Can We Get Over It Already

Caravaggio ca. 1598  'The Taking of Christ'

"Sometimes Private Eye runs a spoof "Apology - printed in all newspapers", which says something like: "We used to say that X was a disgusting, brutal pig, unworthy to hold public office. We now recognize that X is a living saint." Such a volte-face has just taken place about Ariel Sharon.

If you had followed the British media, particularly the BBC, with average attention over the past 25 years, you would have concluded that Sharon was an intransigent, murderous, semi-fascist. So you would have been perplexed by his sudden announcement this week that he is to leave the "Right-wing" (favored Western terminology) Likud party and form a "centrist" party of his own. Suddenly, Sharon becomes visionary, peace-seeking. Little would have prepared you for it.

And that is the trouble. Little prepares the post-Christian European audience to understand Israel. By "understand", I partly mean sympathize with, and partly, just comprehend.
[...]
If one stands back from the moral argument that rages round Israel, and just looks at this as a story, it reminds one intensely of that of ancient Israel's enemy, the Roman republic. An austere nation builds its power in the face of enemy neighbors. It does so by great feats of arms, and so its soldiers often become its political leaders. The commitment those leaders must give to the nation is absolute, lifelong, life-threatening. The deeds done in the nation's defense are frequently brave, sometimes appalling. Some would see Sharon as Milosevic, but might he not be Caesar?

But there's also an important difference from Rome: the purpose of victory has been more about security than conquest for its own sake. Israeli politics for the past dozen years has been the attempt to reconcile extrication from territory with security. That is what Sharon thinks about all the time, as did his Labour predecessors, Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Barak.

In the history of the West, such a narrative used to command fascination and respect. Many could apply it to their own people. British people whose convict cousins had built Australia out of their barren exile could understand; so could Americans, who had overcome hostile terrain and hostile inhabitants, and forged a mighty nation. So could any country formed in adversity, particularly, perhaps, a Protestant one - with its idea of divinely supported national destiny and its natural sympathy for the people first chosen by God. The sympathy was made stronger by the fact that the new state was robust in its legal and political institutions, free in its press and universities - a noisy democracy. .
[...]
All I want to ask my fellow Europeans is this: are you happy to help direct the world's fury at the only country in the Middle East whose civilization even remotely resembles yours? And are you sure that the fate of Israel has no bearing on your own? In Iran, the new President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes the link. The battle over Palestine, he says, is "the prelude of the battle of Islam with the world of arrogance", the world of the West. He is busy building his country's nuclear bomb."

Read Charles Moore's entire article in The U.K. Telegraph, it's brilliant.

Just so that we all understand each other, I am a devout Christian, and I am veheemently against the tyranny of Islamofascism.

In case my question below is misunderstood to mean that I am neither interested in the Christian faith nor what it stands for.

My visual as always paints a thousand words, Caravaggio's 'The Taking of Christ', and my question is this:  "Can We Get Over It Already?"

Dennis Prager has a great insight as to why the left hate inequality not evil. Another brilliant article:

"...everyone hates someone, and that includes people on the Left. The problem is that because they don't hate evil, they hate those who oppose evil. That is how liberals went from anti-communist to anti-anti-communist. To paraphrase one of the greatest moral insights of the Talmud, those who show mercy to the cruel will be cruel to the merciful. So, George W. Bush, not the Islamic terror world, is the Left's villain; life-embracing Israel is the Left's villain, not their death-loving enemies; and religious Christians who note moral weaknesses within the Islamic world are the real danger, not the moral weaknesses within the Islamic world."

Sigmund Carl & Alfred have some invaluable insight into the Muslim duplicity and link to a great article giving us the clarity on the never ending spin of history:

"The obsession with Israel as a moral failure is absurd. If it weren't for the Israelis, the Palestinians would still be in the dark ages, without heathcare, education or even sanitation. One has to ask oneself, what is the obsession with Israel all about? Well, if you say you don't know, think again. At least be honest with yourself. A transparent sheet is still a sheet."

Thank you to my friend Rich Glasgow @ This Is Rich.

Linked to my friend Doug @ Below The Beltway for his Carnival of Liberty XXII, don't miss it for some great blogging articles.

Linked to TLB's Uber Carnival.

