As a Christian I can see a few flaws in this argument.
Some are factual. For example, this paragraph:
'However, for the people who were believers and then no longer believe, all three religions are quite clear on how they should be treated. In the Torah, for example, such a person must be killed, with the first blow coming from their closest family members. In both Catholic and Protestant Christianity, the punishment for such a person was the same as those for witches: death by fire.'
The last sentence is bizarre, as it seems to suggest that codified into the religious beliefs of Christians is a legal insistence that apostates be burned. This is not true. Certainly some apostates *were* burned, mostly during the reformation/counter-reformation period (many were hanged too) but that was not due to a founding religious edict. There is nothing in the Gospels, for example, or any church creed that specified this. It was politics and war, not 'monotheism.'
More broadly, your attempt to paint monotheisms as uniquely intolerant doesn't hold up either. The reason so many Christians were killed - some burned, some eaten by beasts, some crucified, some beheaded; the list is long - by Roman authorities for the first 300 years of their existence was mostly because they refused to acknowledge the primacy of the Roman gods. They were, in other words, apostates from Roman paganism.
I recommend a book called 'The patient fermet of the early church' for more on this period. It demonstrates firstly the fury of many Romans at these strange apostates in their midst, and secondly the reason that the Christian faith grew despite this persecution for centuries - it was because Christian communities were acting with loving care to those around them, and helping all - pagan and Christian alike - when help was needed, like the Good Samaritans they were bidden to be. They didn't try to persaude, let alone force ,people to become Christian. They attracted them by their way of life. We could do with more of this again.
None of this is to deny the later persecutions and oppressions meted out by Christian authorities. But I don't agree that 'monotheism' is the reason for that, nor that 'monotheism' is any more insistent on 'one truth' than pantheism. The Romans executed those who failed to ascribe to the 'one truth' of their faith, and the Vikings weren't much better.
One final thought about the woke - is it not also the case that a defining feature of wokeness is a kind of moral relativism? It's true it sits badly with their general intolerance, but 'all lifestyles are equally valid' and the ongoing attack on all 'norms' seems to me to be a manifestation of the kind of 'plural truth' attitude you are praising here. But truth is not relative, especially on the cosmic level. A thing is true or it is not. There is no 'my truth.'
In that sense, though I take your general point about woke inquisitions, we could just as easily ally wokeness with this kind of neo-pagan fuzziness, I would say. Or perhaps we could say it is a combination of po-mo neo-pagan fluff and the worst kind of Abrhamahic intolerance, in which case we're in for a lot of fun...
Hey Paul! Always truly great to hear from you. And I have to admit that while writing this I found myself thinking a few times about what you might think of it. :)
I’ve had a few arguments about this matter with Jewish friends also, who point to how in practice most Judaism in America now holds a kind of agnostic view of truth (incidentally, there are quite a few trans woman rabbis now who often give speaking engagements on woke topics, which is supposed to be proof that Judaism is much more tolerant than its texts).
To the matter of whether or not burning was a doctrine or a political matter, the answer for me is that there wasn’t really a difference (just as the question about whether Constantine was a true Christian isn’t really a relevant question). The problem here is that theology and politics are not actually separate issues (see for instance the entire book of Deuteronomy), and I see our entire industrial capitalist order now as a theological-political order (your writing about the Machine actually helped me arrive at this). Think here of Luther’s exhortations to put down the peasant revolts or John Calvin’s execution of Michael Servetus. They were both political-theological decisions.
Again, regarding the persecution of early Christians, the Woke could say exactly the same thing: they are being oppressed because they refuse to acknowledge the supremacy of whiteness, or cis-hetero-monogamist-abled-patriarchy, or however they define the god of the Empire they are trying to struggle against. Is it actual persecution or a persecution complex? I don’t think it matters: what is more interesting to me is the historical/societal effects of these beliefs.
On the question of moral relativism, though, this is one place where lots of the critics of the Woke miss what’s happening. It’s hardly relative at all, but rather quite absolutist. Consider one of the credos: “Trans Women are Women.” It appears to be a relativist statement but it is actually a declaration of an absolute (if you do not agree 100% with this equation, you are a fascist). Likewise, they do not believe all lifestyles and ways of being in the world are valid: arguing for monogamy or the preservation of the nuclear family marks you as a regressive or “reactionary” person who is at best in need of education but more often in need of silencing, ostracism, or even physical violence.
