Of Arabs and Atheists
Feeling very Middle Eastern today, and in that spirit, I'd really hate to drop the debate Paul initiated below concerning Israel and Palestine while there's still FFB blood to be shed. So I'll pose a question: Why is it that, as a general rule, the more intense someone's atheism the more passionately they tend to identify with the Palestinian cause?
If you think about it, this question is really just the flip-side of the allegation that Paul made against me, namely that I am irrationally blinded toward Israeli injustice and Palestinian grievance because I'm Christian, as if being Christian made one naturally sympathetic toward the Jews. The long-view historical record might cast skepticism on such a claim, given the unsavory history of anti-semitism with which we Christians have only recently sought to come to terms. It is true, of course, that many contemporary evangelicals favor Israel from a belief that restoration of the second Temple is a necessary step in the apocalyptic return of JC (not Jimmy, the other one). That hypothesis doesn't explain my sympathies very well, however, since I'm not evangelical, would rather Revelation had never been included in the sacred canon, and don't expect to see fiery horsemen descending from the clouds anytime soon. Now, maybe I admire Israel partly out of a vague simpatico with other "people of faith," but that term certainly includes the Palestinians as well, so it fails to resolve the issue. Let's just assume then, at least for now, that my judgments in favor of the Israeli position have a primarily rational, not emotional basis.
On the other side of the debate, however, I've always found that atheism tends to correlate with a furious defense of the Palestinian cause, coupled with disdain for Israel. I've often found myself in arguments with otherwise very rational people--committed secularists and liberals, typically "anti-war"--who defend suicide bombing as a legitimate, even righteous expression of an oppressed culture's frustrations. Like Paul, many seethe with indignation about the blood on Israel's hands, breaking into rants on how Zionism equals racism or selectively quoting biblical passages designed to make the Jews look like a fascist cult full of bloodthirsty imperialists. Meanwhile, my disputants seemingly fail to recognize that the Palestinians they champion are dominated by their most bellicose and religiously fanatical elements. Why would anti-war, liberal, atheist rationalists embrace a cause that seems the very antithesis of everything for which they claim to stand?
It would be tempting to chalk this all up to anti-semitism. If I were Jewish, that's probably how I would read the indictment that Paul levels below, not just on the Israeli government, but on the very foundations of Jewish faith, which he describes as silly and "immoral." And yet I find the antisemitism thesis unconvincing. Indeed, I presume that Paul, who likely has warm relations with Jews he knows personally, will consider the very suggestion outrageous. Charges of racism and antisemitism get thrown around very casually in debates like this one, and it seems to me that you shouldn't accept them unless you've got some damned good evidence. It also seems unlikely that antisemitism would be a systematic (as opposed to merely individual or random) motivator of atheists as a group. OK, maybe then it's the rational merits of the case that convinces so many atheists. Unfortunately, this thesis fails to explain the fist-pounding, eyeball-popping rage that Israel seems to provoke in the atheist minority, while leaving the vast majority of Americans on the opposite side. Nor does it gel very well with the atheists' tendency to falsify the historical record, as if Jews "stole" Palestine, "breaking into the house," as it were.
So what explains this rather perplexing paradox? I've got a pet theory. As a bonus, it's a theory sure to offend most of you. The answer is that atheists are prone to anti-religious bigotry that makes them incapable of exercising coherent moral judgment when religious disputes are involved.
Atheists presume that religion per se is wrong, but more importantly, they presume that all religion is a grievous moral error: it is superstitious, irrational, violent, and divisive. As a result, atheists tend to have a natural preference for those religions or sects that confirm all their worst opinions about religion generally. If you're going to be religious, at least have the good manners to be insane about it. Don't tell us you're a liberal, democratic, tolerant person of faith! That's hypocrisy, designed to quiet the outrage that you cultists properly deserve. Naturally, then, in a dispute between liberal religion (Israel) and fanaticism (Fatah, Hamas, etc.), atheists instinctively prefer the crazies.
