Sam Harris on the persecution of Jews

arX · #1 by **arX** » Aug 04, 2010 5:44 pm

I've been trying to find some rational discourse on Sam Harris's argument that Jewish populations bore responsibility in their own persecution over the centuries (brought on primarily by their religious/cultural beliefs). However, all I came up with is either blatantly racist voices, or anti-atheist propaganda.

This is taken from his book, The End of Faith (pg 93):

The gravity of Jewish suffering over the ages, culminating in the Holocaust, makes it almost impossible to entertain any suggestion that Jews might have brought their troubles upon themselves. This is, however, in a rather narrow sense, the truth. Prior to the rise of the church, Jews became the objects of suspicion and occasional persecution for their refusal to assimilate, for the insularity and professed superiority of their religious culture-that is, for the content of their own unreasonable, sectarian beliefs. The dogma of a "chosen people," while at least implicit in most faiths, achieved a stridence in Judaism that was unknown in the ancient world. Among cultures that worshiped a plurality of Gods, the later monotheism of the Jews proved indigestible. And while their explicit demonization as a people required the mad work of the Christian church, the ideology of Judaism remains a lightning rod for intolerance to this day. As a system of beliefs, it appears among the least suited to survive in a theological state of nature. Christianity and Islam both acknowledge the sanctity of the Old Testament and offer easy conversion to their faiths. Islam honors Abraham, Moses, and Jesus as forerunners of Muhammad. Hinduism embraces almost anything in sight with its manifold arms (many Hindus, for instance, consider Jesus an avatar of Vishnu). Judaism alone finds itself surrounded by unmitigated errors. It seems little wonder, therefore, that it has drawn so much sectarian fire. Jews, insofar as they are religious, believe that they are bearers of a unique covenant with God. As a consequence, they have spent the last two thousand years collaborating with those who see them as different by seeing themselves as irretrievably so. Judaism is as intrinsically divisive, as ridiculous in its literalism, and as at odds with the civilizing insights of modernity as any other religion. Jewish settlers, by exercising their "freedom of belief" on contested land, are now one of the principal obstacles to peace in the Middle East.

Are there any other reputable voices, debates that either agree or disagree with such claims?

cpt_pineapple · #2 by **cpt_pineapple** » Aug 04, 2010 6:09 pm

I think most anti-semitism is based on ethnicity, not religion.

For example, the Nazis took out all of Jewish decend regardless of whether they were religious or not.

As for the religion being the motivator of the Middle East conflict, I don't see it considering that according to the gallup poll, 50% of Israelis are religious.

Tbickle · #3 by **Tbickle** » Aug 04, 2010 6:34 pm

cpt_pineapple wrote:I think most anti-semitism is based on ethnicity, not religion.

For example, the Nazis took out all of Jewish decend regardless of whether they were religious or not.

As for the religion being the motivator of the Middle East conflict, I don't see it considering that according to the gallup poll, 50% of Israelis are religious.

I didn't know that Judaism was an ethnicity, I thought it was a religion.

Let's address the two paragraphs that come before the one listed in the OP. I highlighted some relevant parts...

Page 92, The End of Faith wrote:ANTI-SEMITISM is as integral to church doctrine as the flying buttress is to a Gothic cathedral, and this terrible truth has been published in Jewish blood since the first centuries of the common era. Like that of the Inquisition, the history of anti-Semitism can scarcely be given sufficient treatment in the context of this book. I raise the subject, however briefly, because the irrational hatred of Jews has produced a spectrum of effects that have been most acutely felt in our own time. Anti-Semitism is intrinsic to both Christianity and Islam; both traditions consider the Jews to be bunglers of God's initial revelation. Christians generally also believe that the Jews murdered Christ, and their continued existence as Jews constitutes a perverse denial of his status as the Messiah. Whatever the context, the hatred of Jews remains a product of faith: Christian, Muslim, as well as Jewish.

