Israel is a real place

Greetings.

Jewish date:  26 ’Elul 5770 (Parashath Ha’azinu).

Today’s holidays:  Ramadan (Islam), Laylat-al-Qadr (Lailat ul Qadr, Lailat-ul Qadr, Night of Power) (Islam), Twenty-Third Sunday of Ordinary Time (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of St. Henry Louis Mencken (Church of the SubGenius).

Topic 1:  A big backlog on anti-Semitism and the Arab-Israeli War:  “Selective Outrage: Israeli Facebook Photos Spark Media Circus”, “Action Alert: CBC Drags a False Equivalence”, “EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: Dramatic Reunion Ten Years After The Photo That Started It All”, “Iranian youth athlete withdraws from fight with Israel competitor” (translation:  Iran would rather force its taekwondo fighters to chicken out like wimps rather than let them lose with honor), “Lancet Editor "Responds" to HR Critique”, “Ha'aretz Journalist's Speaking Tour: Sponsored by Anti-Zionists”, “BBC Panorama Shocker: Balanced Review of Gaza Flotilla Incident”, “Incitement is not one-sided”, “Dead Jews and living trees” (some people have completely missed what the Holocaust is supposed to teach us), “The Root of the Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Classic Islamic View of Jews”, “The Despair of Zion” by Walter Reich, and “Egyptian minister calls on Muslims to flood J’lem” (completely forgetting that any Islamic identity of Yerushalayim is completely forged and that Muslim pilgrims there will be giving money to Jews, directly or indirectly, if they want to eat, sleep, or travel).

Topic 2:  I need to start writing about my pilot trip to Israel, my future home, and I still do not know where to start.  So let us start with something basic which at first sounds ridiculously obvious:  Israel is a real place.  Rationality requires us to try to recognize things as they are, for what they are.  The Israel I visited is not a religious fantasy of a Jewish or ecumenical utopia.  Neither is it a successor to Nazi Germany, as anti-Semites would have us believe.  In many respects, Israel is a lot like the United States, being a fully modern, Western country.  This includes the general rule of law and familiar products and technologies.

So how does Israel differ from the United States?  The most obvious (and relevant to this blog) is that while most of the West is predominantly Christian, Israel is predominantly Jewish.  There is a sizeable Muslim minority, and there are Christians, Bahá’ís, and members of other religions as well; but I stayed within areas with Jewish majorities, and this was reflected even within the secular culture.  (I do plan to go into this further as I discuss my trip.)  And while in the United States people are often not so visibly demonstrative of their religion, people who look religious are everywhere in Israel.  Even in Tel ’Aviv, the great bastion of Israeli secularism, there were some people who were visibly observant Jews, including one woman I talked with at a company at which I interviewed.  To be sure, there are enclaves, and whole neighborhoods are set up with particular religious groups in mind.  But in many places, people of different religious strains mix freely and without incident.  This includes on buses; despite what you may have heard about Ḥaredhim (sometimes derisively called “ultra-Orthodox”) holding by segregated buses, I saw plenty riding ordinary, mixed buses.

Israel is also a visibly multilingual society.  In the United States, government-issue signs (such as for traffic and street names) are usually only in English.  In Israel, they are typically in Hebrew, the international language English, and Arabic.  And while the most common language spoken on the street and found in non-governmental signs is indeed Hebrew, I also encountered a fair share of English, Arabic, Russian, Spanish, French, Yiddish, and what was probably Amharic.  One may also easily end up talking to people in languages other than Hebrew.  Someone at one synagogue did try speaking to me in Yiddish, which I do not know.  (I got a C in Yiddish in college and have made no attempts to study it since.)  Several people, upon hearing my American accent even when speaking Hebrew, switched to addressing me in English.  (I myself must admit guilt at switching too frequently from Hebrew to English when I had trouble making myself understood in Hebrew.  Hebrew is not my native language, and it requires more mental effort for me to speak or understand.  And I am under the impression that my accent is not the easiest for Israelis to understand either.)

I need to move on to other things today.  I hope to write about the Old City of Yerushalayim tomorrow.

Topic 3:  For today’s religious humor: “The transition”:

And again, if anyone knows anything about where this notion of black cats being evil comes from, please let me know.

Peace.

Aaron

We must stop the enemy from cutting down trees in their own territory!

Greetings.

Jewish date:  Jewish date:  24 ’Av 5770 (Parashath Re’eh).

Today’s holidays:  Feast Day of John Vianney (Roman Catholicism), Feast Day of St. Charles Addams (Church of the SubGenius).

