Tag Archives: judaism

You are not prepared!

I should have taken Illidan‘s wise words to heart.

As others have also expressed to me, Holocaust denial seems like a particularly evil form of pseudohistory. The belief is inextricably linked to a rather violent form of anti-Semitism, in thought if not in deed. People who deny the Holocaust are keeping Hitler’s dream alive by attempting to erase the genocide of European Jewry.

I have read a lot about Holocaust denial in skeptical publications, published on paper or online. In the ’90s I followed David Irving’s libel case against Deborah Lipstadt, who had rightfully called him out for his denialism and his bigotry. (And I was extremely pleased when he lost that case, and later declared bankruptcy due to the fines levied against him.) I was made to ponder a couple of Jewish people who denied the Holocaust, which reminded me of the Israeli Orthodox Jew who assassinated prime minister Yitzhak Rabin — something that I did and do still find very disturbing.

I believed I was prepared, knowing these people existed and having read all the suggested rebuttals, although I think trying to reason with Holocaust deniers is like atheists trying to change the minds of believers: generally a waste of time.

Then recently I looked at a Facebook photo album posted by someone I know barely at all. It was a very moving set of images from a visit to one of the Nazis’ most infamous death camps. I went to the comments to add my kudos, and found I had interrupted an argument between a rational commenter and an anti-choice radical who had gone into a comparison between abortion and the Holocaust. I stopped reading the guy and simply blocked him, but another commenter stopped me cold:

The Holocaust is a lie.

Skeptics always seem to joke, sometimes darkly, about issues like these, so before I jumped to a conclusion, I neutrally queried the “Pastor” (which was part of his name) about his meaning.

I had a shockingly visceral reaction to the answer. It began with my name, and then there was a very cogently written response including mentions of the Zionist media, that Hollywood created the Holocaust, and other things you’d expect from a student of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. And I just froze, with my body going into fight-or-flight mode. There was a lump in my stomach, my hands were sweating, and my heart was racing.

It may not have been an in-person exchange, but it felt personal nonetheless. Very personal. My mind flashed through the stories my grandmother told about our family that often included the aside  “(he died in the death camps).” I remembered interpreting a tour through a memorial museum for a group of deaf students, and how it felt having to remain professionally unfazed. I thought about the mountains of evidence I could have presented to this guy, personal stories, statistics, photos, everything.

Berlin's Holocaust memorial

And I walked away. I replied I’d be blocking him (not reporting, just a personal block), and then did so. I’ve walked away from many a brewing argument about a huge and/or emotional topic, having learned the technique from listening to my father’s views on many subjects on which we strongly disagree. He trolled me before I even knew what trolling was, and now being crippled by a lack of energy, I’m frequently walking away from discussions or arguments that I know will be fruitless and cost me energy that I can’t spare. And since the opening salvo had already awakened my animal brain, I recognized that I should and could not go further without descending into a really ugly situation.

But with this guy, it felt like I was caving. I don’t consider myself any kind of authority on Judaism, but I know enough from my upbringing and further study in college, as well as having an emotional connection to the Sunday Hebrew schools and seders and High Holy Days of my childhood, as well as the secular aspects of the culture that I loved. It seemed somehow that I should have held up the standard and challenged the pastor calmly and rationally in defense of it all. And I failed at that, even though it was the right thing for me to do.

Skeptics have their different areas of interest or specialty. Many people consider this or that person or practice to be pure evil, like homeopaths who let babies die from treatable illnesses, or the antivax crowd, or the people who are blocking the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Everyone has a different view and experience of evil. But it turns out that for me, skepticism — which is a solid way of viewing the world and can be a shield against the ignorance and hatred — was no protection at all against the feeling that I was being spoken to by an evil man.

Someone in this comment thread opined that the abortion loonie and the pastor were both attempting humor, or “being a Poe” we might say. I don’t have any evidence, because I didn’t seek it, as to whether he was acquainted with the posters. I did see the pastor’s profile when I went to block him; at first glance it did not resemble a Poe to me at all, but I admit I didn’t read it thoroughly enough to confirm it. But as I thought about that, I realized it didn’t matter. Whether a true denier or a perfect parrot of one, the sentiments aimed at me hit home like nothing I’ve yet experienced since becoming involved with skepticism. It didn’t matter whether the person were serious or joking, because even if it was a joke, the words displayed the exact same sentiments as those who believe.

