OK, I think I figured out what the fuck is going on with “cultural christianity” discourse.
Disclaimer: Cultural christianity originally meant, and possibly still means in some places, the following of some Christian rituals (such as Christmas and Easter) by non-Christians and such. This is not about that. This is about “cultural christianity” in the rancid discourse sense.
So, religions seem to consist of two major parts: the theological/philosophical elements and the practices. Most religions in historically literate societies include elements of both. A lot of (mostly secular) Jewish people on tumblr view religion as almost solely practice, with the theology and philosophy as window-dressing. A lot of other people view religion as primarily the theological/philosophical elements, with the rituals as window-dressing. Some see claiming membership in a religion as explicitly endorsing the theological/philosophical elements. (looking at you, @official-kircheis)
“Cultural christianity” in the discourse sense, insofar as it has a definition, seems to refer to the view that religion is primarily the theological and philosophical elements (c “Judaism is an orthopraxy and not an orthodoxy!”). Obviously, this is somewhat unreasonable, given that prioritising theology over practice, if it originated anywhere, originated in Buddhism, not Christianity, and is shared with Buddhism, Islam, and some varieties of Hinduism. However, most Tumblr Jews don’t know much about Hinduism, Buddhism, or Islam, and most people they interact with on tumblr don’t come from a Hindu, Buddhist, or Muslim background (I should note that I come from a Hindu background), so they assumed that this was a primarily Christian phenomenon.
Atheists (including me) generally oppose the theological and philosophical elements of religion for being generally incorrect and often directly opposed to sanity, factuality, and reason. We also generally oppose deleterious (typically here meaning “coercive”) practices. However, we generally don’t oppose harmless rituals and don’t think there’s any reason for them to go away. (c @evilsoup’s reference to painting easter eggs)
However, many tumblr Jews are already secular, and have more or less already abandoned the theological elements of their religion (other than a vague belief in some sort of creator god) and the more deleterious practices, and for them, their religion is primarily the harmless rituals, and so, when atheists talk about “eliminating religion”, they don’t hear “eliminating belief in God and atavistic coercive practices”, they hear “we want you to give up harmless cultural practices”, which atheists don’t actually want to do. This is where the defensive discourse autopilot comes in.
Basically, I think that to a substatial extent, the main issue here is two different definitions of “religion”, and one of those definition being (incorrectly) identified as uniquely Christian.
(There are some other things lumped into “cultural christanity” other than christian practices and the view of religion as primarily theological: the one that comes to mind is IIRC @vaspider’s assertion that Marxist revolutionary thought is reskinned messianism, which I actually agree with; however, messianism is not unique to Christianity; the Christian notion of the messiah originates from Judaism, which may have in turn imported it from an early form of Zoroastrianism; in any case, the idea of a messianic figure appears in most forms of Hinduism, some forms of Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Samaritanism, Judaism, Islam, and Mesoamerican traditional religion, at a very minimum. I think that this is once again an incorrect assertion that a much broader thing in religions is actually unique to Christianity.)
Um.
I can’t speak for anybody else, but… no, you’re way off on a lot of your presuppositions, so the end conclusions cannot be correct.
Trying to divide Jews into “religious Jews” and “secular Jews” misses the point entirely. Jews are Jews. Period.
But for the sake of argument, even trying to divide Jews into “secular Jews” and “religious Jews” fails, because even within ourselves we talk about a minimum of four different types of Jews (see: the four fruits of Sukkot). So even if I concede the idea of there being meaningful divisions between “types of Jews,” the only time this comes up is when we engage in symbolism which specifically says “and that’s why our community isn’t whole unless we have all kinds of Jews!”
I’m not even going to get into your assumption that those of us having these conversations don’t know anything about Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc. except to point out that in Tumblr discussions it is generally considered at best déclassé to speak for other minority-in-the-US practice and belief by … well, most people. It’s not my place to try to explain other people’s systems of belief - only to speak for my own.