Contemporary Muslim anti-Semitism is heavily indebted to its Christian counterpart. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a Russian anti-Semitic forgery that is the source of most conspiracy theories relating to the Jews, is now considered an authoritative text in the Arab-speaking world. A recent contribution to Al-Akhbar, one of Cairo's mainstream newspapers, suggests that the problem of Muslim anti-Semitism is now deeper than any handshake in the White House Rose Garden can remedy: "Thanks to Hitler, of blessed memory, who on behalf of the Palestinians took revenge in advance, against the most vile criminals on the face of the Earth .... Although we do have a complaint against him, for his revenge was not enough ."29 This is from moderate Cairo, where Muslims drink alcohol, go to the movies, and watch belly dancing-and where the government actively represses fundamentalism. Clearly, hatred of the Jews is white-hot in the Muslim world.

Although the OP's selection would seem to place blame on the Jews for some of the oppression that they have experienced, I think that in the context of the two paragraphs before it, it takes on a different tone. Clearly anti-semitism is an irrational hatred and was built on more than just his idea of Jewish exceptionalism. I think that in the context of the other abstracts I listed, the meaning is that this isolationist and exceptionalist type position has not helped to make Jews or their religious ideas more accessible to those who hate them for irrational reasons already.

cpt_pineapple · #4 by **cpt_pineapple** » Aug 04, 2010 6:39 pm

I didn't know that Judaism was an ethnicity, I thought it was a religion.

Judaism is a religion, however A Jew can refer to somebody who is Jewish either by ethnicity and/or religion.

Tbickle · #5 by **Tbickle** » Aug 04, 2010 7:01 pm

cpt_pineapple wrote:

I didn't know that Judaism was an ethnicity, I thought it was a religion.

Judaism is a religion, however A Jew can refer to somebody who is Jewish either by ethnicity and/or religion.

How is a religion an ethnic group?

UnderConstruction · #6 by **UnderConstruction** » Aug 04, 2010 7:16 pm

Tbickle wrote:
cpt_pineapple wrote:

I didn't know that Judaism was an ethnicity, I thought it was a religion.

Judaism is a religion, however A Jew can refer to somebody who is Jewish either by ethnicity and/or religion.

How is a religion an ethnic group?

It isn't. I think it is probably more accurate to say that the religion is named after the people as they are it's primary practitioners, though I could be mistaken.

epepke · #7 by **epepke** » Aug 04, 2010 8:08 pm

UnderConstruction wrote:It isn't. I think it is probably more accurate to say that the religion is named after the people as they are it's primary practitioners, though I could be mistaken.

It's complex. See http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm

Anyway, Harris is blowing smoke. He does that a lot. Almost certainly, Christian and Muslim dislike of Jews had to do with the fact that there are no Jewish prohibitions against lending money for interest. Muslims are not supposed to lend money for interest at all, and for a long time there was a prohibition against Christians' lending money to other Christians, but they've obviously gotten over that. So, for much of European history, if you needed to borrow money, you had to find a Jew. Nobody is resented quite so strongly as a creditor.

Tbickle · #8 by **Tbickle** » Aug 04, 2010 8:13 pm

epepke wrote:
UnderConstruction wrote:It isn't. I think it is probably more accurate to say that the religion is named after the people as they are it's primary practitioners, though I could be mistaken.

It's complex. See http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm

Anyway, Harris is blowing smoke. He does that a lot. Almost certainly, Christian and Muslim dislike of Jews had to do with the fact that there are no Jewish prohibitions against lending money for interest. Muslims are not supposed to lend money for interest at all, and for a long time there was a prohibition against Christians' lending money to other Christians, but they've obviously gotten over that. So, for much of European history, if you needed to borrow money, you had to find a Jew. Nobody is resented quite so strongly as a creditor.

That may be part of it, but don't you also think that the belief that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus may have been a part of it as well? :think:

Hugin · #9 by **Hugin** » Aug 04, 2010 8:41 pm

UnderConstruction wrote:
Tbickle wrote:
cpt_pineapple wrote:

I didn't know that Judaism was an ethnicity, I thought it was a religion.

Judaism is a religion, however A Jew can refer to somebody who is Jewish either by ethnicity and/or religion.

How is a religion an ethnic group?

It isn't. I think it is probably more accurate to say that the religion is named after the people as they are it's primary practitioners, though I could be mistaken.