Comments

[Miguel]

Re: the obsession with Israel. A friend of mine who's been relatively successful in his business and life in general was telling me the other day that many of his neighbors view him with envy, they don't really feel friendly towards him. He said the other day one of his neighbors who was drunk insulted him, something astonishing, because he had always been polite and even friendly before. My friend and I got to the conclusion that his neighbors don't like him, BECAUSE HE'S DOING WELL. Not only with $, but he has a nice family, good health, etc.
Hence the obsession with Israel.

[Joseph Marshall]

I must say that I have been sitting on the sidelines for some time scratching my head over what this post and its comment thread are all about. I still don't know. But I think there are two things in it which are worth examining on their own.

She thinks that Islam and Christianity were attempts to change or improve on Judaism where it needed no change. In that she recognizes the inherent characteristics of any group which are self-serving. She believes her government is unduly influenced by the US and Europe for the benefit of the US and Europe respectively. The calendar in her kitchen is year 5766.

I cannot remember ever reading anything in America equivalent to the above about what an ordinary Palestinian person, man or woman, thinks or feels. Has anyone else ever encountered such a thing?

If not, why not? That should be a matter for some sober reflection, particularly given the degree of strong opinions I see constantly bandied about concerning Islam and the people who embrace it.

Then there is this little gem from the "brilliant" article by Mr. Prager:

It is neither possible nor virtuous to be devoid of hatred. Even those who think it is always wrong to hate must hate hatred. The question therefore is not whether one hates, but what (or whom) one hates.

This is nonsense. I try to avoid intruding my own Buddhist practice on other comment pages, but it is directly relevant here.

For twenty-two years I have been doing Buddhist practices specificly intended to dissolve hatred. They work. Every year I have done them my hatred has steadily diminished. It has not been completely eliminated, but I have absolutely no reason to believe that it could not be with enough time and effort.

Moreover, the surest way to understand how sick you really have been is to finally regain health. In the same way, the surest way to understand the incredibly bad things hatred does to the person who hates, is to abandon some of your own hatred, and see what happens to the rest of your life.

No one needs to hate hatred to do this.

There is absolutely no necessity for anyone to continue to hate anything. The only reason to continue hating is that you like the flavor.

If Mr. Prager can ever bring himself to admit this, he will probably not lose any hatred, but he will make considerable gains in self-awareness and self-honesty.

[Alexandra]

Well the story is quite interesting. The painting which you see there is hanging in the National Gallery in Dublin, and there is an almost identical (although quite different in many aspects) one hanging in Rome. Sir Denis Mahon, who I happen to know personally, was called in last year to authenticate this painting in Dublin, with pleasing results to the Irish as he confirmed it to be an authentic Caravaggio. He confirmed it to be the latter of the two and so of course the Roman dealer believes his to be the so called 'original', in the true Italian sense. LOL!
Now as far as the armor is concerned the painting in Rome has a more authentic armor to the period than this one does. The mind does ponder, however Sir Denis is the world specialist on Caravaggio so one has to bow to his greater knowledge.

[antimedia]

Alexandra (or anyone else, for that matter), I've been looking at that incredible graphic, and it suddenly struck me - isn't the armor a bit anachronistic? ISTM it's at least 15th century...or am I delusional?

[Kenny Pierce]

[grinning] Jess, we're on the same wavelength as far as Alexandra's being on task with her vocation, at least for now.

I think, Alexandra, that American Christians generally speaking have much less of a tendency to hold the death of Christ against the Jewish people than Europeans historically have. Comes, I suppose, from the extreme individualism of Americans generally speaking. I've never seen any point in being upset with my delightful friend Gail for what a bunch of politicians two millenia ago did to a guy who was endangering the public welfare and also was going out of his way to insult them personally as much as possible in the process -- not to be irreverent, but if ever somebody was asking for it... Anyway, I've never seen any more point to blaming Gail for the death of Jesus just because she's Jewish, than I would see in Jesse Jackson's blaming me for the slave trade just 'cause I'm a redneck honkey. My own first reaction to anybody who thinks of a modern day Jew as a "Christ-killer" is, "What a jackass."

Of course some stupidities are much more devastating than others, and the "Christ-killer" variety is particularly blood-drenched; so, "What a jackass," is, admittedly, much too weak a response. I'm just talking about my instinctive reaction, that's all.

Someday, Alexandra, I'll tell you about the time I -- despite the fact that a Jewish friend once answerd the question, "What does a Jewish person look like, anyway?" with the words, "The opposite of Kenny" -- got called a Christ-killer by a bunch of skinheads who actually thought I was Jewish. A very educational experience, that.

