should be confronted on this matter.

Posted by Don Williams | October 11, 2007 1:07 PM

picture Jesus flying through the air all over the world so everyone can see that he has arrived, and probably doing some really great demonstrations of his power.

... before the Bush/Cheney administration decides he's a threat to national security and shoots him down.

Seriously.

Posted by strannix | October 11, 2007 1:07 PM

Religious wars in America will be good for MSNBC's ratings.

Posted by Garuda | October 11, 2007 1:12 PM

A lot of Jews, e.g. my dad, get a bit high and mighty about the fact that they generally don't proselytize, but the pre-Christian, pre-rabbinic Jews did so, if not too successfully, because it was so much work to be a Jew. I'd say that Christian and, by extension, Muslim proselytizing has its roots in ancient Jewish custom. The reason Jews stopped doing it is the same reason Christians today don't do it much in the Arab world.

Posted by godoggo | October 11, 2007 1:14 PM

"Muslim: We're the best. But Christians and Jews also enjoy God's favor, because they're monotheistic."

I'm not sure that is right. Most Muslims view the Trinity concept as a form of polytheism In fact, that is their primary beef with Christianity. They view it as equating God with Jesus, which is blasphemy to them. It is true that Muslim's believe Christians enjoy God's favor, but it is because they are considered to be "people of the Book."

Posted by fostert | October 11, 2007 1:15 PM

Fanatics exist in any religion. In Judaism, you'll find them in the Hassidic movement.

Most Jewish people don't believe in "Heaven." They believe that it's their job to make this world a better place.

How does a person do that? Not by converting others to similar beliefs, but by helping the poor, the sick . . . by taking care of the environment, making sure that children are educated and can think for themselves.

Jewish people aren't in the business of "saving souls" for the afterlife. They've got enough to do here and now.

Posted by Pari | October 11, 2007 1:17 PM

When the rock stars of the GOP are Coulter, Malkin, and Hannity, I really don't see how anyone can deny the rise of a quasi-fascist authoritarianism in the US. I'm uncomfortable even saying that, because I know it sounds over the top. But at some point, the obvious is just staring you in the face and you can either acknowledge it or look away and refuse to believe it.

Posted by jim | October 11, 2007 1:18 PM

Not all Christian faiths are evangelical, though. Most Americans aren't trying to convert anyone.

Posted by Steve | October 11, 2007 12:21 PM

All are supposed to be living in such a way that their example would make others want to be "like them".

I'm conservative religiously, but would have to agree in some small way with some of the teenagers I talk to who want nothing to do with mainstream religions these days because we do a HORRIBLE job of presenting a good example.

I think God is holding his nose a lot lately . . .

Posted by DaveE | October 11, 2007 1:21 PM

Ann Coulter thinks of herself as a Christian - that's odd.

Nah, it's just part of her shtick. She has to project the complete conservative identity.

White? Check.

Christian? Check.

Male? Pretty darn close.

.

Posted by PeteN | October 11, 2007 1:23 PM

Regarding Don Williams' point that McCain violated the Ninth Commandment (thou shalt not bear false witness): in the Roman Catholic tradition, this is the Eighth Commandment. The different numbering of the commandments is just one more reason governments in the United States should not get in the business of posting "The Ten Commandments."

Posted by Leo | October 11, 2007 1:24 PM

Barring the odd door-to-door wackaloon or charity/missionary types, Christians in this country proselytize the same way Walmart does. They build a big store (megachurch) in the neighborhood and people who decide they like shopping ("worshipping") there do so. There are many brand name churches to pick from, but some do better than others (i.e. the ones with food courts & bowling alleys).

Posted by Bill | October 11, 2007 1:25 PM

Treating Ann Coulter as if she speaks for conservatism is already ridiculous, but -- Christianity?!

Does she seem like anyone's idea of a practicing believer? I know she's taken on some right-wing Christian causes, like "creation science." And after 9/11 she said she wanted to convert Muslims to Christianity (after invading their countries and killing their leaders). And so on.

So I know it's a premise for a lot of her shtick. But does anyone think it rings true? Isn't it more like the Coneheads saying they're from "France"?

Posted by nandrews3 | October 11, 2007 1:29 PM

I think Ann is blowing smoke up our asses.
—What church does she attend...religiously?
—Who's her Christianist pastor, and/or who are her militantly religious advisor/mentors?
—Does her family have a history of such posturing belief? (Very un-Connecticut-horsey-set....)
—Why then is she now enthusiastically dating, according to the NY Post's Page Six, Democratic Jew Andrew Stein?