When I talk about Cultural Christianity, I’m speaking not just about “painting Easter eggs,” but about the means in which being raised in a primarily Xian environment affects not just one’s belief in a Supreme Deity, but the ways in which that affects one’s view of the following non-exhaustive list of topics:
“Sin” or “wrong action”, including whether or not one can sin by thought alone
Gender and gender roles
Sexuality
The concept of a division between religion and greater culture
Religion and faith as a thing one individually attests rather than being initiated into by the extant members
Punishment vs. Rehabilitation
The assumption of government on which holidays are “default” holidays
The assumption that one must be a “religious” member of another culture or faith to celebrate its holidays, such that a “secular” Jew might encounter difficulty in getting legal protections for time off for those holidays from work (filed under: things I’ve actually seen)
The assumption that certain (Xian) holidays can and should be celebrated in a “secular” manner by members of other cultures and that doing so is harmless and not in fact a means of enforcing a Dominant Xian Homogenous Culture on others
The assumption that all religions/faiths contain a focus on the afterlife as a primary goal, rather than the life we’re currently living
The assumption that all faiths even have a solid conception of an afterlife
A consistent tendency to refer to Xianity itself as a singular religion instead of a grouping of related religions, some of which really really hate each other and view each other as totally illegitimate
A tendency to speak of all Xianity as if it’s all American Protestantism
An assumption that the rest of us are individually focused as opposed to community focused.
And so many more things. I’m extremely aware of a lot of these things because I brought a lot of assumptions to the process by which I was adopted by Abraham and Sarah and became their kid, and it’s been a process of stripping back those assumptions. So like, a lot of those things? Those are things I know exist because I had to deal with them inside of me. There are a lot of basic assumptions about how the world works that come with Xianity, and just not believing in Jesus anymore doesn’t get rid of those things. When I talk about Cultural Xianity, that is part of what I mean.
But.
The root of the issue that a lot of people have taken, very patiently and at great length, with @evilsoup and those who have defended their central thesis, is at the statement that in a utopia where everyone’s material needs are met, “your people (that is, Judaism) will naturally cease to exist.”
You see how that’s a problem, right?
You see how that’s a threat, right?
You understand how saying “Judaism will cease to exist” not only flies in the face of 6000 years of evidence to the contrary, but sounds like a threat to us, yes?
You understand that this assumption, that “if we let the Jews fully participate in [French] culture, they’ll stop being Jews [and become French, which is a Christian culture],” is almost word for word the Napoleonic plan for the elimination of Judaism in France, right? He let the Jews out of the ghettos, thinking that if our material needs were met and if we were fully brought into society, we’d just stop being Jews. That was literally the whole plan.
This isn’t new, this assumption that we are only Jewish bc there is some sort of unmet physical need. It’s exactly what a lot of antisemites have said in the past. So when we hear quack quack quack quack coming up the road, we think, ah yes, that’s Napoleon’s Duck again.
There is no way to say, “Your people will cease existing,” which isn’t a threat. It goes like this:
“In this situation, your people will cease existing.”
“No, we won’t do that. We will choose to continue to exist unless you force us to stop.”
So now what? Either generic-you forces us to stop being Jews or Judaism (and Jews) continues to exist.
Either way, a) the central thesis of evilsoup’s thesis is wrong, and b) we’re not speaking for anyone else, just for us. That doesn’t mean we don’t know anything about other faiths or peoples, just that we’re speaking only for us.
This feels like missing the point? Evilsoup is positing that religion exists and continues for a particular reason, once this reason is no longer present, it will start to die out. Which does seem to be happening across much of the developed world, less than 2% of people in England attend CofE services regularly.
There’s more than zero reason to think that people will stop being religious, or at least it will drastically decline, as living standards increase and discrimination decreases.
You’re interpreting it as, fundamentally a value judgement, other people are seeing it primarily as a cause effect model.