[Alexandra]

SC&A,
Can you explain to me why not a single one of the so called peace loving Muslim leaders has publicly condemned these terrorists and made it their absolute business to make their lives difficult within the community? They are afraid to antagonize their base?
These people are carrying out heinous acts in the name of Islam, if Islam does not agree with them why do we not see a battle brewing within, as the moderate elements begin to clash with the extremists. In those moderate elements we are supposed to find our ally in this global war on terror? I just don't see it.
I see a global community who stick together against the infidels no matter what.

[sigmund, carl and alfred]

We are presuming that we can reason with radical Islamists, as if they and we, spoke the same language. Clearly, we do not. In fact, a strong argument could be made that the Judeo-Christian culture is very removed from Islam, even in how we believe in God.

Can you imagine Jews or Christians leaving prayer services, whipped into a frenzy and ready to kill? Of course not. Yet that happens every week all over the Muslim world. Churches filled with worshippers are not attacked in Pakistan, for example, because Imams preach tolerance.

What is broadcast on PA television can only be termed pure, viscral hate, with religious leaders ending sermons with calls to 'Slaughter the Jews! Slaughter the Christians!' as a matter of course.

'Moderate' Muslims have become well rehearsed apologists, saying. 'Yes, that's wrong, BUT...' or 'That in no way represents Islam, but, you have to understand...'

Suppose the KKK were running around, terrorizing, killing and lynching minorities, publishing, with government funding, all kinds of hate materials, calling for the death of Mulsims. Suppose Americans were to respond with, 'Yes, that's wrong, BUT...' or 'That in no way represents Americans, but, you have to understand...'

That would be intolerable, and yet we tolerate and accept as adequate that very response from Muslims.

That is our failing, not theirs. They are what they are, and no matter how well we pretend they are moral equals will make it so.

As I have said before, simply being able to walk on two legs does not make everyone equal, moral or otherwise.

[spiritofecstasy]

AvM, Jess,

I thought that the weblog protagonist was alluding to the intransigence of beliefs by using irony. That is, to mimick a cliche', "can't we all just get along." Using irony while sincerely discussing, on different levels, why we all just don't get along, or more importantly why we "appear" to not get along, meaning those of us who are not mortal enemies. (Not to mention the Caravaggio.)

NorthByNorthwest,

I come and go from my modem and Your last comment was not up when I read the comments. Later when I returned to post my comment and leave the thread, Your comment was now the preceding comment which I didn't read at that time.

I'm glad Alexandra made note of Your statement with Her Update. It says so much. Gauntlet. Christians living amongst Muslim majorities (and Muslim minorities, ie; France, the Netherlands, etc. -ed.). The differences (Jews and Christians) being neither harmful or life-threatening. And then Islamofacism (which is a qualifying euphemism when considering the enormous and deafening silence from almost all "peace loving" Muslims worldwide, who are touted as "a billion or more 'strong'" but are really a distinct minority within a World Population of 6.5 Billion People.)

[jess1dering]

But Alexandra, you are YOU ! I hope and pray that you always follow where the Spirit leads you. I'm sorry to have given you a scare about the Anchoress. I didn't mean to. It seems that she is precious to alot of us :)

[Alexandra]

Jessie you really have me worried now, The Anchoress... I think she is feeling better, I had an email recently...let me go and check over there what is happening...I thought of her this morning...Ah thank Goodness, what a lovely post she has, straight from her warm heart. I told her she makes me want to drop my 'Islamofascist Sword' and follow her wherever she leads me...

[jess1dering]

Alexandra, Bless you ..thank you. I no longer feel on the outside looking in. That notion DOES exist, doesn't it ?? And how very strange that it does. After all, Y'Shua / Jesus was a Jew, no? However, human beings often insist on blaming 'the other', the different, the separate from themselves. The Scriptures are clear, though. It was I who crucified the Christ: it was my sin. Oh and gloriously ,it was He Himself, willingly laying down His life for me and for the sins OF THE WORLD. I am, from the heart, a lover of Israel and a lover of the Jewish people.....and my mind has no idea why. It is simply a matter of the heart. Who was it who said, 'The heart has it's reasons that reason knows nothing of.'? Ah, Alexandra, have you visited the Anchoress lately? I am feeling more and more that fervent intercessory prayer, and deep submission to His will and to His guidance in every moment is the only hope...God bless you , as always, for being here.

[Alexandra]

I guess I have to say YOU ARE ON KENNY.

