Also, he says that “You see, the Pharisees were exactly like modern Republicans. The Pharisees were a sect who believed that the Roman occupation of Israel was God’s punishment on the Jews for not being holy enough, not being pure enough. So the Pharisees taught a regimine of rules about sex, hygiene, and diet that went even farther than God Himself did in the original holiness code.” Modern Judaism is directly descended from the pharisees, and is very aware of this fact. The claims that Brad attributes to the pharisees are generally accepted by religious Jews, and have been for two thousand years. His hysterical denunciation of the Pharisees [the Jews] makes me a little queasy.

Jesus also hysterically denounced the Pharisees.

I don’t think saying that Jews descend from a group of people 2000 years ago who were mistaken on theological and political positions should make anyone queasy. At the same time, I’m surprised that more people don’t find it queasy when it’s said that Jews killed Christ, or the more general belief that an entire race of people are going to burn in a sulfurous Lake of Fire for all eternity.

Brad Hicks and I are arguing from the “biblical literalist” tradition. In most forms of that tradition, all the Bible is the word of God; the quotes from Jesus are not “more the word of God” than the rest.

So if you’re only arguing for a *tradition* or a point of view, to what extent is parsing the text a “classic mistake” - as opposed to another point of view?

That’s exactly backwards, hf, from the normal understanding of this passage.

Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

The usual understanding of this is that one who loves his neighbor will fulfil all the duties to his neighbor that the Law specifies–not because they are legal requirements, but because they are what a loving person acting lovingly would do.

Do y’all think that biblical literalists did not change their behavior in or (more likely) after 1964 in the way that Brad describes?

You are correct about Aquinas. However, his position on ensoulment was based on primitive embryology. Basically, the point at which it begins to look like a person must obviously be the point at which it becomes a person. It is reasonable that the church’s position could shift. However, the position that ensoulment happens at conception has been around since at least the 1700s. I don’t have a link, unfortunately.

There is a lot in that long essay that deserves attention, such as Hick’s attempt to equate the goals of the modern Republican party with that of the party in 1870. He’s clearly not an historian.

There was one thing in particular that made me question his abilities to speak on this subject. In part four he says: “the leaders of the evangelical Christian movements and the leaders of the Catholic church simultaneously agreed to substitute a false gospel.”

This faith not works theology is a Protestant problem. Twelve years of Catholic school in the 80s and 90s and I never got any of the “false gospel” he rails against. I also find it dubious that “leaders of the Catholic church” did anything of the sort of “simultaneous” agreeing on anything. All through the Reagan-era Catholic clergy worked diligently in areas of social justice. Catholic voters on the whole remained very Democratic throughout the decades following this supposed coup to preach a “false gospel”. Proscriptions against abortion and homosexuality come not from a literalist interpretation of the Bible but 2000 years of thoughtful tradition, theology and interpretation.

Unfortunately, this is a (very long) conspiratorial puff piece.

Aquinas can certainly be used to back up certain pro-choice ARGUMENTS–he did not think that fetuses had fully formed souls. However, his position was strongly and unequivocally anti-abortion–just not anti-abortion on “fetuses are full human beings” grounds.

(Is this making sense? Here’s an analogy. I think that only humans have rights, but that we have duties toward animals; I thus oppose beating animals. I would be supporting the argument, but not the conclusion, of the guy who argues that it’s OK for him to beat his dog, since it has no rights. I’d be supporting the conclusion, but not the argument, of the PETA guy he is arguing with.)

Jake,

Brad Hicks and I are arguing from the “biblical literalist” tradition. In most forms of that tradition, all the Bible is the word of God; the quotes from Jesus are not “more the word of God” than the rest.

The Cath. Enc. article on Abortion is online, and might have useful references: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm . It is of course not an unbiased guide to early church practice, but it’s nonetheless a useful one.

One bit:

3) Opposition to abortion didn’t start in 1973, or even 1873; it dates back to Thomas Aquinas at least.

This is somewhat misleading, as Aquinas can be cited (and has been cited) just as legitimately to back up pro-choice arguments, since he did not believe that a fetus, post-conception but pre-quickening, had a human soul.

Link.

—Myca

Thanks for the info. I do have a question about your last paragraph, though. Shouldn’t what Jesus said count for more than what the apostles said? I’ve always thought that Jesus is God and that God’s word counts for more/is unassailable whereas the apostles were merely men. Have I been mistaken?

