Regarding a discussion I had with my Jewish bf and mother on a long trip to a wedding in Minneapolis:
Their claim is that you never find the atrocities perpretrated by Christians and Muslims being perpetrated by Jewish people, mainly because Judaism has no mandate to proselytize others.
I claim that any asshole (of which there are plenty in the world) can bend any religion to suit their needs. The extent of the harm one human can commit on another is limited only by their power to do so. One asshole can only afford a gun…he kills five people. Another asshole can afford a nuclear bomb. He kills 5,000.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that in recent history (I’m talking about the last millenium), Jewish people have not held the political clout needed to commit huge atrocities. Is their lack of political clout due to limitations put on them by their religion? Or is it because the rest of the world is so determined to squash them?
Indeed. We’ve had our share of Jewish nut cases. Dr. Goldstein was a prominent one.
But of course, the discussion of whether or not Jews have committed atrocities in the last century doesn’t address the question of whether or not Judaism is superior to Chirstianity or Islam.
Their position said that Judaism could never support any kind of institutionalized cruelty, as Christianity has done. Therefore, Judaism is superior to Christianity.
Hmm… I think Israel is a good example what Jews with power can do. They certainly are commiting attrocities against palestinians.
I think its not an issue of religion… but of power. Give them power and they will do the wrong stuff if deemed good for them.
Even christianity and islam on paper sound nice… its the people who use religion to do bad stuff. Not that religion lends itself to much good mind you.
So how do they respond to the number of dead Palestinians compared to the number of dead Jews since the latest intifada began? (Note: I am not on either side, but it seems to fly in the face of their claims).
Also, the Jews, after fleeing Egypt, thoroughly and mercilessly slaughtered the inhabitants of the land of Caanan upon their return. This, at the behest of God, no less.
Otherwise, it is fair to say that the Jews have never really had the political clout to commit huge atrocities since the birth of Christianity and Islam. I think the real reason for this is not because of the faith but because of circumstances between the other faiths and Judaism.
In Islamic areas, before Zionism anyway, Jews enjoyed a pretty good life throughout their history. In Europe, however, Christianity struggled to define itself and Europe struggled to find her soul, after the Dark Ages abated. Jews have always had a tenuous place in Europe because of the belief that they were responsible for killing Jesus (an absurd notion, if one really examines the facts, but a popular one throughout history). Thus Jews were used as scapegoats for most any problem that occured and pogroms often led to the slaughter of many. These Christian atrocities were really more political, I think, than religious, but in any case, they do show that the Jews were subjugated significantly and couldn’t really commit concerted atrocities of their own, even if they wanted to.
That being said, neither of the three related faiths actually support such atrocities, so it’s not really a case of Judaism being better, just less influential in the past.
It is true that Judaism doesn’t have a huge recriutment drive as other religions do, but I don’t think most religous atrocities come out of the “you must be like us” mindset anyway. As you yourself pointed out, many of the attacks against Jews in the Middle Ages found their origins in either the charge of deicide, desecration of the host, or other general scapegoating. The only one that I can think of off-hand that was strongly “because you’re not Christian” was the Spanish Inquisition.
One of the advantages to being downtrodden and repressed for quite of bit of Judaism’s history is that Jews often weren’t in the position to repress anyone else.
Well, the Palestinian situation (which we all knew would get mentioned, of course) is more of a political situation than strictly religious (unless you want to admit that anti-Zionism * is * equivalent to anti-semitism).
But ignoring the Palestinian situation for the moment, is it possible that the lack of focus on both an afterlife and forgiveness for sins might affect the way someone would treat their fellow man? Although Judaism has at least some elements of the concept of an afterlife, there's certainly no notion of a paradise with multitudes of virgins waiting to welcome one after successfully immolating oneself for ones faith. And there's more of a focus on atonement for sins than forgiveness; so you can't, say, slaughter a few of your neighbors and then be absolved of your sins by acts of contrition.
Of course, the above is a two-edged sword – without the promise of a reward (or dire punishment) in the afterlife, you might feel free to do to your fellow man whatever you felt like. (But the Old Testament God was a smiting God, so that would tend to make one think mighty hard before acting out.)
I agree with most of the OP’s point that there are assholes in any religion who will twist it for their own ends. But I’ll add that I think there are religions (or at least sects within religions) that have mechanisms that facilitate or even encourage being an asshole. Mix intolerance for other beliefs with the promise of earthly and heavenly rewards for believers and you have a potent recipe for trouble.
As a minor note, I’d like to point out that at a circumcision ceremony (a whole other discussion in itself, by the way), a father typically enters a covenant with God that his young son will learn to read and learn a trade. Literacy must be acheived by the time the boy undergoes his Bar Mitzvah ritual at the age of 13.
As far as I know, there are no similar requirements ingrained in Christianity or Islam. I’d have to say that if your goal was produce well-educated people, Judaism has an edge, though the spread of literacy (only in the last century, mind you) has diminished the advantage somewhat.
And I’ll ignore the Palestinian situation, just to annoy capacitor, except to say that the best Israeli approach would be to teach every Palestinian woman to read.
The Crusades could be placed as more political&economic than religious with the correct analysis. Pope wanting to exercise more power… population problem… greed of the crusaders…
The issue was if jews could commit attrocities... not religious attrocities necessarily.
To my knowledge, there is no such “covenant” at a bris. There is a requirement on a father to teach his son Torah (for which one needs to learn to read anyway) as well as to teach his son a trade. However, this requirement applies even if the son does not have a circumcision for whatever reason.
This has already been done. Ages ago. Nearly 900 years, to be exact. Of course, he had to imagine the debate panel physically convened, then
Seriously, Rabi Yehuda HaLevi’s “HaKuzari” (The Khazarians) is a discussion of exactly the OP - the merits of the three montheistic religions. Being Jewish, guess what answer he reaches, of course but a very interesting book, nonetheless.
Well, that’s not what Mom’s been telling me. Of course, maybe she just wants to make Dad look bad.
In any case, of the three religions listed, Judaism is the only one in which literacy has been a historical requirement. Compare that to Christianity, where the rank-and-file worshippers only had a chance to read their own scripture in something other than Latin after Guttenberg started printing bibles, and Islam where the Qu’ran was (and to some degree still is) often taught by rote memorization, with no attempt to translate it from the flowery medeival Arabic into a language that can be understood by the adherent.
There was at least one period of forced converions to Judaism; in the 2nd century B.C.E. John Hyrcanus, the Maccabean ruler of Judaea, forced the neighboring Idumaeans (the descendants of the Old Testament Edomites) to accept Judaism. The Herodian dynasty of New Testament fame were descendants of these forcibly converted Idumaeans.
but a very interesting book, nonetheless.