Saturday, September 26, 2009
Head-scarves and Yarmulkes
The world is again becoming more dangerous. The hot spot now is the antagonism between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Jewish Republic of Israel. Iran has asserted that Israel has no right to exist. Israel responds by threatening grave harm on Iran. Israel has the ability to produce nuclear weapons. Iran covets that ability and is proceding to acquire it.
Both nations have holy books that justify their actions. Israel's holy book states that the Lord God Yahweh or Jehovah or whatever his name is gave the land of Israel in perpetuity to the Jewish people. Jewish people who take this story seriously insist on moving to Israel and in establishing settlements anywhere in the land that God gave them. The fact that people are already living in the area of a settlement and have lived there for centuries makes no difference. They will simply have to go away so that Jews can get their land back.
The holy book of Muslims tells them that it is their duty to convert people to Islam. When people are converted, the land on which they live becomes part of Islam as well. It is not to be allowed for either the people or the land thus converted to revert or leave Islam. Jews, Christians, Buddhists, and other religious folk can come to live in this converted land but they can not dominate it. It must remain part of Islam and the people who have embraced Islam must not abandon Islam. Apostates can be punished by death.
There you have it. The existence of Israel on land that was converted centuries ago to Islam is an abomination and must not be allowed to continue. The land is part of Islam. Jews may live there if they behave themselves and don't do things or say things that insult Islam or Muslims. Establishing a Jewish state on Islamic land is wrong, wrong, wrong. On the other hand, before Islam existed, God gave Israel to the Jews. They have a God-given right to live there, practice their religion, and reestablish King Solomon's Kingdom. It's a conflict of religions and a conflict of laws. Both republics use their holy books as the highest or ultimate law of the land.
In case you, the reader, is a bit slow, I must inform you that neither holy book has any weight with me. I do not condemn apostates against Islam and I think the notion of land necessarily being of any religion is silly. That is, the claim of the Jewish settlers is both silly and dangerous. The claim of traditional Muslims to the land is also silly and dangerous. I have no sympathy for the claims of the President of the Islamic Republic that the Holocaust didn't really happen and therefore Israel has no right of existence. (Of course, no one bases the right to existence of Israel on the holocaust. Rather, that right is based on a reputed conversation between God and Moses.)
I think that religious beliefs that include the literal interpretation of certain holy books are dangerous. As a Christian, I can attend church and participate in the rituals there even though I know that many of the things that Christians "believe" never really happened, or at least they didn't happen the way certain people wrote them down. God did not literally create the whole universe in six days. Astrophysicists have some fairly good ideas about how the present universe came into existence about 15 billion (15,000,000,000) years ago. I share their opininons. No one knows what existed, if anything, before the coming into being of the present universe. It should be possible for Orthodox Jews and conservative Muslims to practice their faiths while at the same time accepting the notion that events described in their holy books probably didn't happen just in the way theat the writers described.
The problem of Israel and the Palestinians can not be solved if people cling to the notion that holy books are literally true. That applies equally to the Torah and to the Quran.
Both nations have holy books that justify their actions. Israel's holy book states that the Lord God Yahweh or Jehovah or whatever his name is gave the land of Israel in perpetuity to the Jewish people. Jewish people who take this story seriously insist on moving to Israel and in establishing settlements anywhere in the land that God gave them. The fact that people are already living in the area of a settlement and have lived there for centuries makes no difference. They will simply have to go away so that Jews can get their land back.
The holy book of Muslims tells them that it is their duty to convert people to Islam. When people are converted, the land on which they live becomes part of Islam as well. It is not to be allowed for either the people or the land thus converted to revert or leave Islam. Jews, Christians, Buddhists, and other religious folk can come to live in this converted land but they can not dominate it. It must remain part of Islam and the people who have embraced Islam must not abandon Islam. Apostates can be punished by death.
There you have it. The existence of Israel on land that was converted centuries ago to Islam is an abomination and must not be allowed to continue. The land is part of Islam. Jews may live there if they behave themselves and don't do things or say things that insult Islam or Muslims. Establishing a Jewish state on Islamic land is wrong, wrong, wrong. On the other hand, before Islam existed, God gave Israel to the Jews. They have a God-given right to live there, practice their religion, and reestablish King Solomon's Kingdom. It's a conflict of religions and a conflict of laws. Both republics use their holy books as the highest or ultimate law of the land.
