Let's talk about the charge of deicide. Oh, goody...

I recently had this conversation for the second time at work. Strange origins it may have, but it is interesting to note how it relates to Important Things.

A manager of mine has an interesting way of settling contests amongst workers who desire to be cut from work and clock out early. When more than one person is scheduled to leave at 3 o'clock, for instance, an equal amount of labor would be saved by not having to pay the wage of either one of the employees. Therefore, because neither side has any tactical advantage, a game of "rock, paper, scissors" rules the day. However, this particular permutation of the familiar game is, though harmless, emblematic of distorted perceptions of history common, it seems, in working-class America. This game is called "Jesus, Hitler, Jew".

Let me explain the rules, as they are a wonderful melange of nonsense. Jesus beats Hitler, Hitler beats Jew, Jew beats Jesus. Now, the question is, why? In the traditional game, rock covers paper, (which makes no sense, I must admit) but scissors cutting paper and rock smashing scissors do sort of make sense. (Perhaps rock is supposed to need to breathe or something, and suffocates when paper covers it?) Well, I guess that in the logic of JHJ, Jesus beats Hitler because Hitler is dead, and in Christian theology, God, of whom Jesus is one manifestation, decides when humans are to die, and so, by this logic, Jesus 'took' Hitler. The rule that Hitler beats Jews is as sound as scissors cutting paper, because, historically, his anti-Semitic views and the policies of his government carried out the Holocaust.

The biggest thorn in my side, however, is the charge of deicide levied by the rule of Jews beating Jesus because they are responsible for his death. The game's rules, because they are more morbid than the traditional game and substitute death for dysfunction or destruction in the case of the titular objects, concern responsibility for the death of the archetypes represented in the game. The charge that all Jews share blame for the death of Jesus as a result of the actions of the Pharisees is no longer an official position of the Catholic church, but I have no idea how many Christians do still hold this view. This excuse for anti-Semitism has been levied throughout history as justification for a variety of prejudices and serves in part as the cornerstone of historical European suspicion and xenophobia of Jews.

Now, all this arises, not only out of my problems with some silly game, but because this semi-intelligent manager of mine who proposed the game actually defended the charge of deicide. This is unacceptable.

It is wrong for many reasons, but some are more theological in nature, some, more moral or historical. Let's go through the list and have a look at this issue.

The reason that the charge of deicide can be levied in the first place is because the Bible claims that the Pharisees, who were Jewish leaders, turned Jesus over to the Romans. The Pharisees believed Jesus preached heresy, and the Romans found his views inconvenient for their political power.

Now, one of the great mistakes of the Christian faith in the view of the non-religious is its distorted view of personal responsibility. At the core of its theology is the doctrine of scapegoating, the belief that the sins of a person or group can be absolved by transferring them to another person or animal and punishing or driving away the object that has received sin. The core doctrine holds that no person is good enough for Heaven; only Jesus' sacrifice and belief in him are enough to merit an eternity in Heaven. The convoluted logic states that Jesus' atonement is for Original Sin, which is in this day and age is completely given the lie by all modern genetic study and even passing knowledge of evolution. However, ignoring the issues surrounding Original Sin itself, of which there are many, the doctrine is clear that all humanity bears responsibility for the death of Jesus. It is sin, the sin of all humankind, that necessitates the sacrifice. Therefore, fault for Jesus' death should lie with all people equally (for sinning), or God (who decided to incarnate himself) in this view.

Logically, there is little ground for the charge of deicide to stand. Even taking the events described in the New Testament as accurate (a large leap, I assure you), there is no grounds to accuse the Jews as a whole of killing Jesus. Now, if we posit the Christian system as true, then granted, the Jews do deny on theological grounds the messianic state of Jesus. The Pharisees (if we grant the narrative as truth) did offer Jesus to the Romans. However, this at worst only makes Jews deniers of Christian divinity and the Pharisees guilty by association. No Jew alive today spat on or attacked Jesus, nor drove nails into his flesh, nor flagellated him. No accusation can stand against the man who is not party to the crime. No guilt can be assigned to the blood, no curse to a race. If my brother kills a man, am I tried for his crime? If a white man defrauds a large swath of the population, does that make all white men guilty? There is simply no justifying punishing those who do nothing wrong.

Morally, the charge of deicide has much to answer for in the history of anti-Semitic thought. The charge has historically been levied by Christians either to excuse or to justify their xenophobia and hatred of the Jews. Deicide has been used in troubled times as a matter of convenient scapegoating when the Jews are needed as targets. Now, anti-Semitic thought does not begin and end with such claims, but it does underlie much ugly history of antagonism. This does not make a strong logical argument against deicide, but it does not make it an attractive position to hold.

Please, don't let this line of thought pollute you as well. Don't fall prey to judgement of others for the crimes of their ancestors, their parents, their class, or any other group you can shoehorn them into. Just let man stand and fall on merit alone.