Agreed that communion wafers are a better analogy than punches in the face, and that the offense is a product of cultural indoctrination. (That said, the question of how offensive a punch in the face is is not completely separable from cultural indoctrination, either.)
Disagreed that the truth or falsehood of the belief itself has anything to do with the issue, though.
My getting offended if you disrespect my cultural icons has to do with my (true) belief that I am a member of the culture being disrespected. Someone who identifies as an American might be offended by someone urinating on an American flag in the same way that someone who identifies as a Jew might be offended by someone urinating on a Torah scroll or someone who identifies as the child of their parents might be offended by someone urinating on their parents’ wedding photo; talking about any of that in terms of true or false beliefs seems unnecessarily confused.
My getting offended if you disrespect my cultural icons has to do with my (true) belief that I am a member of the culture being disrespected
Yes—but my feeling is that if you no longer believe X, you should accept the fact that you’re no longer a member of the culture-defined-by-belief-in-X.
In general I am suspicious of the often-heard argument that religion is not really about belief. You only hear this from people looking for an excuse to remain in a tribe they’ve been in their whole life, because (understandably) it’s psychologically difficult to leave a tribe. But sometimes it has to be done—and I see religion, quite frankly, as one of the clearest examples of a case where one simply needs to let go and be over with it.
That’s not to say you can’t embrace your identity as a former religionist. But that’s a distinct cultural identity, involving your fond memories of formerly being offended by sacrilegious acts, as opposed to still currently being offended by them.
That’s not to say you can’t embrace your identity as a former religionist. But that’s a distinct cultural identity, involving your fond memories of formerly being offended by sacrilegious acts, as opposed to still currently being offended by them.
Trouble is, your identity is about much more than that in practice. It’s deeply entangled with your way of life, your family, community, and social network, and also with the way others see and treat you. An offensively blasphemous act may (note: may, depending on the situation) be a credible signal that someone is hostile towards the group you identify with, and given the power to do so, would act so as to endanger your way of life, your community, and perhaps also your personal well-being. (This could range anywhere from making your life miserable in petty ways to outright violence.) In many cases, you must also take into account that those hostile to your group see it as your inherent identity that you can’t disown and escape from even if you wanted to.
With this in mind, often it is irrational to get riled up over some provocative act that is best ignored, or that isn’t even meant to be provocative but has it as an unwanted side-effect. However, sometimes it is also irrational to ignore clear signs of genuine hostility, some of which can plausibly translate into real danger. In the latter case, the visceral reaction is well adapted to reality.
(There are of course also various other cases where it’s less clear if a visceral reaction can be reasonably called “rational,” such as when some instrumental goal is best furthered by throwing a tantrum and creating drama to extract concessions.)
Well, you can be as suspicious as you wish, of course.
And, sure, if I agreed with you that cultural affiliation was contingent on belief—for example, if I agreed that to be Jewish I must embrace whatever theological beliefs are consensually held among Jewish theologians (supposing that there are any, and that I could figure out what beliefs they were)… or at least embrace only theological beliefs that are held by some Jewish theologians (though there’s a circularity there… who counts as a Jewish theologian, after all?), or… well, to be honest, I’m not actually sure what beliefs you’re saying I need to embrace in order to genuinely be Jewish, but regardless, if I agreed with you that there were some beliefs that fell into this category, then it would follow that when I stop believing those beliefs (whatever they are), it follows that I’m no longer Jewish.
But I don’t in fact agree with that—in fact, as above, I’m not sure it’s even coherent enough to disagree with.
Just to make this more concrete: I don’t believe, for example, that the universe was deliberately created by anything remotely person-like, nor that any such entity (supposing I were wrong about that first belief) shares in any singular sense identity with whatever entity or entities provided to early Jews the laws and tribal history currently known as the Torah, nor that those entities have any relationship worth mentioning to do with what happens to me upon my death.
If (as I suspect) you consider Judaism to be contingent on those beliefs, you would conclude that I’m not Jewish, and I would disagree.