I'm calling BS on her. I think it's all one more pose in her Crips/Bloods fantasy of American life: She ain't agin the Christianists, so she'll pose with them. Unless she has this whole civilian religious life we don't know about--ergo my lead questions.

Posted by elle loco | October 11, 2007 1:29 PM

1) There is much dissension within the various sects of Christianity.

The Protestants view parts of the Catholic Bible as the Apocrypha -- the "false writings". The Catholics claim papal infallibility -- which makes the even more ancient Greek Orthodox churchs laugh.

2) When I grew up in rural Virginia, the various Protestant preachers were frequently criticizing each other -- because the Catholics and Jews were too small in number to be competitors for the collection plate.

3) The difficult issue is that much of our laws are based upon moral opinions --which have been largely derived from religious teachings -- although one can argue whether the egg preceded the chicken. And moral opinions, if divorced from some god, become very relative, hence can be disregarded --which opens the way for a far more brutal society.

4) 60 years ago, many people felt heterosexual sex outside marriage was bad and made it illegal. 40 years ago, many people felt heterosexual sex should be outside the law's perview but felt homosexual sex was bad and made it illegal. Today, many people are more accepting of homosexual sex , yet feel sex with children is bad and make it illegal. I strongly oppose pedophilia but I'm not sure I can provide any greater justification than some Southern legislator wanting to ban gay sex among adults.

5) Yet an amoral secular society could rapidly become vicious. Christianity spread within the Roman Empire --in spite of severe persecution -- because Rome had become decadent in a bad way. The cross reminds us that a gentle Jew was subjected to horrible torture simply because a bureaucrat was terrified of a distant Emperor Tiberius and want nothing to interfere with the collection of imperial taxes. The Roman historian Tacitus makes clear that Pilate's fear of cruel Tiberius was deeply justified.

Posted by Don Williams | October 11, 2007 1:33 PM

there are certainly self-described Christians who don't evangelize, but by the very rules of Christianity

This falls into the same vein as Coulter's assertion that Donny Deutsch isn't a practicing Jew:

DEUTSCH: So I should not be a Jew, I should be a Christian, and this would be a better place?

COULTER: Well, you could be a practicing Jew, but you're not.

DEUTSCH: I actually am. That's not true. I really am.

The rules of Christianity vary dramatically from faith to faith. Most Americans are Christians, but most Americans aren't evangelicals.

Coulter and the social conservatives like to declare who is and who is not a real Christian, but you can't claim that America is a Christian nation and then declare that 90% of the people who call themselves Christians really aren't.

Posted by Jinchi | October 11, 2007 1:35 PM

Barring the odd door-to-door wackaloon or charity/missionary types, Christians in this country proselytize the same way Walmart does. They build a big store (megachurch) in the neighborhood and people who decide they like shopping ("worshipping") there do so. There are many brand name churches to pick from, but some do better than others (i.e. the ones with food courts & bowling alleys).

Posted by Bill | October 11, 2007 1:25 PM

Would like to disagree with you but really can't (but it wasn't always like that).

Many got to a large mega-church (like a WalMart) because the "price" to be paid at a larger church (in terms of no one questioning the morality of what you do or say) are much lower. And the service (in terms of bowling or basketball) are better than if you go somewhere smaller because of your beliefs.

It's in large part a generational thing. The ones that are old enough to remember the Depression (or heard their parents talk about it) are so much more conscious of the need for the support that you get from a close-knit church. They can remember when it really mattered to support each other (rather than divide).

Posted by DaveE | October 11, 2007 1:36 PM

Deutsch is essentially "feeding the trolls" by having her on. *sigh* Ratings ratings ratings. But at least she's guaranteeing no Jews will buy her books.

What is far stranger is that she thinks using an episode of "Seinfeld" as proof of racism in New York is somehow intellectually valid. Maybe I could point to Bugs Bunny cartoons to prove torture doesn't work: "LOOK that anvil dropped on his head did NOTHING!" (and I don't think that's a "straw man" argument.)

Posted by illlich | October 11, 2007 1:37 PM

I'm not sure I would classify Islam as an evangelical religion. Historically, while Islamic empires have been expansive in their desire, there wasn't that much emphasis on converting the heathens. Indeed, Islamic empires demonstrated much more tolerance for alternative beliefs than their Christian equivalents.

My sense is that Christianity has a strong sense of "bring the good word to others" while Islam is more "we know the truth and if their to stupid to figure that out well that's there loss."