Bigotry is an inflammatory word. In fairness, anti-religious bigotry cannot be simply equated with racial bigotry, sexism, or homophobia. After all, religion is a belief system over which individuals have a considerable degree of choice, whereas race, sex, and sexuality allow much less (although there's still some limited range in each). You're not entitled to courtesy just because you're religious, and "tolerance" does not require agreement or even respect. Hating religion is not the same thing as hating blackness. And yet, atheists abandon coherent moral judgment when they presume the equality of all religions in malevolence. Rather than looking for allies among tolerant, liberal believers, atheists suspect deep down that moderate incarnations of religion are dishonest and even dangerous. Because they see religion as the enemy, rather than religious extremism, they're especially unsympathetic toward the more successful incarnations of humanistic religion in the political realm. Hence, anti-Israel. That's my theory. Prove me wrong.
19 Comments:
Well, I guess this post is fair. Since Jimmy Carter, that famous atheist, thinks that Israeli policy on the West Bank is immaoral, all non-believers should get painted with the same brush as our non-believing Leader. And I guess it's fair, too, that the Jews, inclusing Israeli Jews, who have described the state of West Bank Arabs as "apartheid" get lumped together with anti-liberal Christian atheist-bigots.
Jesus Christ.
TenaciousMcD,
I have to say, this theory does not resonate with me at all, not in the least. I'm pretty offended by it. I don't accuse you of bad faith, and I expect the same treatment in return. You don't have to believe in Jesus to respect the golden rule.
Besides, the theory makes no sense whatsoever of my views. As you know, I am an atheist--I don't believe in God, heaven, hell, or eternal life. But I'm no "passionate advocate of the Palestinian cause." I've never written a letter, waved a flag, attended a protest. Unlike anyone who really feels strongly about the issue, I don't even regularly follow the region's utterly depressing politics of terrorism, wall-building, extra-judicial killings, check points, etc. I'm just not an unqualified defender of Israel. I don't think it's possible to be more of an atheist than I am (kind of an either/or matter, anyway), but I'm merely a back and forth, see-both-sides bystander as far as Israel/Palestine goes. I think Jimmy Carter makes many much needed points. (Too bad they'll have have absolutely no impact on American politics or policy.)
The theory doesn't make sense, anyway. Suicide bombing isn't primarily motivated by religion. After all, Robert Pape has shown pretty conclusively that suicide campaigns follow a strategic, not religious logic. Palestinian suicide bombing itself does not originate in Islamic extremism. Indeed, the Palestinians got the idea from the Tamil Tigers, a secular Marxist movement. Even if you have reason to doubt this research, I'm pretty convinced by it. So, at least in my mind, Palestinians do nothing to validate the anti-religious bigotry you think I harbor.
Terrorism is a strategy of the weak against the strong. It is used primarily because it is effective for achieving various purposes, including making occupations very unpopular with democratic publics.
I'm not an anti-religious bigot. I don't hold the views about the Israel/Palestine conflict you think I hold. But because suicide terrorism doesn't originate in religion, your theory wouldn't be correct even if I were 100% in favor of the Palestinian cause and I were 100% the anti-religious bigot you just described.
This is some fuckin' crazy shit to post up on one's friends. I gotta say. Not very Christian of the tenacious one . . . .
Dude. I have tried pretty hard to feel you on this issue, and I have failed (btw, my a prioris: I am a radical leftist. While I am not an atheist by any definition of the term, I am deeply, deeply skeptical of organized religion). My problem comes at this: you are asking me acknowledge that one of the sides in the Israel/Palestine conflict is the "Good Guy." I can't do that.
Paul and Jimmy C. opine not that we should support Palestine. They opine that we should act as neutral arbiters in the fracas. They do not oppose Israel, they oppose a pro-Israel bias, the existence of which you may debate as you wish. Part of that opposition, as far as I can infer, amounts to acknowledging that while suicide bombing is an act of violence, so is the building of houses in the Occupied Territories. This too you may debate; yet and still you will not convince me that in this conflict one side is Righteous and another is Evil.
I don't think Tmcd is attacking purely straw men. But he's also not engaging with FFb readers. That is, some atheists do have an ill-conceived commitment to 'secularism' that blinds them to what Bill Connolly calls the 'existential faith' which animates any worldview. I'm totally with Connolly on this (and it's the stuff I push hardest when teaching Connolly), and I agree with Tmcd that we must challenge any sort of knee-jerk dogmatism against religious belief.