Also: you seem to be saying, in addition, that I’m mistaken if I respond to expressed disrespect of Jewish cultural icons as though it were my culture being disrespected (for example, by being offended). I’m not quite sure that’s true, either, leaving aside the whole question of whether it actually is my culture.
I am in no sense a Canadian, for example, but I’m not sure I’d be mistaken if I respond to expressed disrespect of Canadian cultural icons as though it were my culture being disrespected (for example, by being offended on their behalf).
I don’t believe, for example, that the universe was deliberately created by anything remotely person-like, nor that any such entity (supposing I were wrong about that first belief) shares in any singular sense identity with whatever entity or entities provided to early Jews the laws and tribal history currently known as the Torah, nor that those entities have any relationship worth mentioning to do with what happens to me upon my death.
If (as I suspect) you consider Judaism to be contingent on those beliefs, you would conclude that I’m not Jewish
More specifically, what I would conclude is that your self-identification as “Jewish” (rather than “of Jewish parentage”) is a misguided effort to continue affiliating with a tribe that you’re used to belonging to, but that you would never have joined in the first place had you had your current beliefs at the time of joining and had you been taking them into account in deciding which tribe to join; and if, for example, it turned out that you were avoiding the use of electric lights on Saturdays, I would have no hesitation in labeling such behavior as irrational, even silly—and I would be entirely unsympathetic to the extent I viewed the behavior as a tribal affiliation signal rather than, say, a psychological compulsion (which I can understand and relate to).
I am in no sense a Canadian, for example, but I’m not sure I’d be mistaken if I respond to expressed disrespect of Canadian cultural icons as though it were my culture being disrespected (for example, by being offended on their behalf).
In all honesty, I would tend to view that with suspicion also—my instinctive perception would be of an obsequious attempt to curry favor with Canadians. This perception could be overridden, of course, depending on the circumstances; but I would sympathize with disapproval on the part of a non-Canadian more than offense per se.
Mostly, I think the place I disagree with you is that you see the beliefs as primary and the tribal membership as contingent on beliefs, at least when it comes to Judaism, and I see them as largely unrelated.
That is, I no more decided to be Jewish on the basis of religious beliefs than I decided to be American on the basis of national beliefs, and being Jewish no more constrains my Saturday activities than being Hispanic does. They are all affiliations I was born into and choose to endorse, despite not practicing them in traditional ways.
Agreed that communion wafers are a better analogy than punches in the face, and that the offense is a product of cultural indoctrination. (That said, the question of how offensive a punch in the face is is not completely separable from cultural indoctrination, either.)
Disagreed that the truth or falsehood of the belief itself has anything to do with the issue, though.
My getting offended if you disrespect my cultural icons has to do with my (true) belief that I am a member of the culture being disrespected. Someone who identifies as an American might be offended by someone urinating on an American flag in the same way that someone who identifies as a Jew might be offended by someone urinating on a Torah scroll or someone who identifies as the child of their parents might be offended by someone urinating on their parents’ wedding photo; talking about any of that in terms of true or false beliefs seems unnecessarily confused.
Yes—but my feeling is that if you no longer believe X, you should accept the fact that you’re no longer a member of the culture-defined-by-belief-in-X.
In general I am suspicious of the often-heard argument that religion is not really about belief. You only hear this from people looking for an excuse to remain in a tribe they’ve been in their whole life, because (understandably) it’s psychologically difficult to leave a tribe. But sometimes it has to be done—and I see religion, quite frankly, as one of the clearest examples of a case where one simply needs to let go and be over with it.
That’s not to say you can’t embrace your identity as a former religionist. But that’s a distinct cultural identity, involving your fond memories of formerly being offended by sacrilegious acts, as opposed to still currently being offended by them.