Wrong on the facts:
1) The “say a prayer and be saved” idea dates back at least to the mid-1800’s–it was popularized by Charles Finney. To what extent he originated it is hotly argued, but that he taught it isn’t. It certainly didn’t originate in 1964.
2) The apostles, in Acts, kept 2 pieces of the old holiness law, not just one. (Acts 15) “Avoid porneia AND meat offered to idols.” Porneia is often translated as “fornication”, but “sexual misbehaviour” would be a better translation.
3) Opposition to abortion didn’t start in 1973, or even 1873; it dates back to Thomas Aquinas at least.

Wrong on the reasoning:

Hicks makes the classic mistake of trying to contrast “what Jesus said” and “what the apostles said”, so that what the apostles did “counts less” than what Jesus said. This makes almost as much sense as contrasting “what Bush said” and “what the Bush administration did,” and claiming that Bush’s performance as president should be judged only on the former.

The above passage sounds as if you think Jake said or implied that the tensions excused advocating or carrying out the murder of Jews.

Is that actually what you’re claiming?

No, I’m not claiming that. I take for granted that there’s universal agreement that previous tensions are no excuse for murder. Rather, I was attempting to argue by analogy that just as tensions are no excuse for violence, they’re no excuse for incitement, even if, as in this case, it did not include explicit calls for violence.

I was in a rush, and didn’t take the time to spell that out clearly enough; no personal slight was implied, and I apologize if one was felt.

I’m aware there were tensions. I’m don’t think that’s an excuse for shouting “kill the jew” and murdering someone based on their religion.

Ari, I think this needs clarification. The above passage sounds as if you think Jake said or implied that the tensions excused advocating or carrying out the murder of Jews.

Is that actually what you’re claiming?

Funny, so did I. In fact, I lived in Manhattan at the time and followed the coverage pretty damned closely.

As to the rest of your comment, I already said that you could truthfully say that Sharpton had made inciting remarks. There’s a world of difference between the two. I notice you entirely ignore the circumstances & tensions that existed in that community before a black child was accidentally killed by a car driven by a hasidic man. Those circumstances & tensions were obvious causes of the subsequent violence.

I don’t think you’ll find a comparable case where Dobson et al were on the spot, working up a crowd within a day and within a mile of a riot.

Nor is Dobson an advocate for the downtrodden & oppressed, as Sharpton was. There is a little bit of a difference in the circumstances & living conditions of Dobson’s audiences and Sharpton’s audience in Crown Heights, don’t you think? Think of Hurricane Katrina and who was described as looters and who was described as foraging for supplies.

What Sharpton did and said was wrong and it was anti-semitic. However, he did not, “personally preside over riots in which people got killed.”

I don’t think you’ll find a comparable case where Dobson et al were on the spot, working up a crowd within a day and within a mile of a riot.

As to “party of Satan.” Of course, members of both parties think they’re right, and the opposition is wrong. I’m not bothered by that. I’m not even bothered by them viewing it in religious ways. I’m merely perplexed that you take Brad seriously, given how preposterously dogmatic and overwrought he’s being. I assure you, when Republicans use such phrases in my hearing (which is seldom, given that I’ve lived my life in left-wing college towns), I grimace.

I assumed you were posting that link to start a conversation; generally you get better conversations when you “assume good faith”, as Wikipedia puts it. Saying party of Satan is at best inflammatory, and is certainly silly. If you want to discuss how Christian the GOP platform is, fine; that’s not a good way to start a conversation. Given that, I assume that Brad isn’t interested in discussion, but rather in inflaming and provoking, which is what makes me wonder about his dedication to facts.

Thus

It’s nearly as silly as his claim that the Republicans are the party of Satan. Don’t you think that should make you just a little suspicious?

Well, for literally decades, we’ve been told the exact opposite frequently and with a straight face, and yet you find this claim silly? If we want to have a secular democracy where religion has no place in politics, fine. If not, hey, that’s fine too.

However, if one party claims the mantle of righteousness, declares itself the party of god, and aggressively pushes the idea that their political opposition is ungodly, then I hardly think that it’s out of bounds to actually compare their stated goals to the stated principles of their faith.

To accept that as silly is to accept a double standard and a rigged game.

I can understand why you would want us on the left to play your rigged game, but hopefully you can understand why we will refuse.

—Myca

I am very concerned about his claim that:
I don’t think I’d like to make a judgment of human worth between Sharpton and Dobson. Dobson didn’t personally preside over riots in which people got killed.

To which I say, “Neither did Sharpton.” Claiming Sharpton personally presided over the riots is not only demonstrably false (although you could truthfully claim that he made inciting remarks), but ignores the history of tensions between the communities that had existed in Crown Heights for years in favor of a simplistic explanation that blames everything on the anti-semitism of a single public figure.

Ari’s claim doesn’t give me confidence that the rest of his comment is reliable.

Which, speaking of valuable conversation, I’ll respond to his post in a bit.