However, while that issue may play a role in some Israel/Palestine debates, it doesn't have much to do with the argument that's going on here. Tmcd seems to be defending Israel. The others aren't defending Palestine; they aren't even attacking Israel. They are attacking the US foreign policy position that consistently favours Israel. In other words, ditto to what the fly says above.
One other points, a side issue, but worth mentioning, I think. TmcD writes that "religion is a belief system over which individuals have a considerable degree of choice." No, I don't choose to believe what I do. I just don't find religious accounts of the world convincing. There's nothing I can do to make them convincing to me. It's not bigotry not to believe. In no other realm of life is one asked to attempt to force the mind to accept something it rejects.
There's nothing to the "theory" TmcD lays out here, but I'm sure it's useful to categorize one's intellectual opponents in such a way. No group is more unpopular or reviled in American society than atheists. If you argue that your opponents fail to share your views because of their anti-religious bigotry, you've just put them on the other side of a debate from 96-98% of Americans. It's actually far worse than asking someone when they're going to stop beating their spouse.
Let me clarify a few misunderstandings in this debate. First, as I've noted before, I have never directly attacked Jimmy Carter (who is obviously not an atheist), except for noting in passing that he should have chosen a word other than "apartheid." I haven't read the book, and I presume it's more rational and balanced than what the conservative press has been saying. I have no objection to criticizing Israel, although I do have objections to certain kinds of criticism of Israel.
My target has always been Paul, who wasn't content to defend Jimmy, but went far beyond that, suggesting (a) that Israel has no right to exist but must merely be tolerated b/c its nuclear weapons make it impossible to remove (b) Israel is a criminal nation for having "broken into the house" and stolen the "best rooms," (c) the Jewish faith is stupid and contemptible: bloodthirsty and imperialistic rapists worshipping an evil God (seriously--go back and read his post), (d) all justifications for Israel's existence rest on moronic arguments about land based on their silly and evil sacred text, (e) the Holocaust is soooo last century, and the Jews should shut the fuck up about it, and (f) any Christian who happens to defend Israel must be driven by a similarly crazy, evangelical crusader mentality.
Now, I've read a lot of offensive religion-hating rants on this blog, mostly if not exclusively from Paul, but this takes the cake. I generally refrain from going after atheism. I never proselytize, and I respect your disbelief. But Paul's unhinged rant couldn't help but remind me of many arguments I've had with other secular lefties over the years whose atheism seemed to lead them to the exact same sentiments. And if you think about it, this affinity of atheists for the Palestinian cause really is a perplexing little puzzle. I still haven't heard a very good explanation for that here. And don't hide behind Jimmy Carter. Defend Paul's more radical position instead.
If you want to cool this debate off, let me make a suggestion. Next time you want to ridicule Jews, Christians, or religion generally, remember how much you liked a similar attack being turned on your own disbelief.
TMcD,
I've never made a similar attack. I'm happy to argue over religion. I have a lot of interest in the subject. As long as that's what we're discussing, that's great by me.
I'm also glad to discuss Israel/Palestine. I don't like to shy away from hot topics, at least among friends.
What I object to is any kind of claim that my views on X public policy issue are merely a function of bigotry (anti-religious or whatever). It's especially objectionable from someone who knows me. I don't ever claim that about you, and you shouldn't make similar assertions about me.
It's the bad faith accusation that is out of bounds. Nothing else.
Frances, for what it's worth, I don't think I've ever singled you out as a target in this debate, although you do get folded into my critique of atheism generally. Knowing you personally, I wouldn't expect you to produce the kind of angry, anti-religious post that started this debate.
That said, I was rather shocked that absolutely no one else seemed to recognize just how radical and offensive Paul's argument was. I suspect that, as an atheist, you (and #3, etc.) just sort of assume the idiocy of religion, and so you didn't even notice the condescending severity and distortion involved in Paul's original post. We can have a debate about religion, about policy, or whatever. But don't tell me that I was the one who brought the "bad faith" to the table. If, as an atheist, you're going to talk about religion, you better bring something better than strawmen.