I'm going to have to push back at you Rhyd, in the most loving and Christian way I can manage ;-)
You write: 'To the matter of whether or not burning was a doctrine or a political matter, the answer for me is that there wasn’t really a difference.'
But this is big time wrong. There is a huge difference. You mention Deuteronomy, and you might have a point for Jews (though it seems Jozua says otherwise; I wouldn't know) but Christians don't take their law from the Old Testament, because the commandments of Christ explicitly supersede those of Moses, and Christianity is a universality faith, open to all who subscribe to it.
Now you're right certainly that 'correct belief' (the literal translatation of 'orthodoxy') matters to Christians, who have in many cases been arguing for two millennia about what precisely is correct. But we have the basics to agree on - the creed and the gospels. And the words of Christ explicity forbid violence against enemies, and specifically insist on loving them instead. This is the real substance of the Christian revolution, precisely because none of us wants to do it, but it isn't negotiable. We at least have to try. You burn your enemies, you stand against Christ. After all, this is more or less what His enemies did to Him.
As for persecution: well, the early Christians were butchered in their thousands - and indeed they continue to be, worldwide. Christianity is the world's most persecuted religion, though it might not look that way in America. No-one is throwing the woke to the lions.
I agree with Jozua. Immerse yourself in some Orthodox theology (maybe Jewish and Christian.) It is eye-opening in many ways (it has been to me.) I can't agree that monotheism is any more intolerant in practice than paganism; not historically, and not now. When I was a Wiccan I regularly came across hair-raising anti-Christian bigotry. Sectarians are found all over.
Your last para is very thought-provoking though. You are probably right there.
I'm not sure whether you've come across it before, but this is a wonderful collection of apostasy in the form of a hundred-odd critiques of wokeness, etc., from various anarchist, autonomist and broadly left perspectives: https://fullopinionism.wordpress.com/
Rhyd, while I find myself in agreement with some of what you say, I think it's a little difficult to package it all neatly in a little dualistic box, which is what I feel you're trying to do.
Speaking from my own experience, it can be excruciatingly hard to cast aside formerly cherished beliefs and world views, because those things make up who we thought we were. It can leave us feeling orphaned, abandoned, left out in the cold, out in the desert, out in the wilderness, or whatever metaphor you want to use. In my own dreams, shoes always represented my spiritual path. And while I was priestessing public rituals and dancing myself into ecstatic trances, I had some fabulous dreamworld footwear - tall feathered boots, glittery shoes of all kinds, a real 7 of Cups vibe.
And then I cast it all aside, abandoned everything (even my name!) that had made me the person I thought I was, on the spiritual path I thought I was on, with the people I thought were my people. Bam, all gone. And for a long time, in my dreams I was barefoot and I absolutely self-identified as an apostate.
I believed in nothing, because in my mind it had to be all or nothing. It had to be dualistic. Either the universe was alive and animated and full of spirit or it was dead as a doornail. And I tried to believe it was dead as a doornail, because I could not conceive of something between what I had been and the concept of earth as dead. I wrote angry poetry castigating the gods, every last one of them. I felt betrayed, like I'd been a mark in some kind of spiritual sting.
But what I eventually came to understand is that I had rejected the structure, the hierarchy, the power dynamics, the gender dynamics, and not the nourishing (to me) belief that everything is alive, the trees are sentient, the hills are listening, and I am a part of it all. And in my dreams the shoes reappeared, but now they were practical boots, hiking boots, plain but strong. And that is where I sit today, no longer a part of Reclaiming, which had been my source of nourishment for so long, and in fact no longer a part of any organized religion/spiritual path or whatever you want to call it.
I will say that sitting in the middle also makes you a sitting duck sometimes. The old gang thinks you're a muggle, and you are way too scary for the suits. You don't really have a place to call home except your own soul. You get to make the rules, but you must also live with the consequences.
I am a witch, but not like I was. The world is not black and white, absolutely not dualistic. Because you reject one thing does not mean you must throw the whole package out. I get that you are no longer comfortable in that old skin and you are creating a new and more serviceable one. And that sometimes there's a real temptation to swing to the other side of the pendulum. Everything I once is believed is crap! And so forth. Just be kind to yourself and allow yourself to find a new balance.
I hope that is not too preachy. My point is that while reading your words, I sensed that this is where you are right now. If I'm wrong, no harm intended and feel free to ignore me.
As a Christian I can see a few flaws in this argument.