Posted by Chris Andersen | October 11, 2007 1:37 PM

WinSmith, I'm hardly an expert -- or much of a believer -- but even I can confirm that your Christian theology is totally whack. You make a comment about the notion of the Trinity and, building on it, write:

Then, of course, there's the grand irony of the Ten Commandments, in which Christianity violates commandment #1 every time a Christian prays to Jesus, Mary or any other person born on earth.

Now, I'm quite WASPy so I'm not going to say much about the veneration of Mary or the Saints because it's mostly a Catholic/Orthodox thing and it's an error to say that Catholic or Orthodox believers "pray" to Mary or any of the Saints. I can confirm, however, that no nonheretical Protestant of whom I'm aware "prays" to Jesus, any more than they pray to the "Father" or "Holy Ghost". They pray "in Jesus' name" -- i.e., in his role as the messiah and redeemer -- to "God," which is the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Posted by von | October 11, 2007 1:38 PM

WinSmith, I'm hardly an expert -- or much of a believer -- but even I can confirm that your Christian theology is totally whack. You make a comment about the notion of the Trinity and, building on it, write:

Then, of course, there's the grand irony of the Ten Commandments, in which Christianity violates commandment #1 every time a Christian prays to Jesus, Mary or any other person born on earth.

Now, I'm quite WASPy so I'm not going to say much about the veneration of Mary or the Saints because it's mostly a Catholic/Orthodox thing. It's error, however, to say that Catholic or Orthodox believers "pray" to Mary or any of the Saints. I can confirm, however, that no nonheretical Protestant of whom I'm aware "prays" to Jesus, any more than they pray to the "Father" or "Holy Ghost". They pray "in Jesus' name" -- i.e., in his role as the messiah and redeemer -- to "God," which is the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Posted by von | October 11, 2007 1:39 PM

Sorry for the double post: I was trying to correct a typo/run-on sentence in my 1:38 p.m. post, above.

Posted by von | October 11, 2007 1:40 PM

What is the difference between a Christian saying that you would be better off believing in Jesus Christ rather than Yahweh...

I don't know of any Christian who believes in Jesus rather than Yahweh. That's sort of like believing in Kobe Bryant rather than the LA Lakers.

Posted by Jinchi | October 11, 2007 1:45 PM

My sense is that Christianity has a strong sense of "bring the good word to others" while Islam is more "we know the truth and if their to stupid to figure that out well that's there loss."

Posted by Chris Andersen | October 11, 2007 1:37 PM
Islam is the fastest-growing religions in the US prisons. I think it's because they DO appeal to the individuals there and give them a sense that someone REALLY cares about them.

Christianity all too often treats inmates as "damaged goods", merely tolerating them. When those leave prison, they remember how they were treated.

Posted by DaveE | October 11, 2007 1:46 PM

Pari, I think the crux of your point, that Judaism is not particularly attuned towards the afterlife, is entirely correct. However, while most or many Jews may not believe in heaven, normative Jewish philosophy almost certainly does (hell, on the other hand, is much more complicated.)

Posted by Sam | October 11, 2007 1:48 PM

This falls into the same vein as Coulter's assertion that Donny Deutsch isn't a practicing Jew

Great example, Jinchi. I'm so stealing that...

Posted by nascardaughter | October 11, 2007 1:51 PM

Since Abe Foxman is unwilling to condemn Fox for lesser indignities ( http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/08/adl_response/index.html ), I am anxious to see whether he is prepared to rebuff Fox's favorite borish daughter.

Posted by sy | October 11, 2007 1:52 PM

Actually there is something perverse about believing that Christianity is the way to heaven, (or even the best way) and not believing it would be better if jews became christians.

I mean I suppose one could believe that the world would still be a better more interesting place with jews and muslims and hindus in it, but isn't it somewhat selfish to wish them to stay on a path to hell just to make the world more interesting?

A more serious version of this debate came up in Louisiana where according to conservatives, the democrats ran ads up-state (which is to say in the solidly bible belt protestants part of the state) quoting the religious views of the republican candidate who is catholic. The views were the kind of things that theologians would not be surprised to hear, but do sound bad when mentioned in a political context. In particular that not following papal authority leaves protestants at the mercy of their depraved nature. (The point not being that catholics lack a depraved nature, but rather that catholics have the church to help them control their depraved natures).