“We will continue to exist until you force us to stop” isn’t a thing you get to say because it isn’t about you, or how you feel or how even anyone alive today feels. It’s about how your descendants will feel, having grown up in a much better world. Claiming that they will obviously feel the same way you do strikes me as pretty presumptuous!
So a) you cited Christianity in a discussion specifically about how you can’t generalize Christianity
B) is not presumptuous to say “an assumption that people like me won’t exist in your perfect world is real icky”. It’s not presumptuous to say that a culture that has survived millennia through good and bad is not going to just stop, that’s just pattern recognition.
I think it’s actually pretty reasonable to compare abrahamic religions to each other. As for B, you could say exactly the same thing about Christianity, *and yet*
The notion evilsoup is putting forward is literally just “opiate of the masses” and who, throughout history, has been more in need of comfort and a positive common identity than Jews. I would not at all be surprised to see that identification with Judaism declines alongside declines in antisemitism.
At this point I can’t tell if you just don’t understand what words mean or if you’re deliberately being obtuse here but “cultural genocide” doesn’t mean “people stop doing this without being forced to,” “religion is an opiate of the masses” was a Christian statement about how Christianity in particular divorces people from their material environment, a thing Judaism specifically does not do, and your head is so far up your ass you could lick your duodenum.
Fuck’s sake.
Where exactly did you get the impression that Marx was talking about only Christianity?
Also, I’m talking about cultural genocide in that way because that’s how you seem to be talking about it. Nothing evilsoup said implies a desire for cultural genocide, just a sincere belief in the idea that religion is the opiate of the masses, and that Judaism is included within that phrase.
The notion that Judaism isn’t included in that phrase strikes me as somewhat ludicrous. The notion that there is some agentic creator that is responsible for the universe and that cares about humans seems like an obviously soothing notion is a critical element of most monotheistic religions!
Because Marx’s presuppositions only fit Christianity, you fucking sealion.
Good lord, what a waste of syllables you are. Goodbye.
Couple things to add to this:
There’s never been a time where religion and faith were ‘unneeded’. Anti-theists predict such a time is rapidly approaching and have for.. uh… like 2,000 odd years or so.
There’s no reasonable basis for this hypothesis. Sure, there’s more people who aren’t particularly religious, today, compared to 200 years ago… but it comes in waves. Always has. For a -long- time during what is now considered the ‘Dark Ages’ there was a -huge- dearth of faith among peasants in (Christian) medieval Europe, and records indicate that various concessions and shortcuts (like the Christian focus on the 10 commandments and 7 deadly sins) were specifically made to ‘dumb down’ Christianity for people.
Add in jewish people with their faith being much more accessible (since you didn’t need someone to read it to you from Latin) and retained and you had a minority outgroup to attack as part of 'reigniting’ Christianity in Europe.
(And don’t get me started on the Moors in Spain being essentially the beginning of anti-black racism rising out of Christianity)
2. Religion is philosophical but also -spiritual-, and many humans enjoy their spiritual aspects and hopes for their family/connection to their history.
No matter how hard you divide the human body down to atoms and subatomic particles before dramatically screaming 'Where’s the soul?!’ people will find comfort within the idea that there is an immortal aspect to themselves, and to those they love, which continues on perpetually.
There will always be people who find comfort in looking back upon the line of their ancestors and find strength and love in what they do. Who take comfort and hold memories tied to various rituals and moments.
And, of course, there will always be -community- and -connection- within religion and religious spaces.
Anti-Theists think the world will eventually stop having religion because they see themselves as 'right’ and everyone else as 'wrong’ and believe that, eventually, everyone will be 'right’.
But the truth is? There’s no reason to believe religion will ever die out. Not even -specific- religions, like Christianity. It’s just stubborn desire to be 'right’
The purpose of myth and ritual is not “convince an uncaring universe to give you a better afterlife.” It is “be human and relate to each other in ways the uncaring universe does not.”
There is no amount of material prosperity or enlightened communication that will eliminate that need.