Worthy cause of the day:  “Tell Mott's: get the scabs out of your applesauce!”.

Topic 1:  More anti-Semitism:  Lebanon’s unprovoked attack on Israel yesterday is covered in “Special Alert: Media Collusion in Lebanon Ambush” and “Border Clash: Confirmations on the Day After”.  One would think that the Lebanese could come up with a better excuse to attack Israeli soldiers and get five people killed than the Israelis doing border maintenance by cutting down a tree in Israeli territory.  “Shimon Peres versus the Brits” deals with just how long and how deep British anti-Semitism towards Mandatory Palestine and Israel has been; apparently the British have been stabbing Israel in the back at least far back as 1921 by violating their commitments in Mandatory Palestine by giving all of it east of the Jordan River to the emir of Mecca.  “Demonizing Israel is bad for the Palestinians” argues that media focus on alleged atrocities against stateless Arabs in Israel keeps the focus off real atrocities against “Palestinians“ in Arab countries.

Topic 2:  Also about Muslim misbehavior:  “How a Tolerant Country Can Avoid Being a Doormat for Intolerant Countries” suggests that freedom of religion should not be unconditional but should instead be conditioned on respect for the freedom of religion of others.  “Treat others as they treat you” or “tit for tat” may sound downright selfish (and like something right out of LaVeyan Satanism), but Muslims abusing freedom of religion in the West is well-documented, and self-defense is a commonly recognized moral behavior.  (Exception:  Jesus in Matthew 5:38-42 and Luke 6:27-31, the whole business of “turning the other cheek”, which at least on the surface seems to value not resisting one’s enemies, which Jesus is reported as doing to the point of allowing himself to be crucified when he easily could have escaped.)  Do note that if we are tolerant of intolerance, then the intolerant win and there is no longer any tolerance.

Topic 3:  For today’s religious humor: “We guard the gates of HELL!”:


Peace.

Aaron

What the gezornenblat was Jesus thinking?

Image of Yeḥezqe’l’s tomb via Wikipedia

Greetings.

Jewish date:  20 Ṭeveth 5770 (Parashath Shemoth).

Today’s holiday:  Epiphany (Christianity, Gregorian Calendar).

Topic 1:  “Reports: Iraq De-Judaizing Ezekiel's Tomb”:  Hint to the Muslims:  Destroying evidence does not change facts.  There were Jews in what is now Iraq centuries before the rise of Islam, and nothing is going to change that.

Topic 2:  Other religious oppression:  “Algerian Muslims Block Christmas Service” and “Beijing imposes harsh sentences on Tibetan monks and lama”.

Topic 3:  As I have noted previously, I am working my way through the New Testament in the original Koinē Greek, and yesterday I ran across a passage which is totally baffling.  Thus is it written in Mark 12:18-27 (KJV translation with extra punctuation and annotation given here):

Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying, “Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.  Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed.  And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise.  And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also.  In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife.” 

And Jesus answering said unto them, “Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?  For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.  And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’ (Exodus 3:6)?  He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.”

To be blunt, Jesus’s answer makes no sense.  The Sadducees’ question deals with levirate marriage and the Resurrection:  which of one’s spouses in life does one have at the Resurrection.  Jesus claims that there is no marriage at the Resurrection.  But his prooftext is irrelevant.  Despite Jesus’s claims, Exodus 3:6 is part of a section dealing with the Exodus from Egypt, not the Resurrection.  Furthermore, Jesus gives no reason to infer that YHWH is the god of the living only, nor does he connect this to the Resurrection, nor does he explain how this passage somehow proves that there will be no marriage at the Resurrection.

While Jesus in general is presented in the Gospels as being such a poor exegete that his opponents’ arguments have to be omitted to make him look good, this passage has gaping holes of logic wide enough to drive a herd of camels through.  The question is how to understand this passage.  The simplest alternative, assuming this event really occurred, is that Jesus had no real answer and bluffed, and anything the Sadducees said back to him was not recorded.  However, I cannot a priori exclude the possibility that Jesus’s answer really was meant as a serious answer.  But if it was, then there are unstated assumptions, perhaps left out by scribal error, to bridge the chasm between Exodus 3:6 and no marriage at the Resurrection.  If anyone has any idea what these unstated assumptions are, please let me know.


Topic 4:  Today’s religious humor:  “Cat Spilleth Over”.

This seems to be a reference to Psalms 23:5.

Peace.

Aaron