Posted by Lon | October 11, 2007 1:53 PM

Al says:
I don't get why anyone would take offense at someone saying they believe you would be better off believing X instead of Y. What is the difference between a Christian saying that you would be better off believing in Jesus Christ rather than Yahweh and someone else saying you would be better off believing in equality of the races rather than white supremecy?
----

Al.. I agree that it's kinda stupid for people to take offense at someone stating their opinion that "you would be better off believing X instead of Y".. but there's a difference between literally saying "I believe it is better for you" and stating, as it is often formulated, "I think you should believe X instead of Y and if you don't believe X then you are a horrible person whom I'm going to try to oppress until you do believe X."

The same kind of thing applies to all groups--whether Christian or Atheist or FSM.

I, personally, am an atheist. Thus, I think it should be perfectly acceptable, as you, Al, would argue according to your position above, for an Atheist to state to a theist that "I think it would be better for you not to believe in a god than to believe in one."

Such a position is along the lines you propose. However, when Richard Dawkins states things along the lines of "I think it would be better for you theists to not believe in a god, and if you don't stop believing in a god, then you are complete morons!" then I find it rather offensive, just like when christians tell everyone else that they are going to hell if they don't believe in their god.

All of this, of course, is just at the level of free speech. When religious groups go and try to change the laws of this country to compel belief in their god, then the situaiton is entirely different.

Posted by Morpheus Laughing | October 11, 2007 1:53 PM

That's sort of like believing in Kobe Bryant rather than the LA Lakers.

If I were a Laker fan, I'd certainly believe in Kobe but not Chris Mihm, Luke Walton, Jordan Farmar, and the rest of them...

Posted by Al | October 11, 2007 1:55 PM

Von, Catholics do pray to Mary.

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen

Posted by mad6798j | October 11, 2007 1:58 PM

Timosha is wrong about the tolerance of Islam. At least Christianity was founded on a message of tolerance. Mohammed organized his tribal followers not only by a positive collection of tribal rituals and policies, but also negative tenets like complete female submission and hatred of Jews. Genocide was a key tenet, with followers urged to wipe out infidel tribes, which was a rationale which helped nomads survive in arid climes--it was holy to rob and pillage the right people.

Modern Islam has in theory moved away from this extreme view, as has Christianity, which also officially hated "infidels" and Jews for centuries. However, my Somali students let me know in no uncertain terms that Jews are dirty, deserve to be discriminated against, and that being monotheists doesn't buy any lenience for either Jews or Christians. "It's in the Koran," they say. How widespread this belief is among modern Muslims I don't know. But I know fundamentalism is alive and looks pretty much the same in every religion.

Posted by W Action | October 11, 2007 2:10 PM

The reason Judaism isn't a proselytizing religion is simple pragmatism. We don't expect a lot of people to get beyond the response, "You want me to cut off what???"

Peace,
Paul

Posted by Paul Stamler | October 11, 2007 2:11 PM

A few disparate thoughts:

1) The issue of Catholics praying to saints can be contentious, but properly understood in Catholic theology, it's what's called Intercessory Prayer: the prayer is that this holy soul make his/her own personal appeal to God on our behalf. Thus, "pray for us sinners," in the Hail Mary. It's not so much praying to Mary as asking Mary to pray. Same with other saints.

2) Morpheus Laughing tends to share my attitude toward Dawkins. I think he overstates Dawkins' position somewhat, but then I think so does Dawkins. The real danger of theists is not their theism but the policy prescriptions that come from a proselytizing attitude.

3) I think a distinction needs to be made between "Christian" in the broadest sense and "Christian" in the sense of belonging to specific denominations. There is nothing underlying a belief in Christ as mankind's redeemer that says anyone who fails to hold that belief remains unredeemed. It is not an altogether outlandish reading of the Gospels to say that Jesus was far less interested in the specifics of a person's beliefs than in the way he/she lived. However, the specific denominations that make up the umbrella religion overwhelmingly tend to hold to the redemption-through-creed belief pretty heavily. They view their proselytizing as an act of compassion to the unfaithful. As I hold to the former rather than latter attitude about Jesus' life, I think these proselytizing sorts are annoying and occasionally dangerous, but I get the mindset.

4) In general, I think Matt's point is quite spot-on.

Posted by jhupp | October 11, 2007 2:11 PM

While the number of "ethnic" Jews in the US is increasing, the number of "practicing" Jews is actually decreasing because many leave the faith.

So Coulter is getting part of her wish. However the non-Jewish Jews mostly become agnostic/atheist. A Christian might think it easier to install Christianity in someone who has no religion than to convert somebody of the wrong faith, but I don't think that will be the case.

Posted by MonkeyBoy | October 11, 2007 2:17 PM

Chris said: I'm not sure I would classify Islam as an evangelical religion. Historically, while Islamic empires have been expansive in their desire, there wasn't that much emphasis on converting the heathens. Indeed, Islamic empires demonstrated much more tolerance for alternative beliefs than their Christian equivalents.