In case you, the reader, is a bit slow, I must inform you that neither holy book has any weight with me. I do not condemn apostates against Islam and I think the notion of land necessarily being of any religion is silly. That is, the claim of the Jewish settlers is both silly and dangerous. The claim of traditional Muslims to the land is also silly and dangerous. I have no sympathy for the claims of the President of the Islamic Republic that the Holocaust didn't really happen and therefore Israel has no right of existence. (Of course, no one bases the right to existence of Israel on the holocaust. Rather, that right is based on a reputed conversation between God and Moses.)
I think that religious beliefs that include the literal interpretation of certain holy books are dangerous. As a Christian, I can attend church and participate in the rituals there even though I know that many of the things that Christians "believe" never really happened, or at least they didn't happen the way certain people wrote them down. God did not literally create the whole universe in six days. Astrophysicists have some fairly good ideas about how the present universe came into existence about 15 billion (15,000,000,000) years ago. I share their opininons. No one knows what existed, if anything, before the coming into being of the present universe. It should be possible for Orthodox Jews and conservative Muslims to practice their faiths while at the same time accepting the notion that events described in their holy books probably didn't happen just in the way theat the writers described.
The problem of Israel and the Palestinians can not be solved if people cling to the notion that holy books are literally true. That applies equally to the Torah and to the Quran.
Labels: Iranian politics, Israeli politics, literal interpretation of holy books, Moses and God, religious stubbornness, the Big Bang theory
Sunday, December 14, 2008
A Neighbor's Visit
I live alone as a widower. I lost my wife thirteen months ago. Since that time I have attended a weekly bereavement group sponsored by the hospice organization that provided end of life care for my wife. After a year, I am beginning to wonder whether I should graduate from the group or continue attending the weekly sessions. I don't feel any less sad at the loss of my wife than I did a year ago. Friends have told me that the feeling of sadness and loss never goes away.
Yesterday my neighbor who lives next door came to visit me. He brought a flower - a bird of paradise stem with a bloom - and I found a nice-looking vase to hold it. He said he had smelled the roasting coffee from my house. I had been roasting raw coffee beans on the stove so that the fumes would be collected by the hood and sent up the spout to the roof and the neighborhood. When I roast coffee the smell is more pronounced outdoors than indoors. He said he liked the smell of roasting coffee and asked me to make him a cup. I ground some of the freshly roasted beans and made coffee in a French press coffee maker.
We then sat at the kitchen table, sipping coffee and talking. My neighbor is an Iranian. We talked about politics, about the stupid governor of Illinois and the equally stupid President of Iran. The big cheese in the Iranian government is Ali Khomenei, the successor to Khomeini. My neighbor is no admirer of Khomenei. We talked about the new President-elect of the United States. We talked about Germany and Russia. My neighbor assured me that Iran is not going to build a nuclear bomb. He doesn't see any reason for it. Iran is not a large, powerful country. It could not hope to win in a war against Russia, Pakistan, India, or the United States. It fought a war against Iraq several years ago and couldn't win that war.
We talked about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. We agreed that the world is better off without him. Saddam didn't have Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) nor a nuclear weapons program. He wanted everyone, including some of his own generals, to believe that he DID have such things. The idea was to intimidate his enemies. He had many enemies. My neighbor didn't say so, but the thought came to me that the rather stupid President of Iran would like us to believe that he did have the capability of building a nuclear weapon and an intercontinental missile to carry it to the United States, just so that we would think long and hard before deciding to bomb Iran, as John McCain once suggested.
Finally my friend J, who had been one of the caregivers for my wife, came to prepare my dinner. My neighbor excused himself and invited me to come to visit him and talk any time I felt like it. He left. I talked to J about what I wanted for dinner.
