"The data, however, do indicate that Christians who see Jews through a 17th-century lens, believing that most are thoroughly religious, are thoroughly wrong"
About this Quote
Olasky’s sentence is built like a polite correction that lands as a rebuke. The “however” is doing more than linking clauses; it signals a confrontation between inherited story and measured reality. By invoking a “17th-century lens,” he doesn’t merely accuse readers of being misinformed. He frames their misconception as an artifact - a stubborn cultural fossil - suggesting that some Christian perceptions of Jews are less about actual Jewish life than about old theology, old polemics, and old social distance.
The rhetorical punchline is the mirrored phrasing: “thoroughly religious” and “thoroughly wrong.” It’s tidy, almost journalistic, but also moralizing: the problem isn’t just that the stereotype is inaccurate; it’s that it has been held with an intensity (“thoroughly”) that deserves an equally emphatic takedown. That parallelism turns “data” into a kind of ethical instrument, implying that facts should discipline habits of mind.
Subtext: this isn’t only about Jews. It’s about how religious communities construct “the other” through outdated templates. For some Christians, imagining Jews as uniformly devout can feel respectful on the surface, but it also keeps Jews trapped in a biblical tableau - useful as symbols, less welcome as contemporary people with internal diversity, secularism, politics, and ordinary modernity.
Context matters because Olasky is an educator and public intellectual working in spaces where faith and public discourse collide. He’s staking out a corrective: if interfaith understanding is going to be more than sentimental talk, it has to begin with the uncomfortable admission that even “positive” stereotypes can be a form of misrecognition.
The rhetorical punchline is the mirrored phrasing: “thoroughly religious” and “thoroughly wrong.” It’s tidy, almost journalistic, but also moralizing: the problem isn’t just that the stereotype is inaccurate; it’s that it has been held with an intensity (“thoroughly”) that deserves an equally emphatic takedown. That parallelism turns “data” into a kind of ethical instrument, implying that facts should discipline habits of mind.
Subtext: this isn’t only about Jews. It’s about how religious communities construct “the other” through outdated templates. For some Christians, imagining Jews as uniformly devout can feel respectful on the surface, but it also keeps Jews trapped in a biblical tableau - useful as symbols, less welcome as contemporary people with internal diversity, secularism, politics, and ordinary modernity.
Context matters because Olasky is an educator and public intellectual working in spaces where faith and public discourse collide. He’s staking out a corrective: if interfaith understanding is going to be more than sentimental talk, it has to begin with the uncomfortable admission that even “positive” stereotypes can be a form of misrecognition.
Quote Details
| Topic | Faith |
|---|
More Quotes by Marvin
Add to List