My sense is that Christianity has a strong sense of "bring the good word to others" while Islam is more "we know the truth and if their to stupid to figure that out well that's there loss."

Conversion is as important to Islam as it is to Christianity, just read the Koran. Islamic empires tried to tax and steal babies in order to forcibly coerce conversion. I think if people actually took the time to read the Bible and the Koran and other holy books, as well as learn some history, there wouldn't be so many ignorant things written on an otherwise well informed blog.

Posted by James | October 11, 2007 2:18 PM

von, I can't believe you're seriously arguing Christians of all denominations don't pray to Jesus or Mary, the same way Jews pray to God.

I appreciate your tortured effort to explain it away as praying to God "through" someone else, but even that's another form of directly violating the First Commandment.

Or simply consider commandment #2, Thou Shalt Not Make Graven Images. The cross itself is a graven image in that it's a physical manifestation to be prayed to (bowing to the cross, kneeling to the cross, etc.).

Then there are the statues of Jesus on the cross, or Mary, or the Sistene Chapel painting of God's hand, all of which directly violate #2 in the Ten Commandments.

The fact most branches of Christianity directly violate the Ten Commandments by virtue of their practices never occurs to the fundies.

The Council of Trent tried to fix these obvious violations, but it's not terribly convincing. Read more here:

http://users.binary.net/polycarp/graven.html

Posted by WinSmith | October 11, 2007 2:19 PM

Ann and Donny have one thing in common. They're both shameless self-promoters above all else.

The way Ann promotes herself is by saying outrageous things. If no one notices, she keeps saying still more outrageous things, till she gets noticed. She gets mentioned everywhere, sells another hate book, and lives a trendy Manhattan penthouse lifestyle. The day she stops being outrageous, her income drops to zero.

Donny (he was still Donald, back when I went to school with him) promotes himself by inviting people like Ann on his show. No one cares what Donny has to say. He expected Ann to say something outrageous. She did. He got ratings. They get buzz. She'll get more invites.

Posted by eli | October 11, 2007 2:19 PM

Certainly there are some truths which nearly every single religion shares. So, while we speak softly of their differences, we should shout their agreements from the rooftops. First among those agreements: All the other religions are wrong!

On this great truth, the atheists can readily assent. There are exceptions however: Some polytheists allow that it's fine for people to have local favorites among the gods. On this grounds alone, we could wish for more evangelical forms of polytheism to flourish.

Posted by Whit | October 11, 2007 2:20 PM

Then, of course, there's the grand irony of the Ten Commandments, in which Christianity violates commandment #1 every time a Christian prays to Jesus, Mary or any other person born on earth.

Do you even know what commandment #1 says to make such an stupid assertion?

Posted by James | October 11, 2007 2:20 PM

"Love one another as I have loved you", “whatsoever you do to the least of your brethren, that you do unto me”,…

If not the best religion, Christianity certainly is the best credo for life. Problem is no one following it. When Coulter, Dobson et all become spokespersons for Christ, you know Christianity is screwed.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | October 11, 2007 2:23 PM

Scummy Al:

"I don't get why anyone would take offense at someone saying they believe you would be better off believing X instead of Y. What is the difference between a Christian saying that you would be better off believing in Jesus Christ rather than Yahweh and someone else saying you would be better off believing in equality of the races rather than white supremecy?"

The all time scummiest comment by the all time scummiest commenter. Combining scummy anti-Semitism and scummy racism. Scummy Al, is the scummiest.

Posted by Jennifer | October 11, 2007 2:24 PM

Jew: We're the best religion for (ethnic) Jews. We don't really have an opinion about what other ethic groups do, but we definitely favor monotheism. - Timosha

Actually, for us Jews isn't it (borrowing from Tevye):

We're God's chosen people. But ... God, couldn't you choose someone else for a change?

?

Posted by DAS | October 11, 2007 2:24 PM

In Coulter's (and her ilk's) defense, she when she said that Jews need to be "perfected" she only meant "the really Jewy ones."

(I wonder if the ADL will say anything about this.)

Posted by ed | October 11, 2007 2:26 PM

a physical manifestation to be prayed to (bowing to the cross, kneeling to the cross, etc.).

Bowing = prayer?

Posted by James | October 11, 2007 2:27 PM

Good lord, the level of ignorance on this board is astounding. Where to begin?