I didn't see the bad faith accusation in Paul's original post. It certainly was "radical," as in going to the single most sensitive claim, rights to land. But that's ok. You can answer the arguments. Radicalism isn't out of bounds. And, as you know, some Jews really do point to the Old Testament to ground their rights in territory.
I didn't engage that debate, because I don't think justice in matters of land or territory ever has a firm foundation, anywhere. The US got its land from violence, too. All states are founded in it and violence must be used to preserve them. Nothing good in human society is possible without government. But into the origins of governments it is best not to inquire.
I did think there was bad faith being implied when Paul asked you--in comments, I think--if your views on the matter derived from your Christianity. I didn't like that, and I thought you'd just defend yourself, as I've done. Not launch an escalation of the same kind of attack.
Wow, wake up to this great debate. Anyway,TMcD,Transient and Sam have hit the nail on the head on what this debate is about. It's not about whether Israel or Palestine has the right to exist, it's whether US foreign policy should take sides. But to get onto your other accusations.
My target has always been Paul, who wasn't content to defend Jimmy, but went far beyond that, suggesting (a) that Israel has no right to exist but must merely be tolerated b/c its nuclear weapons make it impossible to remove
In no way did I ever say that Israel has no right to exist. Recheck up and down, inside and out and I never said it. I did say "And practical is where I'll end. At this point the state of Israel is a fact on the ground – they have nuclear weapons and aren't going to pushed off the land anytime soon whatever the US does." Those last words are key. I was looking at the Palestinian/Israeli conflict from a practical point of view (2-State Solution) and from the point of view of US policy. Furthermore, I went on to say "So, I say put Israeli foreign aid on par with our other allies in the region." Now if I truly believed that Israel had no right to exist, why would I say that? In fact, those words imply they should remain our ally, just not an extra special ally with extra special support.
(b) Israel is a criminal nation for having "broken into the house" and stolen the "best rooms,"
I was quoting another Palestinian who told me this is how he and his family felt. I never said Israel was a "criminal nation". I did include this Palestinian's sentiments because the Palestinian point of view is rarely acknowledged in the US. And I included it because, TMcD, like you I'm a sort of "kick up and kiss down" kind of guy. There is no question in this debate who the "down" people are in respect to US policy.
(c) the Jewish faith is stupid and contemptible: bloodthirsty and imperialistic rapists worshipping an evil God (seriously--go back and read his post),
(d) all justifications for Israel's existence rest on moronic arguments about land based on their silly and evil sacred text, (e) the Holocaust is soooo last century, and the Jews should shut the fuck up about it, and (f) any Christian who happens to defend Israel must be driven by a similarly crazy, evangelical crusader mentality.
I have no idea where point e even comes from. The only thing I ever said about the Holocaust is that it what not committed by the Palestinians, so they shouldn't have to suffer for it. How this gets twisted into "the Jews should shut the fuck up about it" I'll never know.
As for my thoughts on religion and my quote from the Bible, yes, these were the most controversial and least diplomatic parts of my post. On the other hand, religion more than anything else is the basis of the competing land claims and is what keeps the fervor alive on both sides (and again I focused on the Israeli side of this argument, not because I think Palestinian/Arab/Persian religious claims are more valid, but because US policy favors the Israeli claims more). I went back in history to look at the genesis and character of these historical land claims on the Israeli side, not only because they are well documented but because they have underwritten the entire Zionist movement 1880 to present and appeal to at least the roughly 25% of Americans who are Christian Evangelical/Fundamentalists and thus believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. So I quoted from the Bible and said of this particular passage:
It's hard to read a passage like this and not be jarred by the sentiments expressed therein. It's even harder to square this advice with anything approaching acceptable morality: God orders the new arrivals to steal others' land and personal property, to enslave, and to commit murder, ethnic cleansing and rape (the Israelites weren't allowed to intermarry with these people so the reference to take the women as plunder and spoils clearly points to sexual slavery and rape) because the Israelites are his chosen people and the other groups have the wrong religion. Somehow I think that if there is a God, and he is good, he never would have condoned any such thing.