Later I thought about the neighbor's visit and the conversation. I thought about the morning walks I take three times a week with three other old men, one of whom is also a widower, and of the conversations we have during those walks. We never talk about anything more serious than W's and H's eyesight, C's problem with his leg, or the state of the economy. The most serious conversations we have involve warning each other about oncoming cars. I think about all of these conversations and I realize that while I am thus engaged in talking and listeneing I do not recall the sadness of losing my wife.
I wonder if perhaps the benefit of the bereavement group discussions is that they simply provide a means for the participants to talk. Of course, in the bereavement group, we are encouraged to talk about our feelings of loss and sadness. We are discouraged from wandering off and discussing how stupid and venal and greedy the governor of Illinois is. Some members of the group have difficulty in getting started to talk about anything. One member of the group, J, is a writer. He has no difficulty in talking about his feelings and his memories, and serves, I think, as an example for others. He is a valuable member of the group. Perhaps I am close to being able to graduate from the group. I have friends and a neighbor with whom I can talk about almost anything. Perhaps they can replace the bereavement group for me, if I am ready for such replacement. Am I ready? I am not sure, so I will continue attending the group for a while.
Yesterday my neighbor who lives next door came to visit me. He brought a flower - a bird of paradise stem with a bloom - and I found a nice-looking vase to hold it. He said he had smelled the roasting coffee from my house. I had been roasting raw coffee beans on the stove so that the fumes would be collected by the hood and sent up the spout to the roof and the neighborhood. When I roast coffee the smell is more pronounced outdoors than indoors. He said he liked the smell of roasting coffee and asked me to make him a cup. I ground some of the freshly roasted beans and made coffee in a French press coffee maker.
We then sat at the kitchen table, sipping coffee and talking. My neighbor is an Iranian. We talked about politics, about the stupid governor of Illinois and the equally stupid President of Iran. The big cheese in the Iranian government is Ali Khomenei, the successor to Khomeini. My neighbor is no admirer of Khomenei. We talked about the new President-elect of the United States. We talked about Germany and Russia. My neighbor assured me that Iran is not going to build a nuclear bomb. He doesn't see any reason for it. Iran is not a large, powerful country. It could not hope to win in a war against Russia, Pakistan, India, or the United States. It fought a war against Iraq several years ago and couldn't win that war.
We talked about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. We agreed that the world is better off without him. Saddam didn't have Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) nor a nuclear weapons program. He wanted everyone, including some of his own generals, to believe that he DID have such things. The idea was to intimidate his enemies. He had many enemies. My neighbor didn't say so, but the thought came to me that the rather stupid President of Iran would like us to believe that he did have the capability of building a nuclear weapon and an intercontinental missile to carry it to the United States, just so that we would think long and hard before deciding to bomb Iran, as John McCain once suggested.
Finally my friend J, who had been one of the caregivers for my wife, came to prepare my dinner. My neighbor excused himself and invited me to come to visit him and talk any time I felt like it. He left. I talked to J about what I wanted for dinner.
Later I thought about the neighbor's visit and the conversation. I thought about the morning walks I take three times a week with three other old men, one of whom is also a widower, and of the conversations we have during those walks. We never talk about anything more serious than W's and H's eyesight, C's problem with his leg, or the state of the economy. The most serious conversations we have involve warning each other about oncoming cars. I think about all of these conversations and I realize that while I am thus engaged in talking and listeneing I do not recall the sadness of losing my wife.
I wonder if perhaps the benefit of the bereavement group discussions is that they simply provide a means for the participants to talk. Of course, in the bereavement group, we are encouraged to talk about our feelings of loss and sadness. We are discouraged from wandering off and discussing how stupid and venal and greedy the governor of Illinois is. Some members of the group have difficulty in getting started to talk about anything. One member of the group, J, is a writer. He has no difficulty in talking about his feelings and his memories, and serves, I think, as an example for others. He is a valuable member of the group. Perhaps I am close to being able to graduate from the group. I have friends and a neighbor with whom I can talk about almost anything. Perhaps they can replace the bereavement group for me, if I am ready for such replacement. Am I ready? I am not sure, so I will continue attending the group for a while.
Labels: bereavement, Iranian politics, loss of a wife
