Dem
47
GOP
53
Yesterday, we ran several letters from Jewish readers about extremism in the Abrahamic traditions. Today, we have three responses to those letters, and then several more messages that were sent to us after we wrote the initial item that launched this discussion:
F.Z. in Cupertino, CA, writes: The letter from J.P. in Lancaster put me in mind of the famous quote by Nobel Laureate Stephen Weinberg: "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
J.P. in Lancaster, PA, writes: It occurred to me after writing my previous comments that if Jesus came back and showed up in the United States, the same people who say they worship him would very likely slap him in a prison for the purpose of eventually deporting him. He is, after all, from the Middle East and would very likely look like a Middle Eastern person. He definitely would be unlikely to have blonde hair and blue eyes, as he is often depicted.
T.R. in Vancouver, BC, Canada, writes: S.E.Z. in New Haven writes that "The Ayatollahs of Iran, and the Khamenei family in particular, have loudly and proudly advertised the fact that they want all Jews out of the Middle East" and that "All Israelis I have ever heard of, Ben-Gvir and his allies included, are only asking for an end to the incoming missiles that threaten lives of all Israelis." Both statements are untrue. Iran itself has a small Jewish population, which is officially recognized as a religious minority and allocated a seat in the Iranian parliament. Iranian leaders have made extremely hostile statements about Israel and Zionism, but (unlike the Israeli government) they are careful not to conflate Israelis or Zionists with Jews generally. S.E.Z.'s second claim is like kicking a hornet's nest and then saying "All I ask for is for the hornets to stop stinging me." There weren't any incoming Iranian missiles before Israel and the U.S. attacked Iran, so if you don't want missiles, maybe don't do that?
L.C. in Brookline, MA, writes: You wrote: "Beyond being members of different Abrahamic traditions, is there really all that much difference between Pete Hegseth, Itamar Ben-Gvir and, say, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei? At best, they embrace extremely violent, grossly corrupted versions of the religions they claim to profess. At worst, they don't really believe at all, and are merely using their religion as a cloak to advance their political agenda." The track record of all of the major religions (with an argument for a partial exception for Buddhism) shows that for the overwhelming majority of their existence, they have ALWAYS been about violence, corruption, and cruelty in the enforcement of absolute loyalty of those they infect, however much they talk a big game advertising the contrary. They didn't get to be major religions in the first place by not being violent, cruel, and corrupt.
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY, writes: I'm not going to comment on the religious irony of people professing allegiance to the God of Abraham and Isaac ignoring his more recent commandments, but I do think it's historically ironic for a nation founded largely to make some kind of reparation for the Holocaust, who last used capital punishment for someone responsible (at least in part) for that same Holocaust, to single out one religious and ethnic minority for their return to the death penalty. That is, as my mom would say, the height of something or other.
J.R. in Woodworth, LA, writes: You guys are right, of course. I have long maintained that many—if not most—people who would have others believe that their politics is shaped by their religion have it exactly backwards: In actuality, their religion is shaped by their politics. Further, "their" religion is not really even theirs; as you suggested, they are merely hangers-on to the religion of the majority of those around them which they can put to use as a "cloak" of whatever variety of respectability they need to gain and exercise political power.
M.M. in San Diego, CA, writes: You wrote, "is there really all that much difference between Pete Hegseth, Itamar Ben-Gvir and, say, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?" No, there isn't. They, and many of their fellow travelers, are religious bigots, rationalizing their prejudices by pretzel twisting doctrine, which is so much easier than actually practicing their faith as it's intended.
S.B. in Hood River, OR, writes: As someone who has studied religion quite a bit over the years, you are very much correct. Overwhelmingly the fundamentalists are extremely similar in many ways. Their world view is very hostile to other faiths, and they have similar attitudes to things like the role of women, views about sexuality and skepticism about science. There is an online author who I very much appreciate who recently did a series of articles comparing Protestant and Muslim fundamentalists. The conclusion is that they map closely on pretty much every issue except for one: The Muslims much more seriously believe that taking care of the needy is a mandate.
J.C. in Fez, Morocco, writes: I think you're right on target, with one caveat. War is okay for Jews, and okay for Muslims. Moses and Mohammed (pbuh) engaged in warfare. While none of the three Abrahamic faiths calls for terrorism at their root, when a Christian engages in such violent rhetoric, he (and it's almost always he) is directly denying what Jesus Christ called for, and rejecting his faith.
D.H. in Durham, NC, writes: In response to your question as to whether there is really much difference between Pete Hegseth, Itamar Ben-Gvir, and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, my answer is: no. The commonality is that each is part of the fundamentalist wing of their respective religions. The issue that your question itself clearly brings into focus is that fundamentalism in any form is extremely dangerous. As a decidedly non-fundamentalist Christian pastor, it sickens me that so much of the current damage is being done by elements of the church, and even in the name of Christ. This is not the work of the Jesus I know, who always invited more and different people to the table, favored justice over political power, always took the side of the poor over the rich, and identified himself with "the least of these." Fundamentalist Christians spouting the white Christian nationalist heresy are as dangerous to our society and world as any other type of fundamentalist.
This last letter brings up something we have been meaning to mention, and that bears watching. Needless to say, there are many Christians in the U.S. who don't want any piece of what MAGA, Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth represent. And the most prominent of those Christians is Pope Leo XIV.
It's a pretty safe conclusion, at this point, that the College of Cardinals did not "just happen" to choose an American pope while Donald Trump was in office. The College, chosen substantially by the theologically moderate-to-liberal, and breaking-down-walls-focused Pope Francis, was clearly distressed by Trump's anti-immigrant policies and rhetoric, and the forces he was helping to encourage around the globe. Leo was chosen to push back against that—cautious and highly diplomatic pushback, perhaps, but pushback nonetheless.
And then... war in Iran. Leo does not approve of that at all, and he REALLY doesn't approve of threats to eliminate an entire civilization. So, his pushback is getting less cautious and less diplomatic. Yesterday, he issued a strongly worded statement that included this declaration:
Today, as we all know, there has also been this threat against the entire people of Iran. And this is truly unacceptable! There are certainly issues of international law here, but even more, it is a moral question concerning the good of the people as a whole, in its entirety.
The Vicar of Christ insisted that the only option was to commence peace talks immediately.
And as Leo grows more openly anti-MAGA, MAGA appears to be growing more openly anti-Catholic. We've already shared the eX-Twitter posting from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who is an evangelical, in which he endorses a conspiracy theory that Catholics are behind a shadowy conspiracy to destroy the United States. Laura Loomer has taken aim at Leo himself, decreeing that he is "anti-Trump, anti-MAGA, pro-open Borders, and a total Marxist like Pope Francis." And on right-wing social media (which we track), there are a growing number of people writing that Catholicism isn't really Christianity, and that it's basically just warmed-over paganism.
We point this out because there are a lot of Catholics in the United States, including a great many of the Latinos and Latinas that the GOP has been longing to bring into the fold. If the Republicans become the anti-Catholic party, not unlike the Know Nothings of the antebellum era, then that could represent a critical new dynamic in American politics. Many of the blue-collar men that MAGA won over are white or brown people who come from Catholic traditions (not only Latinos and Latinas, but Poles, Italians, and a few other groups). That is why this bears watching. (Z)