this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
242 points (98.8% liked)

Palestine

831 readers
82 users here now

A community to discuss everything Palestine.

Rules:

  1. Posts can be in Arabic or English.

  2. Please add a flair in the title of every post. Example: “[News] Israel annexes the West Bank ”, “[Culture] Musakhan is the nicest food in the world!”, “[Question] How many Palestinians live in Jordan?”

List of flairs: [News] [Culture] [Discussion] [Question] [Request] [Guide]

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheLepidopterists@hexbear.net 13 points 1 month ago (47 children)

This particular person is from .ml but honestly I've seen this kind of rhetoric popping up a lot recently on Hexbear and it's frustrating.

If you have hatred and contempt in your heart for all religious people, you hate and despise the global proletariat.

[–] astreus@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (24 children)

hatred and contempt

This is a problem. Anything coming from hatred is not coming from a good place.

However, I do have a problem with what monotheism did to the world as a colonising force.

We have depictions of full genocide in the Torah due to a chosen people doctrine (remember, at this time gendercide was nearly the exclusive form of genocide). We had Christians take this after Constantine to take a proselytising mission and turn it into an imperial casus belli. We saw the same with the formation and expansion that lead to the Golden Age of Islam.

While religious tolerance and practices have an increased amount of personal choice now in the "Western" world, that does not mean that the institution that they inherent aren't any more colonial now then they were then. They are ideas that replaced other ideas, often through a theology of "god strengthens my arm and weakens the heathens, so might makes right".

It's not hatred for any set belief, but the "In" and "Out" groups created by "chosen people" dynamics that are inherent within monotheistic religion. They have always been used to perpetuate division among the "foreign", wealth for an elite, and loyalty from the masses.

[Edited to clarify the last paragraph]

[–] Maturin@hexbear.net 8 points 1 month ago (15 children)

I think you need to be careful with throwing around "choseness" in this way because this is the exact perversion of the Jewish concept of choseness set forth in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf. I'm not trying to let Judaism off the hook for its genuine reactionary and regressive components (particularly with respect to women and non-normative sexuality), but it really muddies the waters when you overlay it with full-throated anti-Jewish projection onto Judaism.

[–] astreus@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not really? There is an in-group (Jews) and an out-group (non-Jews, or Gentiles). The same applies for all monotheistic religions in a way that doesn't gel with the fabric of polytheism. These concepts, over centuries and through different forms (especially Christianity for the "West") were used to subjugate people by creating these in-groups and out-groups (to the point that the earliest use of the star of David to highlight the Jewish population I know of was done in England by Simon De Montfort (though I'm not an expert)).

That legacy still exists today and the institutions of wealth and (especially in places like the UK & Iran) governance. It's a legacy of us vs them and colonialism that needs to be examined.

[–] Maturin@hexbear.net 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I mean, you just did it again. Wasn't Simon De Montfort a Christian Crusader who persecuted the Jews? You are taking an antisemitic interpretation of "choseness" applied in a Christian framework that was then used to persecute Jews with a "they started it" argument. Which is exactly what the PEZ and MK did when they framed choseness. Rabbinic Judiasm (which is Judaism following the Roman conquest) deems "choseness" to be chosen NOT to control other populations. The Noahite laws, which apply to everyone whether Jewish or not (in the Jewish religion), specifically command the non Jews to create fair governments that the Jews could live under as 1 of 7 requirements. The Jews are "chosen" to follow the more stringent 613 commandments, which include following the laws of the just governments of non-Jews. Just saying that it creates categories of people is not unique to monotheism (or religion - see "America First"). And I don't think it tracks that creating groups in any context necessarily leads to genocidal intent and practice.

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 4 points 1 month ago

I mean, you just did it again.

michael-laugh that got me too! Libs are masters at unintentionally doubling down on rascist ideas

[–] astreus@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

You are conflating my criticism of monotheism with a direct criticism of Judaism. I am saying the core value of monotheism (i.e. there is one god and its the one I picked) has created a colonial mindset in all monotheistic religion. You're saying "I did it again", but I'm doing it for all. I mean the Arab conquests soon after Muhhamad's death is the same as well.

Monotheism, as an ideology, has stolen a lot from us in terms of ways of thinking, belief, and added division in its stead. This continues to be true in major geopolitical states including America, Israel, Iran, and many, many more countries.

[–] Maturin@hexbear.net 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think you are trying too hard to conflate the colonial/genocidal mindset with monotheism when the evidence doesn't really support it. Was Ancient Rome not colonial and genocidal? Greece? Egypt? They also had slaves. They conquered everyone they could. The exterminated whole swaths of peoples. They didn't need monotheism to do that. You could argue that the legacy of those polytheistic societies (specifically Egypt for the ancient Jews, Rome for Christians) laid the groundwork for the same genocidal/colonial mindset. But the main point is that the colonial and genocidal mindset is easier to understand from a class/material analysis than one tied to any specific theology. The monotheist theologies were used as a tool to organize and mobilize populations because that was the easiest tool to grab and it was couched in a language that the populations already spoke, but polytheists and other non-monotheists are just as capable of using their theological tools to do the same. For a more modern example, see for example the relationship between Hindu and Buddhist sides over Sri Lanka. Neither are abrahamic monotheisms, yet the colonial and genocidal tendency and forces are still at work.

[–] astreus@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

While I think that's interesting point, two things:

Destroyed swaths of people is dubious. Cultures, yes, men, yes, but peoples, no (hence the slaves but also why those lands were still administered by high ranking officials).

Essentially, I feel it's whataboutism. There's very good reason why it's said the Philippines was conquered by friars, the Crusades weren't caused by resources, and the age of Empire and the Atlantic slave trade were both back by the concept of monotheistic "other".

Just because other ideologies (and theologies) have negative kernels, it does not excuse the vast negative issues the have directly born out of monotheistic religion as an aspect of otherhood and a sense of colonisation or superiority. That does not make them the sole source (the concept of land ownership, for example, is a non-theistic ideology that is used to cause group division and destruction). We could also talk about Manifest Destiny, as a non-religious movement (though it did have large religious support), but it's not what I am talking about

Monotheism as it has manifested on the world stage has come with colonisation, destruction of old ideas, and entitled due to the other people being sinful heathens. It is a useful tool for the powerful (which is why we see the royal conversions in Europe, leading to internalised oppression of polytheistic beliefs). It is worth questioning.

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

jagoff

It's been 2 days now.

Go away.

[–] astreus@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Nah didn't see your name on the door.

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

and added division in its stead

And what the fuck are you doing here, now, with your smug Reddit New Atheist bullshit?

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 4 points 1 month ago

Quick what year is it??? Is it 2006 again? It feels like the worst time travel experiment ever

[–] astreus@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The irony is I'm not even an atheist. I've described a specific ideological problem I have with monotheism as a concept. Why does that upset you so badly? Why would that compel you to say someone doesn't belong?

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The irony is

I don't care what you claim to be, especially 2 days later. Your bloviating is masturbatory, tiresome, and now days late.

Go away.

[–] astreus@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Being chronically online isn't a character trait. It's an addiction.

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 2 points 1 month ago

Being chronically online

Says the jagoff that came here two days later to continue tipping that totally-not-atheist fedora.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)
load more comments (43 replies)