The thing is that separation between nation and religion is a relatively recent and mostly Western phenomenon. Judaism is old enough so as to be both a religious and ethnic affiliation. In the past, everything was like that - Egyptians worshipped Egyptian gods, Greeks Greek gods and so on. Granted, the Jews are even more seclused, but that may have to do with centuries of segregation and persecution. Another modern ethno-religious group even more seclused are the Druzes, who live mainly in Israel and Syria. If we look at Islam and Hinduism, they are less seclusive, but it doesn't divert from the fact that converts to these religions are expected to adopt Arab and Indian customs respectively. Indeed, the early Islamic conquerors did their best to Arabize their new subjects and exterminate the local cultures. In some places, they succeeded pretty well (Egypt), in others not so well (Iran).

epepke · **#10** by **epepke** » Aug 05, 2010 2:41 am

Tbickle wrote:That may be part of it, but don't you also think that the belief that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus may have been a part of it as well?

Well,

a) I don't see how that plays that much into Muslim hatred of Jews.

b) Like many atheists, I've read the New Testament with a relatively unjaundiced eye, and it seems to me that support for the culpability of the Jews while present, is relatively weak compared to support for the culpability for the Romans. It's also pretty clear from Acts that the early followers of Jesus were acting in a way that is pretty Jewish.

c) Cognitive psychology, with its heyday in the 1950s and 1960s, pretty strongly confirms the contempt that people have for creditors. One can find support for the idea in Nietzsche as well. Nietzsche and cog sci strike many people as troubling, but the research in the latter is really quite good.

d) Even in stories of the Torah, Hebrews had the roles of money-lenders and tax collectors.

So I think it likely that the "Jews killed Jesus" was force-fit to cover for a resentment much more natural and common, but embarrassing.

ETA: In any event, the idea that Jews were particularly secretive and smug about being the Chosen People doesn't make much sense to me. Jews blended in pretty seamlessly with the European population, and one of the other big complaints about Jews was that you couldn't easily tell them from "normal" people. This, in fact, might have been a larger problem. If you notice, the big hatreds between peoples don't happen between peoples who are very different but only a little bit different.

Eager non-theist · **#11** by **Eager non-theist** » Nov 23, 2010 3:46 am

Sam Harris speaks truth, regardless of what humanists or stereotypical liberals may prefer to believe.

I'm With Stupid · **#12** by **I'm With Stupid** » Nov 23, 2010 4:20 am

epepke wrote:a) I don't see how that plays that much into Muslim hatred of Jews.

I'm interested, what was the state of Muslim anti-semitism prior to the whole Israel thing, which is where I imagine most modern anti-semitism originates?

epepke wrote:c) Cognitive psychology, with its heyday in the 1950s and 1960s, pretty strongly confirms the contempt that people have for creditors. One can find support for the idea in Nietzsche as well. Nietzsche and cog sci strike many people as troubling, but the research in the latter is really quite good.

I've heard this argument before, by Steven Pinker, I think. He also cited the Chinese in other Asian countries, who often played similar roles as merchants and lenders, rarely assimilating into the country where they resided. There are a whole host of hated professions nowadays, and they all revolve around people who are seen to make money without adding anything of real value. So the most high profile recent example is obviously bankers, but also estate agents, football agents and landlords, amongst others. People who make a living by essentially moving money and taking a cut tend to get a very bad press, even if we're all happy to use them when they can get us a better deal.

Zwaarddijk · **#13** by **Zwaarddijk** » Nov 30, 2010 10:11 am

I'm With Stupid wrote:
epepke wrote:a) I don't see how that plays that much into Muslim hatred of Jews.

I'm interested, what was the state of Muslim anti-semitism prior to the whole Israel thing, which is where I imagine most modern anti-semitism originates?

Islamic cultures in general have been less anti-semitic than Christian ones. One scholar described the attitude as one of 'amused, tolerant superiority'. The Jews were seen as harmless, a bit odd, not likely to go to war.

However, with Christian missionaries, ideas of Jews as evil conspirators started gaining ground in the 19th century. There's some theologians even that have researched the spread of anti-semitism as a result of dissemination of Christian ideas among Muslims. The verdict is generally that Christianity does have a significant part in it.

Peter Brown · **#14** by **Peter Brown** » Dec 30, 2010 1:38 pm

Some of the earliest Jew/Christian discrimination was quasi religious/political.

An old Christian belief was Christians had to earn by the sweat of their brow and as such money lending was deeply unreligious as interest was not earned by any brow sweating.

Now of course such beliefs were a detrimental to Kings and Lords wishing to wage war or just pay for standing armies. Jews were not bound to this belief, and so became the money lenders.