Some are factual. For example, this paragraph:
'However, for the people who were believers and then no longer believe, all three religions are quite clear on how they should be treated. In the Torah, for example, such a person must be killed, with the first blow coming from their closest family members. In both Catholic and Protestant Christianity, the punishment for such a person was the same as those for witches: death by fire.'
The last sentence is bizarre, as it seems to suggest that codified into the religious beliefs of Christians is a legal insistence that apostates be burned. This is not true. Certainly some apostates *were* burned, mostly during the reformation/counter-reformation period (many were hanged too) but that was not due to a founding religious edict. There is nothing in the Gospels, for example, or any church creed that specified this. It was politics and war, not 'monotheism.'
More broadly, your attempt to paint monotheisms as uniquely intolerant doesn't hold up either. The reason so many Christians were killed - some burned, some eaten by beasts, some crucified, some beheaded; the list is long - by Roman authorities for the first 300 years of their existence was mostly because they refused to acknowledge the primacy of the Roman gods. They were, in other words, apostates from Roman paganism.
I recommend a book called 'The patient fermet of the early church' for more on this period. It demonstrates firstly the fury of many Romans at these strange apostates in their midst, and secondly the reason that the Christian faith grew despite this persecution for centuries - it was because Christian communities were acting with loving care to those around them, and helping all - pagan and Christian alike - when help was needed, like the Good Samaritans they were bidden to be. They didn't try to persaude, let alone force ,people to become Christian. They attracted them by their way of life. We could do with more of this again.
None of this is to deny the later persecutions and oppressions meted out by Christian authorities. But I don't agree that 'monotheism' is the reason for that, nor that 'monotheism' is any more insistent on 'one truth' than pantheism. The Romans executed those who failed to ascribe to the 'one truth' of their faith, and the Vikings weren't much better.
One final thought about the woke - is it not also the case that a defining feature of wokeness is a kind of moral relativism? It's true it sits badly with their general intolerance, but 'all lifestyles are equally valid' and the ongoing attack on all 'norms' seems to me to be a manifestation of the kind of 'plural truth' attitude you are praising here. But truth is not relative, especially on the cosmic level. A thing is true or it is not. There is no 'my truth.'
In that sense, though I take your general point about woke inquisitions, we could just as easily ally wokeness with this kind of neo-pagan fuzziness, I would say. Or perhaps we could say it is a combination of po-mo neo-pagan fluff and the worst kind of Abrhamahic intolerance, in which case we're in for a lot of fun...
Hey Paul! Always truly great to hear from you. And I have to admit that while writing this I found myself thinking a few times about what you might think of it. :)
I’ve had a few arguments about this matter with Jewish friends also, who point to how in practice most Judaism in America now holds a kind of agnostic view of truth (incidentally, there are quite a few trans woman rabbis now who often give speaking engagements on woke topics, which is supposed to be proof that Judaism is much more tolerant than its texts).
To the matter of whether or not burning was a doctrine or a political matter, the answer for me is that there wasn’t really a difference (just as the question about whether Constantine was a true Christian isn’t really a relevant question). The problem here is that theology and politics are not actually separate issues (see for instance the entire book of Deuteronomy), and I see our entire industrial capitalist order now as a theological-political order (your writing about the Machine actually helped me arrive at this). Think here of Luther’s exhortations to put down the peasant revolts or John Calvin’s execution of Michael Servetus. They were both political-theological decisions.
Again, regarding the persecution of early Christians, the Woke could say exactly the same thing: they are being oppressed because they refuse to acknowledge the supremacy of whiteness, or cis-hetero-monogamist-abled-patriarchy, or however they define the god of the Empire they are trying to struggle against. Is it actual persecution or a persecution complex? I don’t think it matters: what is more interesting to me is the historical/societal effects of these beliefs.
On the question of moral relativism, though, this is one place where lots of the critics of the Woke miss what’s happening. It’s hardly relative at all, but rather quite absolutist. Consider one of the credos: “Trans Women are Women.” It appears to be a relativist statement but it is actually a declaration of an absolute (if you do not agree 100% with this equation, you are a fascist). Likewise, they do not believe all lifestyles and ways of being in the world are valid: arguing for monogamy or the preservation of the nuclear family marks you as a regressive or “reactionary” person who is at best in need of education but more often in need of silencing, ostracism, or even physical violence.