I stand by my characterization of the quote. I also stand by my thesis that the "sacred stories" of the Bible have played a huge role in the Zionist movement and in shaping US policy. By the way, once again I remind you that I only addressed Judeo-Christian religion because it is influencing our foreign policy, not because I think Muslim religion superior or any less nutty (I suppose we could get into a debate about whose religion is "worse", but that's a hard nut to crack). As I have said before on this blog, Aristotle's analysis of the modes of persuasion (logos, ethos, pathos) is defective because he's left out the most important one of all -- mythos, which I translate as "sacred story." Jimmy Carter only touched upon this around the edges of his book; rather he made the decision rather to marshal the Bible to support the idea of giving Palestinians their own land and rights. As a diplomat this is the more sensible course for him, but it doesn't address one of the fundamental problems in the debate (actually to be fair to Carter, he already dealt with this problem in his earlier book The Blood of Abraham, which I read years ago but now it's at my mom's house if it hasn't been thrown out).
Finally, I just want end by quoting the last sentence of my original post, just to make it cyrstal clear where I was going in said post:
So, I say put Israeli foreign aid on par with our other allies in the region. Nor do I mind if the US once again decides to be a broker in the peace process, in fact I hope we do, but peace and a cessation of terror threats won't be on the table any time soon as long as the US isn't neutral and Israel continues to build the wall and settlements in the West Bank. And these were Carter's overall points, and with them I agree. Indeed, I think they're unassailable..
Now, TMcD, go back and reread your take on my post. Sorry, but I just can't get from what I said to your characterization of it.
OK, but notice what happened in this debate: (1) Paul offers radical, distorted anti-Israel diatribe; (2) I offer a measured, rational, historically informed refutation; (3) Paul accuses me of being a crazy Christian; (4) Team Atheism leaps to the rescue, reflexively assailing Israel and praising the Palestinian cause, while offering no recognition that the original post was, in fact, deeply offensive; (5) I ask why atheists have such knee-jerk hostility to Israel, suggesting that atheism carries certain ironic biases; (6) Team Atheism reacts with predictible outrage and disbelief without ever taking up the core issue: the Israel-as-evil thesis. TA decides instead to hide behind Jimmy Carter, whom I never targeted.
That's a pretty interesting sequence of events. I think it tends to confirm my inflammatory thesis re atheism. You may not be as overtly hostile to Israel as Paul, but your preexisting biases make it very hard for you to recognize anti-religious bigotry when it is the 800-lb gorilla in the room. Meanwhile, any perceived slight to the preferred atheist position is met with swift retaliation. Interesting how atheists have the same sort of pack mentality we usually attribute to the religious.
BTW, Frances, I found your most recent set of comments very reasonable. I would have liked to see them earlier in the debate.
Paul, I stand by my summary of your argument. I took your "whatever the US does" line as meaning that we couldn't achieve the optimal policy, which would be getting rid of Israel, a reading supported by your unequivocal attacks on Israeli texts/myths/actions, coupled with your uncritical acceptance of the Palestinian BB player's nationalist mythology. Although I find your most recent caveats mildly reassuring, I don't think they alter the extremism of your original post and responses.
I just want you all to take note: today is not only my birthday but also International Holocaust Remembrance Day.
This comment has been removed by the author.
TMcD,
I see why they call you "Tenacious" – you won't give up the fight no matter what. It's hard to keep correcting the inventive way you keep digging through my posts and finding flimsy implications in what I said. Take this new one, my "uncritical acceptance of the Palestinian BB player's nationalist mythology." My posting of this Palestinian''s comment in no way was meant to endorse the Palestinian version of history in its entirety, only the fact that a real person who now calls himself a "Palestinian" was actually displaced from his home. The loss of his home is hardly nationalist mythology – it is firmly grounded in his actual private experience.
As for bringing up religion, I never accused you of being "a crazy Christian", what I suggested was that I thought your Christian faith colored your attitudes, as well as American policy, in the area of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I also firmly admitted that my Atheism colors my own views. I fail to see how this amounts to me calling you crazy, but I can see where it might offend you. You then have turned around and said my Atheism makes me biased against Israel and radical. But if you go back to my post and comments I have repeatedly said:
1. Like Carter, I want the US to be neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I fail to see how this amounts to me being biased. Bias means favoring one side over the other. Neutrality means not favoring one side over the other, i.e., not being biased.