1. The Moslem view of Jews is best captured by a traditional writing featured in the Hamas Charter: "When the redemption comes [or better, as a sign of the redemption], the rocks and trees will call out 'Moslem Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him." When Iranian Pres. "dinner jacket" talks about the coming of the 12th Iman, he is talking about the redemption that will lead to the absolute, total, final solution to the Jewish problem. (At that time, he believes Jesus will come down and tell the Christians to follow Allah, but that's another story entirely).

2.Moslems believe that Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon, etc were actually Moslems, and that the Jews forged the scripture. For example, Moslems believe that Abraham really took Ishmael to be sacrificed, but that the evil Jews changed the story to make Issac the intended victim. (Never mind that the Offering of Issac narative was probably about 1500 years old by the time Mohammed was born). Mohammed borrowed (stole) many common Jewish beliefs, myths, and practices in an effort to convince the Jews to buy into his program (e.g. modified forms of kashrut, daily prayers - 5, not 3, to show his greater piety - even a version of the red heifer, called the "yellow cow"). Thus, when rejected, he went postal. The result was the "Kyhbar" massacre, recalled today in the chants of Moslem crowds from Iran to Dearborn to Washington DC, "Khybar Khybar, O Jews, the Army of Mohammed is coming for you."

4. As "people of the book," Jews (and Christians) generally need not face the choice of conversion or death put to Hindus, Bhuddists, etc., instead, the choice is conversion or servitude.

5. Coulter's view is standard issue Christianity - always has been. But evangelical Christians also believe (as she said) in the "Old Testament" and honor its statement in Genesis that "those who bless (the Jews) will themselves be blessed."

6. Yes, Jews believe in Heaven, and have done so for at least 2500 years or more. Yes, Jews believe that Jesus was a false Messiah. The traditional "Aleinu" prayer, which expresses the hope that all mankind will acknowledge G-d's rulership, included a line that roughly translates: "they (the Gentiles) bow down to garbage and nothingness..." This line was edited out in most European prayerbooks in the Middle Ages because the Church fathers believed, quite correctly, that the Jews were referring to JC. The life after death issue gets a bit fuzzy, but the normative Jewish view (again, a view that is at least 2200 years old) is that the soul survives the body and that there is some sort of afterlife. Hence Maimonides' statement that belief in the resurrection of the dead when the Messiah comes is a fundamental Jewish belief.

7. "Tikkun Olam" is a mystical Jewish concept that essentially states it is up to Jews to perfect the world, and recapture, as if it were, the sparks of divinity that were broken at creation. In traditional terms, the Torah (all of those laws, requirements, and such that Ann mentioned and that "liberal" Jews reject) provides the guidebook for doing so. Heretical Jewish sects (e.g. Reform) and secular Jews, who seek to place a religious patina on political action, have seized the concept and use it essentially as justification for any policy that the left wing of the Democrat Party espouses at any particular time.

Bottom line: A. Coulter was being honest - and her statements should not trouble a believing Jew with even a basic comparative religion background. B. There are big theological differences between Christian/Moslem views of Judaism. Christians at least accept the Jewish scripture; Moslems do not. C. Those who claim to be Jews on this board really need to study the traditional sources, so they at least know what they are talking about.

Posted by Eagle613 | October 11, 2007 2:28 PM

When I was a kid in the ‘50’s I attended a stern all boys military school that was run by a pair of Episcopal priests and a passel of active and retired U.S. Army guys. Among the requirements was the rote memorization and out loud recitation of passages from one of Martin Luther’s lesser known pieces entitled “The Jews and their lies.” Look it up. Read it. It’s out there on the net. You’ll find that Ann Coulter’s position and statements are neither new nor original. Also look up the history of those that followed Luther’s advice and did as he said. It’s amazing.

I know what Ms Coulter is doing, however she wants to convince others to do the actual persuasion and conversions saving a whole people from eternal damnation while she remains above the fray. Those who do not accept being saved are of no consequence as they have condemned themselves to hell and they may be discarded. At least that’s what Marty said.

Posted by Titzel | October 11, 2007 2:30 PM

Or become one of us. We cover all the bases. Just look for one of our reps at a campus or subway stop near you......

Posted by Jews for Jesus | October 11, 2007 2:35 PM

Matt, you really need to do a more careful job scrutinizing your thoughts before you write them, or else you'll issue more over-generalized statements like this post: "isn't that actually a very banal baseline belief of all Christians and Muslims everywhere?" Perfecting Judaism, that is.