Politically Kings and Lords welcomed they now had a money source they could utilize. As such they curried the Jewish community to be in their lands, even if the Catholic Church was less than indifferent to Jews.

But interest is a bitch, and many Lords fell foul to non payments, and as common practice laws stood, repayments fell to relations. This cause more political headaches and anti Jew propaganda to remove the depts., especially depts. carried over from relation to relations.

Laws were changed, Jews were marked, and eventually new, non-Jewish lenders emerged, but a lot of PR damage had been done by then.

Peter Brown · **#15** by **Peter Brown** » Dec 30, 2010 1:47 pm

Islamic cultures in general have been less anti-Semitic than Christian ones.

I’d disagree with that in as much Islam treats all non Muslims the same… equally badly.

Islam does not force conversion after it invades and occupies. Instead Islam offers three choices to all non Muslims. Convert to Islam, pay a poll tax along with other optional edicts designed to make conversion the better option or death by the sword.

I’d suggest all three options Islam offers as anti Semitic by default.

Shuggy · **#16** by **Shuggy** » Jan 01, 2011 7:39 am

Tbickle wrote:
cpt_pineapple wrote:

I didn't know that Judaism was an ethnicity, I thought it was a religion.

Judaism is a religion, however A Jew can refer to somebody who is Jewish either by ethnicity and/or religion.

How is a religion an ethnic group?

It's a moveable feast. I suggest that it might be better than either of those to think of it as a memeplex - a cluster of interconnected units of culture, transmitted by imitation.

I think Harris has tiptoed through a minefield in what he wrote.

orpheus · **#17** by **orpheus** » Jan 01, 2011 11:50 am

Whether we see Judaism as a religion or ethnicity (or memeplex) is less important (vis-a-vis this issue) than how Judaism's antagonists throughout history have seen them.

epepke · **#18** by **epepke** » Jan 11, 2011 5:57 pm

I'm With Stupid wrote:
epepke wrote:a) I don't see how that plays that much into Muslim hatred of Jews.

I'm interested, what was the state of Muslim anti-semitism prior to the whole Israel thing, which is where I imagine most modern anti-semitism originates?

I think you'd have to define what "the whole Israel thing" is. If it means the establishment of the modern state of Israel, then the state of Muslim anti-semitism was pretty bad before it, during the 1920s and 1930s.

epepke wrote:c) Cognitive psychology, with its heyday in the 1950s and 1960s, pretty strongly confirms the contempt that people have for creditors. One can find support for the idea in Nietzsche as well. Nietzsche and cog sci strike many people as troubling, but the research in the latter is really quite good.

I've heard this argument before, by Steven Pinker, I think. He also cited the Chinese in other Asian countries, who often played similar roles as merchants and lenders, rarely assimilating into the country where they resided. There are a whole host of hated professions nowadays, and they all revolve around people who are seen to make money without adding anything of real value. So the most high profile recent example is obviously bankers, but also estate agents, football agents and landlords, amongst others. People who make a living by essentially moving money and taking a cut tend to get a very bad press, even if we're all happy to use them when they can get us a better deal.[/quote]

I am most familiar with the history of Spain, where Christians, Jews, and Muslims got along pretty well together for an amazingly long period of time. During that time, Muslims didn't lend money for interest, and Christians didn't lend money for interest to other Christians, so Jews were the only people who could lend money for interest. Of course, the Spanish reconquista against Muslims dates from the 13th century and was not completed until 1492, the same year that the Jews were expelled. Of course, Spain as a unified country dates from later than that.

epepke · **#19** by **epepke** » Jan 11, 2011 6:17 pm

Shuggy wrote:
Tbickle wrote:
cpt_pineapple wrote:

Judaism is a religion, however A Jew can refer to somebody who is Jewish either by ethnicity and/or religion.

How is a religion an ethnic group?
It's a moveable feast. I suggest that it might be better than either of those to think of it as a memeplex - a cluster of interconnected units of culture, transmitted by imitation.

I think Harris has tiptoed through a minefield in what he wrote.