2. Like Carter, I want Israel to stop building its wall and settlements IN THE WEST BANK because they are exacerbating an already tense situation and are completely inconsistent with a viable 2-state solution. While in hindsight I should have used the phrase "2-state solution" in my original post, from the rest of what I said it was clear that I favor such a course and I inserted the phrase in a later comment. Go back and look at every single time I brought up these issues, and you will see I used the magic phrase "IN THE WEST BANK." I think the wall is a bad idea even on the border of the West Bank, but I understand why they felt it needed to be built.
3. Like Carter, I want Israel to engage the Arabs on their peace-proposal, which exchanges peace in return for Israel withdrawing to more or less the 1967 borders and compensating Palestinians who lost their homes. This proposal is widely endorsed throughout the Arab world, most importantly by Syria.
4. Religious convictions and especially biblical passages that claim God promised the land of Israel to Abraham's ancestors should be disregarded by those making US policy in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and they should not be used to color our view of whose side to support (including the Palestinians who actually claim that they are the legitimate heirs of Abraham). Yes, it fair to say that I have an "anti-religion bias", especially the way religion is being used in this particular conflict by both sides. I've explained more than once why I focused on Judeo-Christian claims so I have little faith that another try will make any difference.
If any of these points makes me a "radical", then so be it.
This will be my last post on the issue. Anyone can read what I wrote and come to their own conclusions about what I said and whether you've accurately reflected what I intended. They can also come to their own conclusions about whether or not current US policy on the Palestinian-Israeli question is just, or in our own national interests.
Well, I can't speak for all atheists, not even all members of the A-Team, as it were. (Now that's a great blog name!) But any hostility I have toward Israeli policy with respect to the West Bank and Gaza, i.e., the Occupied Territories, is not "knee jerk" but based on the substance of those policies. I'm not sure where the idea that any members of the FFB have "reflexive" anti-Israel attitudes comes from.
Paul, I'm glad to see you admit that your position is colored by your anti-religious biases. As for the "crazy Christian" charge, just go back and look at how many bizarre arguments you tried to attribute to me on the assumption that you know how Christians think.
OK, so how about your claim that all you want is US "neutrality"? Despite your protestations, I continue to see this as a weak defense. As Machiavelli wrote, those who come to you pleading for you to be neutral are your enemies and they're merely trying to gain a tactical advantage. US neutrality would be a de facto victory for the Palestinians, since it would deprive Israel of its one effective ally in a very hostile region.
Take a look from a second angle. Again, I'll take Machiavelli as an authority on power politics. Machiavelli critiques Aristotle by suggesting that a "golden mean" is often an impossiblity. Staying neutral between two incompatible factions places you in a weak and untenuous position. For example, the nobles want to oppress the people, and the people just want not to be oppressed. There's no compromise here, so you've got to choose (Mach says choose the people, since they're easier to satisfy).
Unfortunately, Israel-Palestine is a similar situation. In comments, you assume that both sides just want their own state and peaceful coexistence. But this is a perilous misreading of the situation. The failed Camp David meetings of 2000 revealed quite clearly that the two camps have incompatible positions. The Israelis just want peace and coexistence, and are willing to offer pretty much anything to get it. The Palestinians, by contrast, want a state, but only IF they don't have to give up the dream of total control of the region (i.e., no more Israel). They've never accepted a "two-state solution," except as a temporary foothold toward the greater goal. The US cannot stay neutral on the question of whethrer Israel gets to exist, which is and always has been the crux of the dispute between the two sides. When you call for the US to be "neutral" between a beseiged liberal democracy concerned with self-preservation and religious fanatics bent on annihilation, you are creating a false moral equivalence that ignores the reality on the ground.
Corriegendum: Paul has an "anti-religion-in-poliitics bias". He has no problem with the vast majority of religious people he meets from all faiths, including his wife who happens to be very Italian and therefore by definition Roman Catholic
Post a Comment
<< Home