Trouble is, your identity is about much more than that in practice. It’s deeply entangled with your way of life, your family, community, and social network, and also with the way others see and treat you. An offensively blasphemous act may (note: may, depending on the situation) be a credible signal that someone is hostile towards the group you identify with, and given the power to do so, would act so as to endanger your way of life, your community, and perhaps also your personal well-being. (This could range anywhere from making your life miserable in petty ways to outright violence.) In many cases, you must also take into account that those hostile to your group see it as your inherent identity that you can’t disown and escape from even if you wanted to.
With this in mind, often it is irrational to get riled up over some provocative act that is best ignored, or that isn’t even meant to be provocative but has it as an unwanted side-effect. However, sometimes it is also irrational to ignore clear signs of genuine hostility, some of which can plausibly translate into real danger. In the latter case, the visceral reaction is well adapted to reality.
(There are of course also various other cases where it’s less clear if a visceral reaction can be reasonably called “rational,” such as when some instrumental goal is best furthered by throwing a tantrum and creating drama to extract concessions.)
Well, you can be as suspicious as you wish, of course.
And, sure, if I agreed with you that cultural affiliation was contingent on belief—for example, if I agreed that to be Jewish I must embrace whatever theological beliefs are consensually held among Jewish theologians (supposing that there are any, and that I could figure out what beliefs they were)… or at least embrace only theological beliefs that are held by some Jewish theologians (though there’s a circularity there… who counts as a Jewish theologian, after all?), or… well, to be honest, I’m not actually sure what beliefs you’re saying I need to embrace in order to genuinely be Jewish, but regardless, if I agreed with you that there were some beliefs that fell into this category, then it would follow that when I stop believing those beliefs (whatever they are), it follows that I’m no longer Jewish.
But I don’t in fact agree with that—in fact, as above, I’m not sure it’s even coherent enough to disagree with.
Just to make this more concrete: I don’t believe, for example, that the universe was deliberately created by anything remotely person-like, nor that any such entity (supposing I were wrong about that first belief) shares in any singular sense identity with whatever entity or entities provided to early Jews the laws and tribal history currently known as the Torah, nor that those entities have any relationship worth mentioning to do with what happens to me upon my death.
If (as I suspect) you consider Judaism to be contingent on those beliefs, you would conclude that I’m not Jewish, and I would disagree.
Also: you seem to be saying, in addition, that I’m mistaken if I respond to expressed disrespect of Jewish cultural icons as though it were my culture being disrespected (for example, by being offended). I’m not quite sure that’s true, either, leaving aside the whole question of whether it actually is my culture.
I am in no sense a Canadian, for example, but I’m not sure I’d be mistaken if I respond to expressed disrespect of Canadian cultural icons as though it were my culture being disrespected (for example, by being offended on their behalf).
More specifically, what I would conclude is that your self-identification as “Jewish” (rather than “of Jewish parentage”) is a misguided effort to continue affiliating with a tribe that you’re used to belonging to, but that you would never have joined in the first place had you had your current beliefs at the time of joining and had you been taking them into account in deciding which tribe to join; and if, for example, it turned out that you were avoiding the use of electric lights on Saturdays, I would have no hesitation in labeling such behavior as irrational, even silly—and I would be entirely unsympathetic to the extent I viewed the behavior as a tribal affiliation signal rather than, say, a psychological compulsion (which I can understand and relate to).
In all honesty, I would tend to view that with suspicion also—my instinctive perception would be of an obsequious attempt to curry favor with Canadians. This perception could be overridden, of course, depending on the circumstances; but I would sympathize with disapproval on the part of a non-Canadian more than offense per se.
Mostly, I think the place I disagree with you is that you see the beliefs as primary and the tribal membership as contingent on beliefs, at least when it comes to Judaism, and I see them as largely unrelated.
That is, I no more decided to be Jewish on the basis of religious beliefs than I decided to be American on the basis of national beliefs, and being Jewish no more constrains my Saturday activities than being Hispanic does. They are all affiliations I was born into and choose to endorse, despite not practicing them in traditional ways.