[Kenny Pierce]

And here's you a third point:

I wish Alexandra would do a post on the Trinity, just because I'm damned if I can imagine what picture she'd come up with to illustrate the incomprehensible...but I bet she'd manage it all the same.

Tell you what, my dear Baroness, you come up with an appropriate picture and I'll promptly abscond with it and add it to my own blog post. (And that oughta larn you 'bout bein' so free with your advice on how my blog needs more purty pitchers... [grinning] )

[Kenny Pierce]

Well, Antimedia, I agree with you that this comment thread is probably not the place to argue theology. So I'll just say this:

1. For whatever it's worth, I just posted on my blog a short write-up on the Trinity that I threw together several years ago for a high-school student at my church who had just realized that she had no clue what the doctrine of the Trinity really implied, despite having from her earliest memories crossed herself at the words, "the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost."

2. And I've changed my mind about even attempting the second point.

[Alexandra]

Jessie:

Charles Moore of the UK Telegraph is arguing that we should be cautious in our criticism against Israel:

"All I want to ask my fellow Europeans is this: are you happy to help direct the world's fury at the only country [Israel] in the Middle East whose civilization even remotely resembles yours? And are you sure that the fate of Israel has no bearing on your own? In Iran, the new President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes the link. The battle over Palestine, he says, is "the prelude of the battle of Islam with the world of arrogance", the world of the West. He is busy building his country's nuclear bomb."

This struck a chord with me. I am highlighting the main historical grievance we Christians have been harboring against the Jews and ask of us to purge ourselves of any resentment derived from this painful incident and thus make sure, that, when criticizing Israel, such criticism is not vitalized by this quite often deeply rooted partiality.

Anti Media adds a further: "Jews are monotheistic and refuse to believe that God is three.", although another very valid and undoubtedly number 2 point of disagreement (second to the obvious), it may not be something we would hold against them as it was not a deed as such. I am of course not speaking of the Theologians but the Christians as a whole. We bear grudges for centuries, and fight wars in the name of religion, making a mockery of our faith.

I for one am a bad Christian when I let rip into the Islamofascists, which I guess makes me a part of that very species which I abhor.

[jess1dering]

Oh Dear, Would somebody help me out. I don't understand the question, 'Can we get over it already?' in relationship to the painting.I'm not usually clueless...I love this blog....I don't like to miss anything... Help..?.....anyone...?

[antimedia]

jeff, you wrote,

Anti: But Bible-believing Christians do believe in one God too. The concept of the Trinity is that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the "3 in 1" -- just as water can be a solid, liquid or gas but still is all H2O.

I don't think we want to turn Alexandra's blog into a discussion of the trinity, so I'll just say this. You can then respond as you like, but I will hold my tongue.

Jews don't see the trinity as monotheism. Neither do Muslims. Both believe the trinity is the worship of false gods. I understand that Christians do not believe that is true, and I'm about as well read on the subject as one can be without making it one's life's work.

The Christian arguments for the trinity all resolve to one basic argument - some things about God are simply beyond our comprehension. I'm not aware of a single prominent theologian (over centuries of time) who hasn't admitted that, in one way or another.

I could say a great deal more, but I won't. This isn't the appropriate forum.

[spiritofecstasy]

Just as a common language is shared by a common people but not shared by others outside that culture so to is shared the cuisine, the fashion* and most importantly the specific beliefs (which are ideas). If you look at all beliefs, as systems, you may realize they "can" all be arbitrary because they suit the society that bears them in many many ways. That is; where the beliefs do not specifically suit any other society.

So regardless of the parallels between beliefs in different cultures it is the differences that reveal human nature. Why? Because group beliefs are likely to be arbitrary, such distinct arbitrary nature is necessary to define a group as itself and none other. The group, by definition, is designed to exclude others and pursue it's own survival. When you have two groups, by definition, the seperate groups struggle for their own identity independently. Key word there is; struggle.

~

The current Jewish calendar marks year 5766. That predates the Christian calender by 3700 years. I read the blog of a Jewish Woman who lives in Israel, she made Aliyah over twenty years ago. She thinks that Islam and Christianity were attempts to change or improve on Judaism where it needed no change. In that she recognizes the inherent characteristics of any group which are self-serving. She believes her government is unduly influenced by the US and Europe for the benefit of the US and Europe respectively. The calendar in her kitchen is year 5766.

~

Israel represents a variety of camps from secular, to socialistic to religiously orthodox and many others. Israel's Jewish population is not one little big synagogue of sameness and Sharon, though powerful, is no g-d to all Israelis.

~

In my opinion the Israelis, and Jewish people in general, endure the status of a minority. Which is to say that they are continually under one form of attack or another. This is not because humanity is some debate about fairness and truth either! It is because humanity is something else. As evidenced by history, the present and the future.

[North by Northwest]

But how can you agree to disagree if the stakes are so high. Acceptance equates to abondoment; to condemn the other to the specified fate in accordance with the respective doctrine. Standing by is tantamount to sin for those with missionary zeal.

Of course killing the 'Infidel' as prescribed in Islamic doctrine, takes on a whole new dimension:

009.005 AT-TAWBA (REPENTANCE, DISPENSATION)
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."

This leaves us with what would appear to be a puzzling paradox: The missionnary zeal with which respective believers promote Judaism, Christianity and Islam, seems to be diametrically opposed to the age of each religion. Judaism is virtually devoid of missionary ambitions; contemporary Christians pursue expressly peacful missionary work, whereas Islam seeks to aggressively expand by establishing religious states so as to enforce corporal punishment and the death sentence against the Infidel on varying grounds.

According to Muslim law, believers who reject or insult Islam have no rights. Apostasy is punishable by death. In Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan, death is the penalty for those who convert from Islam to Christianity. In Pakistan, the blasphemy law prescribes death for anyone who, even accidentally, defiles the name of Mohammed. In a religion which, unlike Christianity, has no idea of a God who himself suffers humiliation, all insult must be avenged if the honour of God is to be upheld.

Under Islam, Christians and Jews, born into their religion, have slightly more rights than apostates. They are dhimmis, second-class citizens who must pay the jiyza, a sort of poll tax, because of their beliefs. Their life is hard. In Saudi, they cannot worship in public at all, or be ministered to by clergy even in private. In Egypt, no Christian university is permitted. In Iran, Christians cannot say their liturgy in the national language. In almost all Muslim countries, they are there on sufferance and, increasingly, because of radical Islamism, not even on that.

The ancient plurality of the region is vanishing. Tens of thousands are fleeing the Muslim world, and in some countries - Sudan, Indonesia, Ivory Coast - large numbers die, on both sides. In Iraq, the intimidation of Christians is enormous. Five churches have suffered bomb attacks this year. Christians in Mosul have received letters saying that one member of each family will be killed to punish women who do not wear the headscarf. According to Dr Patrick Sookhdeo of the Barnabas Fund, a charity working for persecuted Christians, "Christians in Iraq are isolated and vulnerable this Christmas, and feel that they have been let down, even betrayed, by their fellow Christians in the West, especially the Church leadership".

It seems to me, that any Christian who thinks the Islamic gauntlet has been thrown on Israel's doorstep alone, fails to take heed of the daily suffering of those unfortunate Christians living amongst Muslim majorities. And as such, the differences of faith between Jews and Christians, which are neither harmful nor life-threatening, would certainly appear to be of secondary importance when facing the rise of Islamofascism.

[jeff stiles]

Anti: But Bible-believing Christians do believe in one God too. The concept of the Trinity is that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the "3 in 1" -- just as water can be a solid, liquid or gas but still is all H2O.

[antimedia]

North by Northwest, the answer to your question is quite simple. Jews are monotheistic and refuse to believe that God is three. As do I. That, and that alone is the crux of the disagreement.

[North by Northwest]

For 2,000 years, Jews have rejected the Christian idea of Jesus as messiah. Why?

As it is this question that remains the defining question for both Christians and Jews, a resolution by definition can only be to agree to disagree.

[spiritofecstasy]

BTW, There are three ways to see the full size Caravaggio pictured above. One, click on the image. Two, go to Art school. Three, place pointer on picture, right click, select properties, a gray box appears, copy/paste the url listed in the gray box and then go there.

#2

Dams break, the ocean feels the river, the river feels melting snow, the cloud feels the wind, there the rain shall go.

[antimedia]

I take offense to the notion that "only intelligent people don't change....". If you mean "intellectual" people, then I agree. ;-)

[spiritofecstasy]

Dams break, the ocean knows the river, the river knows melting snow, yet only the cloud knows all three, and from where all three flow.

[lilly]

Everybody is allowed to change, to develop. Only unintelligent people don't change and don't admit that they have matured in a different direction. If after a long or short time they have seen that the way they have acted or reacted is wrong wouldn't it be stupid to pursue stubbornly the same policy? We have to get over it and try to accept and understand.