Technically, Judaism as a religion describes the particular beliefs of the tribe of Judah. It gets a bit complicated, because at one point in (somewhat questionable) history, the Kingdom of Judah was the only place where Jews could freely practice Hebraic religions, and also because around the time of the Second Temple, Rabbi Judah was highly influential in constructing modern Judaism. This partially explains why modern practices of the religion of Judaism don't resemble the Torah very much. I still haven't figured out why Orthodox Jews think they have to dress like 17th century Russians, though.

Being a Jew can mean many other things. Internally, it is defined recursively: if your mother was a Jew, then you are one, too. Hitler used the definition that if any of your grandparents are Jews, then you are also a Jew. Though this is cracking, the state of Israel has largely used the Hitlerian version.

It can also be defined as an ethnicity. There are an unusual number of genetic markers preferentially found in Jews, probably due to endogamous practices and also suggesting a serious genetic bottleneck some time in the past.

It can also be treated as a language group. Modern examples of defining peoples as having a common language include Hispanics and the Inuit.

I don't think that this is appreciated enough, but being a Jew can also refer to being part of an extended family with certain cultural conventions. If you're a Jew, you can travel anywhere in the world, and if you are fortunate enough to find some Jews, you'll know the same songs and stories and get fed. This ties into the language group. I've heard tell that there is a similar community of Esperanto-speakers around the world.

Also, while I'm on my soapbox, I have to say that with the exception of some Jewish fundamentalists, Jews generally have an attitude toward the stories in the Tanakh that is different from the Christian view of the Bible or the Muslim view of the Quran and Hadiths. Jews generally view these stories as mythology and read them as the stories that are important to the Jewish people. It's not so different from the way Westerners view Greek mythology. They are stories that people talk about and study, not so much because they consider them literally true, but because they can be instructive and interesting.

Zwaarddijk · **#20** by **Zwaarddijk** » Jan 11, 2011 6:50 pm

epepke wrote:

Technically, Judaism as a religion describes the particular beliefs of the tribe of Judah. It gets a bit complicated, because at one point in (somewhat questionable) history, the Kingdom of Judah was the only place where Jews could freely practice Hebraic religions, and also because around the time of the Second Temple, Rabbi Judah was highly influential in constructing modern Judaism. This partially explains why modern practices of the religion of Judaism don't resemble the Torah very much. I still haven't figured out why Orthodox Jews think they have to dress like 17th century Russians, though.

Not all orthodox Jews dress like that; mainly, the ones that do that are Hassidim (a movement within ultra-orthodoxy that is rather kabbalah-oriented, but also has some other rather curious traits. Of course, some non-Hassids also do it, and some of those are mysticistic too. Finally, some non-mysticists do it because it's a group thing - it is mainly an in-group identifier). It's also got roots in the Jewish tendency to like tradition. This is how they've dressed since the 17th century, so this is a tradition worth keeping alive is sort of the unstated idea there. Finally, some kabbalistic work apparently says that black is a colour with many good properties when worn. The Zohar also says to wear two items of headgear when praying, so some Hassids and other mysticism-inclined Jews wear two skullcaps on top of each other, or a skullcap under a hat. (Re: tradition, c.f. how the temporary law that forbade polygamy among Jews in Christian countries (which the rabbi that ruled on that set to be valid for a thousand years, iirc) has lead to there being no tradition to have polygamy, so even when that law - relatively soon - passes out of the books, there will be no tradition of having polygamy among Ashkenazi Jews, and they won't be able to practice them.)

Being a Jew can mean many other things. Internally, it is defined recursively: if your mother was a Jew, then you are one, too. Hitler used the definition that if any of your grandparents are Jews, then you are also a Jew. Though this is cracking, the state of Israel has largely used the Hitlerian version.

Of course, even then there's variation - at least some Reform Jewish congregations consider it enough if your father is a Jew. Some reform might consider one's own consent to being a Jew relevant. The Karaites, a Sola Scriptura movement in late antiquity and the middle ages (which still has a few nominal adherents around) has had local variations on whether patrilineal descent, matrilineal descent or both decide who is a jew.

It can also be treated as a language group. Modern examples of defining peoples as having a common language include Hispanics and the Inuit.

the Jews get tricky there, as Hebrew and Aramaic mostly only were used in prayer and to some extent by scholars. The Jews have several idioms of their own - Yiddish, Ladino, Judeo-Tartar, (Qaraim, sort of), Judeo-greek, Judeo-Arabic, Judeo-georgian, etc etc etc.