I don’t have a moral to this story, because I’m not going to presume something like “all skeptics should watch out for blah, blah, blah.” For all I know, you reading this post are able to counter all opposing, even offensive opinions with perfect calm, and more power to you if so.

It was a lesson to me, one I haven’t entirely figured out yet, about being prepared to be unprepared in the face of something I thought I could handle. About the uselessness of skepticism at moments like these. And about how scarily close I believe I could come to turning into one of those loonies, just by engaging with them.

Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

I love religion

I’ve enjoyed visiting other countries, and it’s inevitable that notable houses of worship are included on the sightseeing lists. Most of those visits took place when I was college age or a little older, and the idea that I was an atheist hadn’t crossed my mind at all, although I really was one even then.

I did feel distanced from the religious history of the buildings, because most of them were Christian or Catholic and I was just starting to get more connected to my own Jewish history. But that never stopped me from being awed by the sheer dedication and artistry that went into building these monuments. When I viewed the striped cathedral of Siena or admired the unique blue stained glass of Chartres cathedral, I thought about the people who created these things so long ago, and all the immense work it took for so many years.

In a way I took a humanistic view of the buildings, although that word wouldn’t have meant anything to me at the time. Of course, yes, they were inspired by the evil Catholic church or other corrupt, money-hungry sects of whatever. That fact remains. But even though the first U.S. transcontinental railroad was partly built by what amounted to Chinese slave labor, can’t we still admire the feat?

Without religion, the requiems by Mozart, Brahms, Fauré, Verdi, and others wouldn’t exist. (Actually quite a lot of music wouldn’t exist; I’m just picking out a few.) Imagine the elimination of nearly all music from Gregorian chants to the Baroque era. Both religious patronage and inspiration helped to create that music, but I can’t imagine a world without it. In high school, I sang in Ralph Vaughan Williams’s Christmas cantata Hodie, and the fact that it’s about the birth of Christ didn’t do a thing to dent the pure, amazing joy of singing that music in a beautiful hall with a full choir and orchestra.

And then there’s the enormous, secular body of literature, theatre, and film based on stories from religious texts. Okay, the world could probably live without Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, but supernatural Greek and Biblical myths alone are the basis for more of our libraries than I’d want to see disappear.

When I saw the Book of Kells, there was nothing religious to me about it. It was impossible to read, but that didn’t stop me from admiring the beautiful illumination by talented scribes. They may have been inspired by Jesus but I didn’t have to see it in that context: it was a work of art. The same went for the poster of Dali’s Crucifixion (Corpus Hypercubus) that I hung in my apartment during college. There are many things that made me love that painting, perhaps more on the Corpus Hypercubus side than the Crucifixion side. It didn’t feel like I was putting a cross in my room; it was a work of art that moved and intrigued me.

I am not arguing against a secular society. Believe me. I hope one day there’s a place where religion plays no part at all, and science and discovery are worshiped and showered with money instead. I also think religion is generally an outdated and irrelevant system, and I’m not arguing for its promotion in the name of art.

What I’m responding to is when I hear people expressing disgust at the opulence of ancient churches or distaste for any music that has any relationship to God. To each his own. But there’s a further assertion that the world would be so much better if all that time, money, energy, and inspiration went into advancing science and knowledge instead.

That may well be true. But if we really are part of a multiverse, then there’s a version of our world where that did happen. There’s also a version where the U.S. and the Soviet Union destroyed the planet, and one where a space probe comes back infested with a hyper-intelligent sort of jam creature that goes on to form a coalition government with Madagascar.

So speculation doesn’t matter. The past is the past and this is our world. Religion has been the driving force behind shaping so much of our culture, it seems like a losing battle to ignore our history instead of at least studying it, if not embracing it. I don’t personally see the point in rejecting the masterpieces that religion inspired, and that can inspire us no matter what our own views are. I can’t agree with people who assert that religion has never brought any good to the world. Stick with your secular art on principle if that’s important to you — your choice doesn’t affect me, of course — but I can safely say I do love religion for bringing all these things into the world.

Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Atheist symbols, part one

When I finally realized I was an atheist, it was a relief. For years I had tried to figure out what my position was on God, in which I assumed I believed but could never quite accept how or why. As I began reading more about skepticism, the overlap with atheism started me considering whether in fact I simply didn’t believe in a god at all, and the more I thought about it, the more right it felt. Instead of finding a way to make my belief feel natural, I found it more natural to admit to myself that I didn’t believe at all.

I wanted to begin this blog with a certain expression of who I am, especially on subjects I planned to talk about a lot. So when I learned about The Out Campaign, I thought it was an interesting and useful way to shorthand that aspect that informs my worldview and this blog. At the time I didn’t know anything about “the new atheists” or any controversies involving Richard Dawkins; I placed the A on the blog for about the same reason that there’s cats playing videogames on the banner.

As I’ve mentioned before, I’d be considered an accommodationist by many who identify as atheist. There are situations where I don’t have a problem with the existence of religion. A lot of this has to do with my hesitancy to judge religious people who use their faith as a lifeline. For example, many chronically ill people who have nothing else in their lives hang on to their belief in Jesus as a way to cope. Some atheists would want those people to let go of that delusion and live only in reality. But unless they’re undergoing religious treatments for a real illness, or something like that, I’m apt to be happy that they have something to keep them going. Similarly, many people complained when priests were sent to Haiti after the devastating earthquake. As long as those priests came along with food, medical supplies and doctors, I didn’t have an argument with it. The people of Haiti are very religious; who am I to sit back all comfy in my first-world house and declare that their spiritual needs are irrelevant?

Some atheists are defensive because of prejudice against us. Maybe it’s 36 years of being a Jew, but I can’t manage to get overly worked up over any but the most galling instances of that. For example, when atheism keeps people from being able to be Boy Scouts, I lose all interest in that organization until they change that shit. But I do that with groups that don’t allow LGBTQ members either (again, hello, Boy Scouts!); it’s a protest against exclusion, even if I don’t happen to belong to the group being excluded. So some closed-minded believers think atheism and secularism are going to ruin this great nation of ours. Have you heard what a lot of those same people say about the Jews? Understand I’m not saying this isn’t a legitimate cause for outrage. By all means it is, when religious lunacy invades our school boards and our laws. Just for myself, I’ve been leery of organized religion for as long as I can remember, as well as learning about and watching Jewish people face homicidal bigotry; becoming an atheist simply didn’t spark any new impetus.

The Surly A, by Amy Davis Roth

I’d like to explore what it means to live my life without religion and without belief in a higher power. Am I a secular Jew? A humanist? Something else? But in the end, I’m much more fascinated by the realm of skepticism, and if I’m going to be an activist about anything, it’ll be about that. Skepticism opens debates that I find interesting, whereas I don’t really find the question of whether there’s a God to be interesting. To me, there isn’t one, so I’d rather move on to what’s happening in pseudoscience.

Richard Dawkins and/or his followers (it seems to depend entirely on your point of view) have become well known for a style of atheism some people ridiculously call “fundamentalist,” but what is simply, unapologetically, rational. It’s the in-your-face part that grates on some, and again, it’s the part that I’m less interested in pursuing, personally. (And of course to many people, something as innocuous as a “Don’t believe in God? You’re not alone” bus sign is offensive to the point of apoplexy, so “in-your-face” is highly subjective.) For a while I debated whether to keep the scarlet A, a symbol of activism that I don’t identify with, on this blog. I really questioned it when I was reading comments about the brief religious statement in Daniel Loxton’s Evolution. There was so much animosity towards that mild passage that I felt really alienated from my fellow atheists.

But the truth is, I’m thankful that there are atheist activists who are making religious people uncomfortable. I’m glad that Greta Christina, PZ Myers, and other people are waging unrelenting war on the anti-secularists and the religious lunatics. My style may never be theirs, but they and people like them will hopefully be the ones effecting change for the better. So in the end, I went back to my original reason for keeping the A, plus a little more: my respect for Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and every single atheist tweeter and blogger who is doing the work for a cause I believe in.

There is an atheist symbol that I’ve come to identify with, which I will talk about next time in part two.

Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon