Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Air Force Academy has had a long history of problems with Christian proselytizing and religious coercion and they've made a good deal of progress in dealing with it, thanks to the efforts of Academy graduate Mikey Weinstein and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. They recently established a place for Wiccans to hold their worship services on campus -- and some moron decided to put a cross there.
The Air Force Academy, stung several years ago by accusations of Christian bias, has built a new outdoor worship area for pagans and other practitioners of Earth-based religions.But its opening, heralded as a sign of a more tolerant religious climate at the academy in Colorado Springs, Colo., was marred by the discovery two weeks ago of a large wooden cross placed there.
I don't like the concept of desecration, but let's go ahead and call it that because that is certainly what the Christians would call it if someone put a star and crescent or a pentagram in a chapel. Mikey is criticizing the school for not making it public when it happened, but it does look like the school is taking this fairly seriously:
Although he credits the academy's superintendent, Air Force Lt. Gen. Michael Gould, with an improved climate of religious tolerance, Weinstein criticized other academy officials as trivializing the incident, which he said was not revealed to cadets.Rhetorically addressing academy officials, Weinstein said Tuesday, "It's been two weeks -- were you going to get around to telling them about this horrible thing that happened, and why haven't you?"
Academy spokesman John Van Winkle said officials reported the situation to those on base and issued a message reiterating the school's policy of religious tolerance and respect.
In a statement, Gould said, "We absolutely will not stand for this type of destructive behavior. I consider this no different than someone writing graffiti on the Cadet Chapel."
I do hope they find out who did it (though that's not likely) and punish them as severely as they would someone who would do the same thing to any other religious space.
Politics
Comments
I'm quite skeptical of both their effort to determine who did this and second how seriously they take the issue. While you'll have many Christians who do respect other belief systems, generally the same people who are willing to force their beliefs upon others don't actually belief that the beliefs of others have any value so protecting them is rarely of any importance to them.
Posted by: dogmeatib | February 10, 2010 9:11 AM
It should be fairly simple to simply craft an oath, styled on West Point's that gives AFA cadets the opportunity to be honest about their KKKristianity being of a higher degree of importance than service to their country. Easy to craft, easy to get them to sign. If only they could get them to stop lying for JESUS when they do so.
Posted by: democommie | February 10, 2010 9:32 AM
Your response is a reasonable one (except that the lay leader, Longcrier, objects to the characterization of "Wiccan"). The only caveat some of us are advocating is that it should be determined first that it was the "desecration" some are saying that it is.
As I've noted elsewhere, the LZ where this occurred has been used for years for cadets for other purposes, and there are indications that average cadets didn't even know it had been designated a pagan area.
If the railroad ties were placed next to each other as an affront or offense to the pagans, then it should be dealt with as would the placement of any contravening religious symobol on another faith's site.
That said, adding hyperbolic vitriol--like calling the cross a "Christian gang marker" or "giant turd" as Michael Weinstein did--adds nothing to this situation, and attempts to turn it into something that it isn't.
Posted by: JD | February 10, 2010 9:39 AM
Is it clear that it was cadets who did it? I'm not saying no cadets would (they're still adolescent males, after all), but the AFA is not the most heavily secured military installation in the world, and it wouldn't be too hard for someone else to sneak on the grounds and do this, if word got out to the public that there was a pagan worship space there. And the AFA is in Colorado Springs, after all, a beautiful town, but one wholly corrupted by the religious right. So it may be nearly impossible to find out who did it.
Posted by: James Hanley | February 10, 2010 10:23 AM
JD:
Can you give me a reference to a source where I can see these quotations about a "giant turd" or "Christian gang marker" in context?
Thanks
Posted by: sbh | February 10, 2010 10:39 AM
Without singling out Christian as opposed to any other faith, maybe "gang marker" is appropriate. The idea of specific religious "turf" cracks me up.
Posted by: Taz | February 10, 2010 10:59 AM
"oooh Wic-caaannn, come out out plaaay-ay". - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | February 10, 2010 11:05 AM
Why not just have the Wiccans appropriate the cross and use it as a scaffold upon which to hang offerings? If the Xtians don't like it, then they shouldn't have given them the cross to begin with. (No takesy-backsies!)
Posted by: Umlud | February 10, 2010 11:37 AM
Me too. but I believe Weinstein went way over the top here, saying:
"We don't think, we know it was a hate crime," said Weinstein, who compared the incident to spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue.
Bullocks. Nazis want Jews dead and have backed it up times six million. This is a crime, for sure, but it is not a hate crime, and certainly not obviously a hate crime any more than someone leaving a giant menorah leaning against the doors of a Baptist church is a hate crime.
This is a mean, stupid prank and act of vandalism and possibly trespassing and a violation of the AFA code of
conduct. Calling it a hate crime (unless there is additional evidence) is stupid.
Weinstein should tone down the rhetoric. I don't see how over-the-top is ever helpful for anyone's cause.
Posted by: heddle | February 10, 2010 12:06 PM
Ah, but not everyone who vandalizes with swastikas is actually a Nazi or wants to kill Jews. Some of them are just assholes, or kids trying to be as obscene as possible.
Weinstein might be being a little over the top, but it's somewhat justifiable because most people will be, eh, a little "under the bottom", to turn the phrase, when it comes to their reaction to this, i.e. they'll say, "It's just some Wiccans, who fuckin' cares?"
Posted by: James Sweet | February 10, 2010 12:08 PM
Heddle - and Christians never harmed a 'witch', ever!
I mean it's not as if the Christian's 'holy' book contains specific passages condemning 'witches' to death or anything, is there? - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | February 10, 2010 12:14 PM
James Sweet
That's very true. But painting a swastika on a synagogue, because of still fairly recent human history, is in a class by itself. Or maybe in a class with a noose left near a meeting place for African Americans.
This, to first order, shouldn't trigger the same sort of response as the two iconic threats (symbolic or real) that I just mentioned.
Posted by: heddle | February 10, 2010 12:18 PM
Three stupid responses that some Xtians would make to this:
1) But that was a LONG TIME AGO, and you can't prove that it happened -- were you there? Anyway, Christians are different people now; you're talking about the Middle Ages!
2) How do we know that it wasn't the Wiccans - or someone else - who put up that cross? They put up the cross so that they could turn around and persecute Christians!
3) I don't personally approve of this type of behavior, and I'm ashamed of anyone who would do such a thing, including Christians. Don't try to lump me in with these people just because I'm a Christian; my personal views make me a unique individual that only shares a professed belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ. These people don't speak for me.
I'm not saying that anyone here would say these things, but that this is my guess as to what type of immediate knee-jerk responses would be made by Xtians when one points out that Xtians did actively hunt, try, and kill (sorry: "execute") witches and heathens as well as having it pointed out that their holy book does include statements that appear to command its followers to go out and hunt and kill witches, too.
Posted by: mercurianferret | February 10, 2010 12:23 PM
DJ,
Yes and Jews have harmed Christians and Christian have harmed Jews. If Jews had a recent history of harming Christians, or Christians were still going about burning witches, then you'd have a point. Then a Menorah left at a Baptist church might be a hate crime, or this might be a hate crime.
But to first order, based on what I know, this should be viewed as a crime committed by a bunch of assholes.
Calling it a hate crime isn't taking the high road--it is diluting what is meant by "hate crime" which, ultimately, is counter-productive.
Posted by: heddle | February 10, 2010 12:24 PM
Right, it's not like there's a history of Pagans being killed Christians. What other group has hunted and burned them? The difference appears to me to be one of quantity, not kind.
I agree it’s not a hate crime. But it's because the crime is one of speech rather than violence that makes the difference.
Posted by: Abby Normal | February 10, 2010 12:27 PM
Oh, wait, heddle made a comment like #1 as I was writing my comment, so my saying that no one here "would say these things" is not quite right. Although heddle doesn't go so far as to say that it's not provable, he makes an argument of proximity, completely failing to address those parts of scripture - and those who follow it - that command its followers to "suffer not a witch to live":
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/sermons/witches.html
The linked sermon is proximal. From the sermon:
Sorry heddle: proximal arguments are fallacious, especially when you consider that there are people today who identify themselves as Christians - who don't necessarily share the same beliefs as you - that want to kill witches.
Posted by: mercurianferret | February 10, 2010 12:30 PM
Ah, the faulty wonders of teh Google. I apologise for not recognizing that the Landover Baptist Church website is a spoof site.
Posted by: mercurianferret | February 10, 2010 12:37 PM
Abby Normal,
Indeed there is. And there is also a history of Christians being killed by pagans. But if the roles are reversed in this story--then it would not be a hate crime. Neither is this. Unless there is more than meets the eye.
I should be careful: It could be a hate crime. But Weinstein cannot possibly "know" that it is, unless he is privy to a lot more information that has been revealed.
Posted by: heddle | February 10, 2010 12:45 PM
Heddle opined - "...Yes and Jews have harmed Christians..." Really? When, how and where specifically*? -Dingo
-
* I note that you avoid the clear biblical inference, and the Salem Witch Trials (1692, hardly 'Middle Ages') amongst other later 'trials' elsewhere in the 'Christian world' (such as Africa). - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | February 10, 2010 12:52 PM
DJ,
Well, starting with some guy named, what was it.. Jesus. Unless you think turning over someone to the civil authorities for execution doesn't count--which would then absolve the Catholic Church from much of its crimes of persecution.
First century Christianity in Palestine existed in an uneasy truce with Jews that gradually deteriorated into persecution against Christians when more and more people realized that Christianity was a new religion, not a weird Jewish sect. Of course Christians have persecuted Jews far more recently and in far greater numbers--but that the historic fact is that Jews have also persecuted Christians.
Posted by: heddle | February 10, 2010 12:58 PM
Heddle,
So Jesus was a Christian? That is, Christ was a follower of Christ? Wonderful postmodern self-referentiality, eh?
Posted by: James Hanley | February 10, 2010 1:31 PM
Heddle: "Well, starting with some guy named, what was it.. Jesus."
That was Jew on Jew violence. After all, Jesus was Jewish since the precepts of being an xtian weren't established at the time.
Posted by: beergoggles | February 10, 2010 1:36 PM
gradually deteriorated into persecution against Christians when more and more people realized that Christianity was a new religion
Not quite. The Romans were more than willing to accept Xianity as yet one more of the many religions that flourished in the Empire ... but the Xians weren't willing to act like CITIZENS and essentially kept giving Rome the finger. They were unwilling to accept that civil society requires people to acknowledge others have the same rights and responsibilities they do, and in that context, that meant accepting the emperor even if he wasn't Xian. Eventually,the Romans saw the Xians as a political threat — not a religious one — and treated them accordingly, the same way they treated other rebellious groups (including the Jews and Druids, for that matter).
Likewise, I'd imagine many Romans of other faiths found the Xian attitude of specialness/superiority pretty annoying, especially since Xians denied the OBVIOUS relationships between their doctrine and those of such faiths as Mithraism, which was then quite popular in the military. In the 1st C, the Roman writer Celsus also noted (among other things) Xian views of the world being made solely for them as opposed to being equally made for other species were quite alien to Roman sensibilities. Such behavior is not conducive to gaining acceptance.
Posted by: gus | February 10, 2010 1:37 PM
@heddle - Jesus was a Jew. "Jew" is the pejorative for "Judean. Until the Messianic bar Kokchba Revolt (131-132 AD), the areas were known as Judea, Galilee. Hadrian renamed it Syria Palestina, or, Philistia, which had been, as a Kingdom, long gone. The Romans had a penchant for "disapearing" a nations and people's history by renaming a subjugated land.
What put the wedge between Temple/Rabbinic Jews and Jewish Christians was who they each considered their Anointed One, or "Messiah".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_revolt - Note the 1st century map - Note, that what was then called "Philistia" is what we now call Gaza.
Posted by: Keliel | February 10, 2010 1:38 PM
Jamse Hanley,
It is, don't you think? But if being a Christian is to believe that Jesus died for the sins of man and that through faith in him you can acquire salvation, then yes he was a Christian. Given that we can assume that he believed in what he taught.
And to those who said: "Jesus was a Jew", references to "Cpt. Obvious" come to mind.
Posted by: heddle | February 10, 2010 1:55 PM
Or a burning cross?
Posted by: Taz | February 10, 2010 2:09 PM
Heddle - "Well, starting with some guy named, what was it.. Jesus." Can you spell "post facto anti-Semitism"? That all you got? - Dingo.
Posted by: DingoJack | February 10, 2010 2:16 PM
mercurianferet, while your number 3 is undoubtedly accurate I'm not seeing the problem with it. Surely people are not obligated to agree on everything because they agree on one thing?
For an unrelated example, I believe that medical treatment should not be limited by ability to pay. So, as I understand, does Fidel Castro, does that mean I must be in favour of a one party state?
Posted by: Matty | February 10, 2010 2:36 PM
Heddle,
Our religion profs take points to explain to students that Jesus was not a Christian. Your weak argument to the contrary bears little weight, as it relies on a very specialized definition of the word "Christian" that just happens to be the only one that allows for your conclusion.
Devising your definition to fit your pre-conceived conclusion = intellectual dishonesty. It's the kind of shit we try to teach our students to avoid doing.
And ditto to DingoJack's last comment. It's more than a little disingenous to say the Jews had Jesus killed because he was a Christian.
But of course the general outline of your response is easily predictable. I expect something that leads the rest of us to think that you apply the doctrine of infallibility to yourself.
Posted by: James Hanley | February 10, 2010 2:37 PM
"While you'll have many Christians who do respect other belief systems, generally the same people who are willing to force their beliefs upon others don't actually belief that the beliefs of others have any value so protecting them is rarely of any importance to them."
Religious fundamentalists explicitly reject the notion of any form of relativism or mutual tolerance: They have absolute confidence that their religion is the one true religion, and thus is special, while all others are merely lies and mistakes. They may at times falsely claim to believe that religions are equivilent in worth when doing so is politically expedient, but as soon as this need goes away any trace of respect disappears.
Interestingly, their view is more internally consistant than the more modern ideal of tolerance, multiculturalism and respect for differences of oppinion - which, in a religious context, translates into willingly letting people go to spend all eternity trapped in a lake of eternal fire through inaction.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | February 10, 2010 2:40 PM
Couldn't agree more. These people are just trying to bring those hell-bound tree worshipers to the truth of Christ. If anything, it's a love crime! ;)
The concept of the hate crime can lead to some slippery slopes and I tend to agree with Heddle here. In my opinion, hate crimes are difficult to classify. Reminds me of the Southpark episode, Cartman's Silly Hate Crime. Some people are simply just assholes.
Posted by: Joe | February 10, 2010 2:45 PM
sbh:
From the Colorado Springs Gazette:
AN said:
Here's an interesting exercise: What crime was committed? For the record, criminal vandalism requires destruction and damage. In this case, someone picked up two railroad ties that were already there and simply leaned them against a rock (they weren't even connected). Trespass isn't an option either, nor is criminal mischief.
For those that want to claim that this was a "hate crime," as Weinstein does, you must first define the underlying crime, since "hate" is an augmenting factor, not root crimal conduct.
This is one instance in which Weinstein probably had lots of agreement--until he "went over the top."
Posted by: JD | February 10, 2010 2:49 PM
IGNORANT LIBTARDS,
WHY DO YOU AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME THAT THIS WAS DONE BY CHRISTIANS?!?!?!?!
FYI, ROMAN CATHOLICS ALSO USE THE CROSS AS A SYMBOL!!!!
http://static.ibnlive.com/pix/sitepix/03_2008/good_friday_new248.jpg
LEARN BEFORE YOU POST AND YOU'LL NOT EMBARRASS YOURSELVES!!!!
Posted by: AMERICAPHILE MINISTRIES | February 10, 2010 4:21 PM
Taz @ 6
You’ve never heard of the immovable ladder?
Posted by: chilidog | February 10, 2010 4:24 PM
AM @33
Oh really? Silly me, I thought Catholics were Christians also.
Posted by: Chillidog | February 10, 2010 4:27 PM
Woah, check out Americaphile's blog. I thought it was another Landover Baptist at first, but I think he might actually be serious... the Hillary Clinton obsession is really disturbing...
Posted by: James Sweet | February 10, 2010 4:49 PM
Oy. Someone is being a right jerk, that's for sure. Who ever it is should be corrected, and if in the military appropriately disciplined.
But it's not a hate crime. A severe dislike crime, perhaps. A self righteous bigot crime, definitely.
What it does do is support the culture of mistreatment modern pagans in this country are subject to, and that is the problem that needs to be addressed. Because if not addressed, things could worsen to levels that are worthy of the hate crime title.
Posted by: PennyBright | February 10, 2010 4:59 PM
James Hanley,
I would like to debate your religious profs (seriously) on the question of whether Jesus was a Christian (in addition to being a Jew.) I think the mere fact that they would debate such a question goes to the issue of whether or not there should even be such a thing as "religion professor." Believing that there should be no such creature may be the one thing in the vast universe with which I am in agreement with PZ.
Here was my definition. (Strange, having this same discussion elsewhere!)
Jesus died for the sins of man and that through faith in him you can acquire salvation
You call this, and I quote:
"a very specialized definition of the word 'Christian'"
Bull. This is an incredibly broad, generic definition of Christian, It is utterly non-denominational. It is not even Trinitarian. It does not even say that Jesus is an eternal being. It is so broad, it does not exclude the early heresies. Arians could agree to this. Not only is it not specialized, it is highly, possibly to a fault, non-specialized. You would be hard pressed to come up with a definition of "Christian" for which which you could get more agreement on that this one. How you could claim this is a "very specialized definition" is borderline unfathomable. Actually, forget the borderline qualifier.
Posted by: heddle | February 10, 2010 5:02 PM
I agree. I went back through his archives to 2006 and he never seems to break character. It's the same throughout - and unlike a typical poe (who generally manages to produce something clever and funny at least some of the time) it's monotonic in its incoherence.
Posted by: DaveL | February 10, 2010 5:06 PM
So if they had stood the cross up and piled bundles of twigs around the bottom, it would have been a hate crime?
Nuttin like a good witch bbq!!
Posted by: FastLane | February 10, 2010 5:06 PM
Heddle, I'm at a bit of a loss for how you might think your post at 18 refutes my point. I already agreed it's not a hate crime. Neither would be painting a swastika on a synagogue. Did you read my post beyond the first sentence?
Posted by: Abby Normal | February 10, 2010 5:14 PM
Ed, I know you're big on banning commenters, and I like that policy, but I'd favor banning AMERICAPHILE MINISTRIES based on the complete uselessness of his comments.
Posted by: Taz | February 10, 2010 5:21 PM
Abby Normal,
I did--did you read mine beyond the 0th word? I agreed with you (agreeing with me)! Hence the start of my reply with the word indeed. I was merely pointing out that not only have Christians killed pagans, but pagans have killed Christians, too.
Posted by: heddle | February 10, 2010 5:21 PM
My comment at 42 should have read, "Ed I know you're NOT big on banning commenters."
Posted by: Taz | February 10, 2010 5:31 PM
PennyBright, #37: What it does do is support the culture of mistreatment modern pagans in this country are subject to, and that is the problem that needs to be addressed.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I think that is exactly what makes something a hate crime.
Posted by: Chiroptera | February 10, 2010 5:36 PM
I doubt the vandal(s) will be caught. It's difficult to find such culprits, unless they have loose lips and a "good guy" comes forward to turn them in. But my sentiments are with Ed here: if found, they deserve equal punishment as if they had vandalized the chapel, a barracks, a classroom, or any other academy property.
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | February 10, 2010 6:02 PM
Heddle,
There are some serious issues with your claim that the persecution of Christ was a Jew on Christian crime above and beyond the question of whether or not Jesus was a Christian, etc. First, the only source for this story is one written years after the fact by a follower of Christ. Historically that is, at best, a rather dubious source. We don't have Roman records supporting this purported incident, we don't really have anything supporting the claimed course of events, and, at the same time, it would be rather unusual for Jewish leaders to turn someone over to secular authorities for alleged religious crimes. Now, on the other hand, if he were being held for secular crimes and wanted by the Roman authorities, it would be questionable, bordering on foolhardy for the Jewish authorities to defy Roman authorities in such a case. In fact, given the fact that the Jewish state was already existing in a rather tenuous, edge of the precipice sort of way, it would be almost insane for them to protect a heretical religious extremist who had committed secular crimes.
That would be roughly akin to claiming that a Shi-ite government holding a Sunni anti-American protester (note I didn't say terrorist or imply that they had committed any violence) refusing to turn them over to the US.
Beyond that, the rest of the story is just that, a story. There isn't any independent evidence to support the claim. In effect your "well starting with some guy..." boils down to, I heard from this guy that a couple of years ago ... [insert unsupported possibly bullshit story here].
I have to ask, didn't you argue that the atheist sign in Illinois was over the line? Would you argue, since this isn't a hate crime as far as you're concerned, that it wouldn't be a hate crime if someone went into a church and pulled the cross down? Or covered the interior of the church with graffiti (non-permanent)? The comparison of someone leaving another religious object at the doors of a church/synagogue aren't necessarily valid given that this sounds like it was actually within the sanctuary rather than at the outskirts.
Posted by: dogmeatib | February 10, 2010 6:15 PM
Posted by: dogmeatib | February 10, 2010 6:18 PM
Regarding the question of Americaphile Ministry's sincerity, I'm inclined to think that he/she is a Poe, just a colossally unfunny and unimaginative one.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 10, 2010 6:24 PM
Chiroptera,
It's a slippery slope situation -- while I don;t think this specific action qualifies as a hate crime, it is certainly on the spectrum.
But in terms of the kind of stuff we paganfolk put up with regularly, it's pretty minimal - no one got fired, no was expelled from school, no one got arrested, no one lost their kids, etc etc.
And compared to the kinds of violence perpetrated against other marginalized groups, it's nothing at all -- it would be insulting to put it on the same level as what happen to Matthew Shephard, for example.
Posted by: PennyBright | February 10, 2010 6:40 PM
dogmeatib,
It is a fair question--so debates about whether or nor there was 1st century persecution from Jews against Christians rely mostly on accepting the biblical accounts. If the bible is not granted as reliable, for the sake of argument, in its description of 1st century history (leaving out anything supernatural) then indeed debate is pointless.
But of course, arguing that Jesus was not a Christian would somehow also, I suspect rely on biblical accounts. Unless the argument was no better than: "There was no group of people who called themselves Christians in the 1st century, or at least for most of it, so by definition there couldn't be persecutions against Christians."
But you are quite right, the only source I have to substantiate that Jews persecuted Christians is the bible.
As for the atheist sign, I don't remember commenting on it--but my gut reaction is that if I were an atheist I would prefer they omitted the "hardens hearts" and "enslaves minds" bit--just because in-your-face is not really my style. But definitely it was not a hate crime in any way, shape or form.
And if someone broke into my church and left artifacts from other religions or vandalized it with graffiti--no I wouldn't consider that a hate crime. Since there is no symbol (like a swastika or a noose) that means "death to baptists!" (sadly, the closest thing might be a picture of John Calvin!) to do something close to a hate crime would be, I would say--maybe writing "Death to baptists!" in blood or something like that. Even then I'd be hesitant to use the term.
Posted by: heddle | February 10, 2010 6:40 PM
PennyBright,
Exactly. Prosecute the jackasses who did it. Throw them out of the AFA if they are cadets. (I'm not as pessimistic that you'll never find them) but do not dilute the term--which aptly fits what was done to Matthew Shephard.
Posted by: heddle | February 10, 2010 6:44 PM
1. Of course, Prof. Heddle, as is usually the case, is ull of crap relative to his claims that Yeshua of Nazareth was a Christian. Yeshua, if he existed at all, was the leader of a particular Jewish sect that was competing with the the authorities who ran the temple in Jerusalem. He was considered a threat to those authorities as he seriously questioned the way they were running things (e.g. allowing money changers to conduct business in the temple). Rather unfair to blame Jews in general for the transgressions of a handful of corrupt temple authorities, considering that most of the Jewish population of the area never heard of Yeshua, never listened to any of his sermons and wouldn't have know who he was if he walked into a room.
2. The claim that "the Jews executed Yeshua" is, of course, the claim of the Christian Churches for the last 2000 years and is their excuse for antisemitism. There is a kernel of truth in this claim as it was the corrupt temple authorities, whose position he was threatening, who turned him over to the Roman authorities. However, it was the Romans who carried out the execution for alleged acts of sedition as claimed by one of his own followers, Judas Iscariot.
3. The claim relative to the crowd in the square preferring to pardon Barabbas as proof of Jewish animosity toward Yeshua neglects to inform us as to what percentage of the crowd consisted of Jews and what percentage consisted of Arabs. Since Barabbas was an Arab, it is not at all surprising that the Arabs in the audience would prefer to pardon him instead of the Jew, Yeshua.
Posted by: SLC | February 10, 2010 6:49 PM
heddle, on a somewhat pedantic note, if your definition of Christian is one who believes that 'Jesus died for the sins of man and that through faith in him you can acquire salvation' then, technically, Jesus wasn't a Christian at the time he was tried and sentenced (i.e. the persecution part) because at that point he hadn't actually died...
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 10, 2010 6:55 PM
SLC,
(Those corrupt temple authorities were Jews.) So given that the Catholic Church typically turned people over to the civil authorities for execution, I take it you buy the argument that the Catholic Church never executed anyone?
I don't blame Jews for Jesus' death--I am saying that (according to the biblical account) some Jews were complicit in his murder, and therefore some Jews persecuted Jesus (and later, other 1st century Christians) Just like "Jews persecuted Christians" does not mean all or most Jews persecuted Christians, likewise "Christians persecuted Jews", an undeniable fact, does not mean that all, or most Christians persecuted Jews.
Posted by: heddle | February 10, 2010 7:01 PM
Re Heddle
(Those corrupt temple authorities were Jews.) So given that the Catholic Church typically turned people over to the civil authorities for execution, I take it you buy the argument that the Catholic Church never executed anyone?
Yes, the temple authorities were Jews, just like their nemesis Yeshua, just like Cardinal Law, Cardinal Egan, and Cardinal Mahoney are Catholics and Martin Luther was a Protestant . I quite fail to see the good professors point here.
The Jews who were complicit in the execution of Yeshua, assuming that the Muslims are wrong and Judas Iscariot was not the man sent to Calvery in his stead, were the corrupt temple authorities who were only interested in removing a threat to their position. As Mr. Hanley put it, depending on second and third hand accounts written at least 30 years after his death who had their own axes to grind is a rather slippery slope. That's called hearsay and is generally not admitted into evidence in most courts in the Western World.
Posted by: SLC | February 10, 2010 7:26 PM
Heddle,
The problem is, your accusations against the Jews are founded on the same unsubstantiated and (as has been pointed out) rather biased sources as the fundamental story of Christ. If I suggested to you that the story of a controversial figure other than Christ was completely true based upon the statements written by one of their followers thirty (or more) years after the alleged events occurred and that you had to take their word on it as the *only* source of information you'd laugh in my face. The fact that Christians accept the New Testament as the True™ story of Jesus is actually quite mind boggling considering some of those same individuals wont accept a confirmed Hawaiian birth certificate...
Posted by: dogmeatib | February 10, 2010 8:43 PM
"Bullocks. Nazis want Jews dead and have backed it up times six million."
i too feel Weinstien's comparison is an unsupportable stretch - and to me, it was not appropriate to make it. I agree with Prof. Heddle on this one. Implying that this has any comparison with the impact of a swastika makes me shake my head - not because I have any great reverence for a cross, but because of the horror a swatiska carries with it.
Posted by: dean | February 10, 2010 8:51 PM
heddle,
I'm confused. I don't understand how "Jesus died for the sins of man and that through faith in him you can acquire salvation," jibes in with predestination. Previously, you've mentioned dead babies (which certainly didn't have any faith in Christ) as a reason for people to be called Calvanist. I thought that someone was either saved or not. Nothing they did or said would change that, but that only that other people could recognize the saved by their actions. So, isn't your definition excluding Calvanists, or does "acquire" mean something different than "obtain something not possessed earlier"?
Posted by: Shawn Smith | February 10, 2010 9:14 PM
SLC and dogmeat,
I already admitted that at for purposes of the discussion I am going on the basis of the NT accounts being reliable. Otherwise the whole question is moot. It may be that they are fabrications, in which case everything is tossed out the window. We can't say anything about whether Jesus lived, or as SLC pointed out, maybe the Koran is correct and Jesus wasn't executed.
But *if* the NT is correct, then Jews persecuted Christians. I'm not sure why a Jew would take offense--I don't take offense when told that Christians have persecuted Jews, or that white men persecuted black men. It's history and, if it's true, it's agnostic. It's what it is. I don't take credit for what other Christians have done nor do I accept the blame for what they have done.
SLC,
It is not rocket science. If the NT account is true, dismissing the charge of "Jews murdering Jesus" because they were corrupt and turned him over to the Romans would be the same as absolving the Catholic Church from its executions (or for that matter John Calvin from his) because they didn't actually "pull the trigger", they turned the condemned over to civil authorities to carry out the sentence.
dogmeatib,
An irrelevant comment.
Posted by: heddle | February 10, 2010 9:21 PM
Since 1976 some of them have been adolescent females, remember?
Posted by: Shay | February 10, 2010 10:09 PM
Well, maybe they left the atheists alone that week...
Posted by: Greg Laden | February 10, 2010 10:31 PM
Heddle - you stated that Jews persecuted Christians.
The evidence: a collection of badly written, badly translated, badly edited, hearsay from 2nd and 3rd hand sources, that has been re-written and re-jigged several times over the last 2 millennia, that doesn't really prove much at all (even if taken as *ahem* gospel).
Assuming that the accounts are true (and that they didn't contradict each other) what have we got?
A Jew called Jesus (not a Christian since such a thing won't exist until at least 30 years after his death) who belongs to a fundamentalist cult, is arrested by Temple Officials (backed by Roman muscle, probably more to prevent a riot) and is taken in for questioning, on charges of blasphemy. The Temple Officials decide he is guilty and hand him over to the Romans (religious officials usually do this, it helps them claim clean consciences).
However, the local Governor of the Roman Province of Judea, Pilate, isn't convinced this is a Roman problem, besides which he wants to avoid pissing people off in a newly 'invaded', 'powder-keg' province that is such a strategically and economically important area for the Empire (and he wants to go to Ceasarea and relax over the Jewish religious festival).
The Chief Priest, realising that the Romans are not inclined to kill someone for them just because they say so, says that Jesus was claiming to be 'the king of the Jews', a charge the prisoner does not deny. Fearing how Caesar (or rather Aggripa, as Tiberius is lounging around Capri allegedly buggering boys and allegedly killing fishermen, allowing his son-in-law to purge those who, in his paranoid worldview, were plotting to kill him) might react, Pilate makes his decision, allowing the Priests to have their victim.
Several other criminals who threatened the Roman rule (otherwise they would not be crucified, a punishment for plebeian rebels) are also to be killed to cow the crowd.
When Pilate asks which is to be spared, the crowd want Barrabas. Or do they? Was there an exit poll taken of the crowd? What proportion of the crowd were Jewish, exactly? Does their response represent the views of all Jews, does their response represent any Jews? Was there any 'astroturfing', inducements or threats being used?
Alas we will never know.
It's a rather slim basis for your initial bold claim (ignoring the issue of post facto anti-Semitism).
Any other, more plausible examples? - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | February 10, 2010 11:15 PM
So given that the Catholic Church typically turned people over to the civil authorities for execution, I take it you buy the argument that the Catholic Church never executed anyone?
No, for the simple reason that many of the civil authorities, and the laws under which many people were executed, were directly influenced by the power and priorities of the Catholic Church. (The Church had far more influence on lawmaking in Europe than the Jews did in the Roman Empire.) If, for example, a guy was executed for "heresy," the very nature of that crime was defined by the established religion -- which in many cases was the Catholic Church. So in many such cases, yes, the Church was directly responsible for such executions, regardless of who actually did the enforcement.
Posted by: Raging Bee | February 11, 2010 12:32 AM
First of all, heddle, wasn't the death of Jesus - oh, I don't know - necessary for the whole salvation scheme you believe in to work?
I mean, if he had to die to wash your sins away, you really ought to be thanking whoever offed him for you.
Second, stating that Christians and Jews have hurt each other through history is to create a staggeringly false equivalence.
Leaving aside purely interpersonal harm - like when a Jewish person and a Christian date and one breaks the other's heart, or crimes like robbery and murder where the victim's or perpetrator's religion is not an issue, here's how it breaks down:
Christian on Jew harm: Centuries of religious-inspired pogroms, expulsions, forced conversions, executions of the converted because they might not have meant it, ghettoing*, and a large contribution to a culture of anti-semitism that led to non-violent oppressions like excluding Jews from certain/many/all professions, taxing Jews more heavily than Christians, forcing Jews to listen to Christian sermons in hopes of converting them, forcing Jews to take part in humiliating carnivals, and I could go on.
Jew on Christian harm: Possibly killing Jesus, who can hardly be said to be a Christian as Christian means "follower of Christ" and I defy you to follow yourself. Also Jesus probably didn't exist and even if he did the accounts of his death are decades after the fact, written by partisans, and wildly unreliable. Oh, and that happened (or didn't happen, more likely) almost 2000 years ago.
Yeah, looks about even to me.
Honestly, what is your PROBLEM?
*Invented by Pope Pius IX, IIRC.
Posted by: KristinMH | February 11, 2010 12:46 AM
"Americaphile Ministries," AKA Ralph, is The Compleat Loon. Not only does he indulge in the dreaded ALL CAPS, but he appears to be addicted to acronyms as well -- so much so, in fact, that his diatribes are pretty much incomprehensible. What is clear is that, in addition to being in the dark about the Catholic/Christian thing, he hates women. He hates us very, very much indeed.
It saddens me to see so many hate-filled crazy people on the net. On the other hand, there's us. I hope that for every Ralph, there is both a Mikey Weinstein and an Ed Brayton. Yay for sane people!
Posted by: Leigh Williams | February 11, 2010 2:03 AM
Does this 'Americaphile Ministries' person look like this, by any chance? - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | February 11, 2010 2:15 AM
Oh god ...
Pro-Tip: Christianity as a label is useless.
The Early Christian sects took on many different forms and placed greater emphasis on particular gospels over others (or completely ignored half the modern literature and/or adopted non-canonical literature). At best a "Christian" is one who believes a dude named Jesus taught "something" in a specific region and was then crucified. Everything else added to this very basic backbone, such as his specific teachings, the nature of his body, the reason of the crucifixion, and any post-crucifixion events is completely dependent on the specific sect of Christianity being discussed.
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | February 11, 2010 3:58 AM
What a muddled analogy. The Jews, as a race of people, cannot be equated to an organisation such as the Catholic Church. The best you can do is blame the particular Jewish authorities at that time.
Posted by: joe | February 11, 2010 4:16 AM
Joe,
Bullshit. I am not blaming the Jews as a race, I am blaming some particular Jews--in fact those in authority, just like you said, and just like I said several times already. Just like I don't blame all Catholics for persecuting Jews, but some particular Catholics. Try again.
KristinMH,
Yeah, what's your point?
Bullshit here too. Did I say it was even? Do persecutions have to be even or they are not persecutions? Oh, and Jesus can't be a Christian because he can't follow himself?--does that mean Darwin can't be an evolutionist? Stalin can't be a Stalinist? Calvin was not a Calvinist? Is a Christian not defined by what he thinks about Jesus? Would Jesus (at least in principle, for the sake of argument) not agree with the basics of what Christians think about him, the very things that make them Christians? The very things that Jews deny about him?
DJ,
For the third time, I admit that charges that Jews persecuted Christians are based on the biblical accounts. And of course it wasn't just Jesus, Paul as Saul made his name imprisoning and killing Christians. As for it being antisemitism post-facto or whatever: bite me. I don't fall for the line of reasoning that "Jews were complicit in murdering Jesus" means you are antisemitic. It might be false if the accounts are false, and it might have been used at times as part of the justification for antisemitism, but if it is true, which is what I am assuming, then it is simply a fact. Take your cheap "argument by intimidation" elsewhere, because it won't work on me.
??? Do any persecutions of one group against another represent the views of all? Are you always careful to say that By proportion, only a tiny percentage of Catholics every persecuted anyone? Only a tiny percentage of white men have persecuted black men? Or do you allow it to be understood (except in this case.)
Posted by: heddle | February 11, 2010 5:35 AM
The cadets who did this sure weren't bothered by that honor code thingy the military goes on and on about.
Posted by: John Norris | February 11, 2010 12:49 PM
Umlud @8: Why not just have the Wiccans appropriate the cross and use it as a scaffold upon which to hang offerings? If the Xtians don't like it, then they shouldn't have given them the cross to begin with. (No takesy-backsies!)
IMO this is the best response - expropriate it. Nail some coat hangers onto it and use it as a coat rack. Start a collection of "symbols people have left on our property" and call it the wall of shame. Or whatever.
If putting it there wasn't a hate crime, then expropriating it can't be either.
Posted by: eric | February 11, 2010 2:06 PM
eric #72,
I agree --that's what I'd do (what Umlud said at 8). (Assuming they can't really turn the culprits into newts, which would be somewhat better.)
Posted by: heddle | February 11, 2010 3:19 PM
Heddle, I was going to respond to you, but whatever. There is no reasoning with you, you enormous jerk. This has to be a new low.
Posted by: KristinMH | February 11, 2010 3:37 PM
KristinMH,
Often my comments are greeted by "Heddle, that has to be the dumbest thing you ever said, which is saying something!" etc. So you are probably right. It probably is a new low. Whatever it is you are talking about.
Posted by: heddle | February 11, 2010 4:07 PM
heddle: "Assuming they can't really turn the culprits into newts"
A certain scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail comes to mind.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | February 11, 2010 4:43 PM
It gets worse. The atheist cadets snuck in and left a big nothing.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | February 11, 2010 6:28 PM