I'm going to have to push back at you Rhyd, in the most loving and Christian way I can manage ;-)
You write: 'To the matter of whether or not burning was a doctrine or a political matter, the answer for me is that there wasn’t really a difference.'
But this is big time wrong. There is a huge difference. You mention Deuteronomy, and you might have a point for Jews (though it seems Jozua says otherwise; I wouldn't know) but Christians don't take their law from the Old Testament, because the commandments of Christ explicitly supersede those of Moses, and Christianity is a universality faith, open to all who subscribe to it.
Now you're right certainly that 'correct belief' (the literal translatation of 'orthodoxy') matters to Christians, who have in many cases been arguing for two millennia about what precisely is correct. But we have the basics to agree on - the creed and the gospels. And the words of Christ explicity forbid violence against enemies, and specifically insist on loving them instead. This is the real substance of the Christian revolution, precisely because none of us wants to do it, but it isn't negotiable. We at least have to try. You burn your enemies, you stand against Christ. After all, this is more or less what His enemies did to Him.
As for persecution: well, the early Christians were butchered in their thousands - and indeed they continue to be, worldwide. Christianity is the world's most persecuted religion, though it might not look that way in America. No-one is throwing the woke to the lions.
I agree with Jozua. Immerse yourself in some Orthodox theology (maybe Jewish and Christian.) It is eye-opening in many ways (it has been to me.) I can't agree that monotheism is any more intolerant in practice than paganism; not historically, and not now. When I was a Wiccan I regularly came across hair-raising anti-Christian bigotry. Sectarians are found all over.
Your last para is very thought-provoking though. You are probably right there.
I'm not sure whether you've come across it before, but this is a wonderful collection of apostasy in the form of a hundred-odd critiques of wokeness, etc., from various anarchist, autonomist and broadly left perspectives: https://fullopinionism.wordpress.com/
Yes! Actually, you are the one who first pointed it out to me, and it's been extremely useful for my research for this book. :)
Rhyd, while I find myself in agreement with some of what you say, I think it's a little difficult to package it all neatly in a little dualistic box, which is what I feel you're trying to do.
Speaking from my own experience, it can be excruciatingly hard to cast aside formerly cherished beliefs and world views, because those things make up who we thought we were. It can leave us feeling orphaned, abandoned, left out in the cold, out in the desert, out in the wilderness, or whatever metaphor you want to use. In my own dreams, shoes always represented my spiritual path. And while I was priestessing public rituals and dancing myself into ecstatic trances, I had some fabulous dreamworld footwear - tall feathered boots, glittery shoes of all kinds, a real 7 of Cups vibe.
And then I cast it all aside, abandoned everything (even my name!) that had made me the person I thought I was, on the spiritual path I thought I was on, with the people I thought were my people. Bam, all gone. And for a long time, in my dreams I was barefoot and I absolutely self-identified as an apostate.
I believed in nothing, because in my mind it had to be all or nothing. It had to be dualistic. Either the universe was alive and animated and full of spirit or it was dead as a doornail. And I tried to believe it was dead as a doornail, because I could not conceive of something between what I had been and the concept of earth as dead. I wrote angry poetry castigating the gods, every last one of them. I felt betrayed, like I'd been a mark in some kind of spiritual sting.
But what I eventually came to understand is that I had rejected the structure, the hierarchy, the power dynamics, the gender dynamics, and not the nourishing (to me) belief that everything is alive, the trees are sentient, the hills are listening, and I am a part of it all. And in my dreams the shoes reappeared, but now they were practical boots, hiking boots, plain but strong. And that is where I sit today, no longer a part of Reclaiming, which had been my source of nourishment for so long, and in fact no longer a part of any organized religion/spiritual path or whatever you want to call it.
I will say that sitting in the middle also makes you a sitting duck sometimes. The old gang thinks you're a muggle, and you are way too scary for the suits. You don't really have a place to call home except your own soul. You get to make the rules, but you must also live with the consequences.
I am a witch, but not like I was. The world is not black and white, absolutely not dualistic. Because you reject one thing does not mean you must throw the whole package out. I get that you are no longer comfortable in that old skin and you are creating a new and more serviceable one. And that sometimes there's a real temptation to swing to the other side of the pendulum. Everything I once is believed is crap! And so forth. Just be kind to yourself and allow yourself to find a new balance.
I hope that is not too preachy. My point is that while reading your words, I sensed that this is where you are right now. If I'm wrong, no harm intended and feel free to ignore me.