Well, no, it's not a baseline belief for most Christians (I can't speak for what most muslims believe). Most Christians don't spend a lot of time thinking about converting people. Now, maybe you're mistaken in your understanding because the evangelicals (definition: "to convert to christianity") get a lot of air play, and by definition this is their job. But evangelicals are not a majority of Christians.

You also admitted in another post that you didn't know much about Iraq before you cast your first opinion about the war. So, the lesson here is: due diligence before writing. Or else type the word "some" in place of "all" in the instant post; at least you wouldn't offend anyone with that.

Posted by DC | October 11, 2007 2:35 PM

Re: Indeed, Islamic empires demonstrated much more tolerance for alternative beliefs than their Christian equivalents.

This was generally true only in times and places where Islamic rulers ruled over a majority of subjects who were not Muslim: the early Caliphate, the Ottomans in the Balkans, the Moguls in India anmd various lesser examples in Africa and Indonesia. Here tolernace was a necessity masquerading as a virtue. Where other religions were small minorities Islam was not particularly noted for tolerance either.

Re: Von, Catholics do pray to Mary.

This is correct. However, "prayer" is not a synonym for "worship".
"Pray" is simply an old English word for "ask", which is why you find Shakespearean characters saying things liek "I pray thee, sirrah..."

Re: "It's in the Koran," they say.

But is it? Many people in all religions read their own prejudices into their Scriptures.

Posted by JonF | October 11, 2007 2:36 PM

In winter I'm a nudist, in summer I'm a Buddhist.

Posted by jrw | October 11, 2007 2:38 PM

Mad6798:

Is asking Mary to intercede on our behalf the same as holding her to be a deity? The Commandment is not 'I am THE LORD thy god, thou shalt not talk to anyone else about stuff', after all. It's 'I am THE LORD thy god, thou shalt not have false gods before me'.

So, if I ask my lawyer to help me get a commuted sentence, does that mean I'm holding him to be the judge? That's the essence of the Hail Mary, and other prayers (which are, after all, any request for aid from extranatural agencies): Not that we (full disclosure, I was raised Catholic) hold the saints to be divine, but that we're asking them to put in a good word for us. The intent is that the actual solution to our problems come from God, not from the saint. We're just trying to get them to help argue our case. Look at the wording of the prayer you quote:

First verse:
Hail Mary, full of grace, THE LORD is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

Translation: Er... Mary... hi. Hang on a second whilst I butter you up.

Second verse:
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

Translation: Have some more butter. By the way, could you, y'know, convince the boss we're not so bad? Even after we keep screwing up? Thankee.

The important factor isn't that Mary's being called to, it's that she is not the source of divine power. She is not a god. She has no power unto herself beyond what Bob on the corner has: To say 'God, I know he screws up, but I think Bill's a decent fellow. Couldja go a little easy on him?'

The idolatry issue, now that's deeper and more troubling. But as I said, I was only raised Catholic. I'm currently a Theoapathist.

As for Islam, technically speaking, Muslims could hold Jews and Christians to be islamic. 'Islam', after all, is the 'House of Submission (to God)', or those who serve God. So, any Jew or Christian whose intent is to serve God despite their flawed (to the Muslim point of view) understanding of His will is, technically, islamic.

Posted by BillMcD | October 11, 2007 2:39 PM

This line was edited out in most European prayerbooks in the Middle Ages because the Church fathers believed, quite correctly, that the Jews were referring to JC. - Eagle613

Um ... your history is correct, but the Church fathers were not correct in believing we Jews were referring (only) to JC here. The quoted line, IIRC, actually comes from Isaiah (!) (mis-, IMHO)used by many Christians otherwise to predict JC being the messiah ... so unless the Christians are right about Isaiah predicting JC and are just wrong about Isaiah predicting JC to be the messiah, I don't think the line's referring to JC specifically but to any false god.

BTW ... I dunno about Christians accepting Jewish scripture any more than Moslems do. Christians read Jewish scripture so selectively and in such an unusual way that they might as well have just reworked it like the Moslems have. Of course, I'm sure the Karaites would say the same thing about Rabbinnic Jews like us and our reading of Torah ...

Posted by DAS | October 11, 2007 2:40 PM

I think it's all for the best that adherents of various religions fight it out among themselves to prove the superiority of one religion over the other, for then they won't have the time to try to bring perfection to the life of the atheists.

Posted by gregor | October 11, 2007 2:43 PM

The religions are, technically, mutually exclusive. If you don't want this sort of thing then what you really want is either a) religious people who don't REALLY believe or b) people to be non-religous.

