Some religions are most oriented to worshiping the here-and-now. The god/empire/country/king is all goodness, and we must merely submit and await our orders.
Other religions encourage something a little different. A critical examination of the here-and-now and especially the powerful within it, and standing up for the currently oppressed.
I imagine seeing this distinction between Sunni and Shia Islam. Sunni Islam is the religion of the grandest kings, who are to be respected. Shia Islam is the religion of internally squabbling republics. (The approach of sticking with the original family means generally falling away from newly rising kings, and adopting a more critical stance over time to the powers-that-be.)
I see Judaism as having had both tendencies, which may be differentially reinforced. Endless study of the Torah and the Talmud by the highly religious coincided with a critical attitude towards the powerful in the here-and-now, in general, I think, which I think coincided with the Diaspora Epoch starting in the first century and ending in 1948. (This continues today for the Anti-Zionist (they dislike the qualifier "ultra") Orthodox...and a growing subset of disaffected anti- and non- zionist leftist jews including many jewish athiests.) A troubled State has coincided in the Zionist age with suppression and repression of critical dissent along with a tilt toward right wing national supremacism. "Sunni" Judaism.
I believe the earlier age of Jewishness and Judaism was responsible for the greatest contributions of Jews to western society. Jews were far beyond their numbers in contributing to political reform, scientific progress, and other areas.
Within Judaism, the more critical of the powers-that-be segments in the first century were attracted to Christianity, Jesus himself (or themselves) being of them. Some, like Paul and Peter became nominal Christians, whereas others retained their Jewish principle identity, and went into diaspora with the Jews, so the left wing never left the Jews, but also remained among them, and became self-reinforcing in diaspora, becoming a powerful positive force in western society.
Meanwhile, the less critical elements have sometimes joined in corrupt embrace of the powers that be*, becoming rich and powerful themselves, and sometimes rightfully attracting hate for corruption (and now State violence too), but having that hate misdirected away from corrupt central authorities most often toward the less powerful, especially the left wing, who are smeared not because actually guilty, but because it's harmless to those smearing them because it is not stepping on the toes of the powers that be.
(*There's a long list, including Medici, Rothschild, Adelson, Kushner, etc.)
Meanwhile, it accomplishes no actual good to create a Zionist State. This creates even more corrupt alliances with the rich and powerful, thereby adding to the fuel for antisemitism, of which some criticism is not essentially racist but merely critical, and critically important. In the modern world, having a separate State adds no protection, only greater vulnerabilities, which need to be constantly addressed. Needless to say this leads to repression and suppression of critical dissent, and an attempt to impose those elsewhere.
The best approach has always been to address anti-Semitism where it is and not try to hide from it. When it includes valid criticism of the powers that be, that part should be agreed to. The rest need not be dealt with in shame.
The Holocaust was a vast failure, but it stemmed not from mere anti-Semitism but from an even larger failure, World War II, one of the most catastrophic events in human history (so far) and Jews were not the only ones murdered on a near genocidal scale. It is not representative of the general high degree of successful Jewish adaptation, assimilation, and success which existed previously in the epoch of diaspora which had tended to make the world a much better place.
The path to avoiding Holocausts mainly involves primarily preventing World Wars. The Zionist State is no insurance or assistance to that end.
Other religions encourage something a little different. A critical examination of the here-and-now and especially the powerful within it, and standing up for the currently oppressed.
I imagine seeing this distinction between Sunni and Shia Islam. Sunni Islam is the religion of the grandest kings, who are to be respected. Shia Islam is the religion of internally squabbling republics. (The approach of sticking with the original family means generally falling away from newly rising kings, and adopting a more critical stance over time to the powers-that-be.)
I see Judaism as having had both tendencies, which may be differentially reinforced. Endless study of the Torah and the Talmud by the highly religious coincided with a critical attitude towards the powerful in the here-and-now, in general, I think, which I think coincided with the Diaspora Epoch starting in the first century and ending in 1948. (This continues today for the Anti-Zionist (they dislike the qualifier "ultra") Orthodox...and a growing subset of disaffected anti- and non- zionist leftist jews including many jewish athiests.) A troubled State has coincided in the Zionist age with suppression and repression of critical dissent along with a tilt toward right wing national supremacism. "Sunni" Judaism.
I believe the earlier age of Jewishness and Judaism was responsible for the greatest contributions of Jews to western society. Jews were far beyond their numbers in contributing to political reform, scientific progress, and other areas.
Within Judaism, the more critical of the powers-that-be segments in the first century were attracted to Christianity, Jesus himself (or themselves) being of them. Some, like Paul and Peter became nominal Christians, whereas others retained their Jewish principle identity, and went into diaspora with the Jews, so the left wing never left the Jews, but also remained among them, and became self-reinforcing in diaspora, becoming a powerful positive force in western society.
Meanwhile, the less critical elements have sometimes joined in corrupt embrace of the powers that be*, becoming rich and powerful themselves, and sometimes rightfully attracting hate for corruption (and now State violence too), but having that hate misdirected away from corrupt central authorities most often toward the less powerful, especially the left wing, who are smeared not because actually guilty, but because it's harmless to those smearing them because it is not stepping on the toes of the powers that be.
(*There's a long list, including Medici, Rothschild, Adelson, Kushner, etc.)
Meanwhile, it accomplishes no actual good to create a Zionist State. This creates even more corrupt alliances with the rich and powerful, thereby adding to the fuel for antisemitism, of which some criticism is not essentially racist but merely critical, and critically important. In the modern world, having a separate State adds no protection, only greater vulnerabilities, which need to be constantly addressed. Needless to say this leads to repression and suppression of critical dissent, and an attempt to impose those elsewhere.
The best approach has always been to address anti-Semitism where it is and not try to hide from it. When it includes valid criticism of the powers that be, that part should be agreed to. The rest need not be dealt with in shame.
The Holocaust was a vast failure, but it stemmed not from mere anti-Semitism but from an even larger failure, World War II, one of the most catastrophic events in human history (so far) and Jews were not the only ones murdered on a near genocidal scale. It is not representative of the general high degree of successful Jewish adaptation, assimilation, and success which existed previously in the epoch of diaspora which had tended to make the world a much better place.
The path to avoiding Holocausts mainly involves primarily preventing World Wars. The Zionist State is no insurance or assistance to that end.
No comments:
Post a Comment