Posted by Taylor | October 11, 2007 2:43 PM

I, personally, am an atheist. Thus, I think it should be perfectly acceptable, as you, Al, would argue according to your position above, for an Atheist to state to a theist that "I think it would be better for you not to believe in a god than to believe in one."

Such a position is along the lines you propose. However, when Richard Dawkins states things along the lines of "I think it would be better for you theists to not believe in a god, and if you don't stop believing in a god, then you are complete morons!" then I find it rather offensive, just like when christians tell everyone else that they are going to hell if they don't believe in their god.

I don't have a problem with someone saying what they think is a likely consequence of someone's beliefs. To me, saying that, if someone is a Jew rather than a Christian, the person is "going to hell" strikes me as little different than saying that, if someone is a smoker rather than a non-smoker, the person is "going to get lung cancer". In both cases, the statement is merely a warning of potential bad consequences if the person doesn't change his or her ways.

Posted by Al | October 11, 2007 2:44 PM

Much ado about nothing. I watched the interview with Donny Deutsch live (I think inertia had kept my TV on CNBC from Mad Money). It was clear Deutsch was baiting Coulter. As a Jew, I wasn't offended; as a TV viewer I was mildly annoyed -- by Deutsch. I enjoy watching Ann Coulter enliven political shows, but what was she doing on the douche's show, which is ostensibly about entrepreneurs? I know Coulter is willing to go anywhere to promote her new book, so she bears part of the blame, but this is just the douche trying to generate controversy for his show that no one watches. He's just afraid he's about to go the way of Melissa Francis and get replaced with a rerun of "Fast Money".

And of course there are the footsteps of the new Fox Business Network coming from behind.

Posted by Fred | October 11, 2007 2:50 PM

I think it's all for the best that adherents of various religions fight it out among themselves to prove the superiority of one religion over the other, for then they won't have the time to try to bring perfection to the life of the atheists.

I think each religion needs to appoint a world leader. Then, they can compete against one another for a period of one (1) year on the PGA golf tour. Their final standings on that tour will serve as the basis for a series of single-elimination steel-cage death-matches a'la Thunderdome/Mortal Kombat.

The winner is the man/woman who exits the ring under their own power after the final match as they are obviously the one with the divine truly on their side, and so represents the true religion... unless the athiest sniper shoots them before they can get out of the ring.

Posted by BillMcD | October 11, 2007 2:50 PM

It's unfortunate that incidents like this and all the comments made on them reinforce the idea that "true" Christians of necessity believe that Jews "shouldn't exist," when there has been a strong recent tradition among mainline Christian groups to rethink the ideas of covenant and God's relationship to both Christians and Jews - see Karl Rahner (Catholic) among others. What it boils down to is, that a good number of Christian theologians have recognized that the original covenant between God and the Jews remains valid and is not abrogated, even while believing that the "new" covenant through Christ (without the requirement of following the Mosaic law) supersedes the old - squishy, yes, but certainly moving away from the absolutist view held by many conservative evangelicals that Jews must and will all be converted.

Which, by the way, keeps me eternally mystified as to why any Jewish leader here or in Israel continues to play footsie with those people, even considering the political expediency they gain in the short term. It's like livestock being really grateful to the farmer for fattening him up so much....

Posted by CMO | October 11, 2007 2:53 PM

"Love one another as I have loved you", “whatsoever you do to the least of your brethren, that you do unto me”,…

If not the best religion, Christianity certainly is the best credo for life. Problem is no one following it.

Sorry, but the Golden Rule has nothing to do with Christianity. All major religions have it and have always had it. And it's not religious anyway.

Posted by Sirkowski | October 11, 2007 2:53 PM

Adherents of all evangelical religions are a bit nuts. Imagine believing their way is the only "correct" way. Imagine further, virgins in the afterlife, holy wars (isn't this an oxymoron), the "rupture," all believers entering the kingdom of heaven, even the notion that god gave his son--why not her son or his daughter. It's all ridiculous.

Ann Coulter of course is about money.

Posted by Cycledoc | October 11, 2007 2:58 PM

If you if really want to follow a religion, Modern Vedanta, which is Hinduism stripped of all its mumbo jumbo rituals and casteism and everything bad, is the one for you. From Wikepedia this is what you have to believe:

* Although God is the absolute reality, the world has a relative reality. It should therefore not be completely ignored.
* Conditions of abject poverty should be removed; only then will people be able to turn their minds toward God.
* All religions are striving in their way to reach the ultimate truth. Narrow sectarian bickering should therefore be abandoned, and religious tolerance should be practised — between different Hindu denominations, as well as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.

Posted by gregor |