It has been a long and arduous mental and moral journey through Karen Armstrong's book, Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths. The greatest piece of wisdom that I could hope to earn from such an adventure is that nothing is as simple as it appears. Surveying the book's credibility by uncovering Armstrong's own biases, analyzing how her word choices reveal a slant, and reviewing the credibility of the works that she has cited shows its complexity making it more than just a list of words on a page. No, with this physical object comes mental, emotional, and spiritual concepts which every single reader portrays differently. This vast, almost overbearing, amount of information should symbolize the difficulty of the conflict in Jerusalem with which citizens and public policymakers must deal with everyday.
And although my last paragraph should pose as a statement against the overuse of generalizations, I do acknowledge that they do help people understand the "basics" (which they need to build upon to really understand). First, I have discovered that civilians under Muslim rule have been the most moderate of socieites throughout history. Preceding the Crusades and before the Ottomans particularly, the land was seized peacefully and inhabitants were granted freedom of religion. Only recently, due in part to their loss of homeland, propaganda, and Western exaggerations in the media have the Muslims become a sign of terrorism.
Another general trend that should be noticed throughout history is that groups that attempt to integrate God into government have seen or dealt the greatest atrocities. Jews have had experiences with violence greater than most other cultures which probably comes as a result of their kingdoms being ruled as Jewish regions. This does not come as an accepting or tolerating environment to surrounding nations who most likely feel that the Jewish nation is an attack on other religions. This leaves them vulnerable to attacks from other nations. The Crusaders led relgion in their politics as well, except in the reverse scenario. They were a group of like-minded individuals who saw that it was their duty to kill in the name of the Lord. When there are no other views to keep them in check, groups like this can and have committed deeds that in our eyes are crimes worthy of death themselves. As Christians have become moderate and secularized over time though, great nations like the United States have been formed.
Exactly my friend, this books with all its complexities, details, and rich history of Jerusalem, the city of three faiths, explains how the conflict over Jerusalem is complicated and intense.
ReplyDeleteI wish countries put religion aside of their politics because religions, regardless whether Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Communism, Buddhism, etc are all in a way peaceful, and politics is just a dirty game.
To play devil's advocate, can religion really be fully separated from politics?
ReplyDeleteFor example, in America, everyone has freedom of religion. However, the influence of religion on policy is undoubtedly undeniable, examples being abortion and gay marriage. There is also a great amount of discrimination in this country against certain religions because of the "threat" they pose on "security".
America was founded on the idea of freedom. How do you separate religion and politics from a land where religion is the absolute focal point?
Ah ha, Brianna--I'll play devil's advocate to your infernal advocacy:
ReplyDeleteIs religion the absolute focal point? Armstrong points out that secular/nationalist immigrants were the driving force, especially behind the political development, in the Mandate period and post-Independence. Ben Gurion, Begin, Shamir, even Herzl--they were all secular. And a lot of illegal settlement activity ("outposts") in the West Bank today is driven by not-particularly-religious nationalists, claiming land for Eretz Israel--not in the name of El Shaddai.
Similarly, on the Palestinian side, there are nationalist groups both in the present and the recent past. For example, George Habash and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)--Habash was a Christian, and the PFLP was predicated and oriented on Marxism-Leninism.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think it boils down to religion, and that if we talk in terms of separating religion and politics, we miss some important points--as well as opportunities.
Now, to address two things from Rob's post:
1) Realize that the way the two major Muslim regimes (the Arab Islamic Empire, and the Ottoman Empire) ruled was to disturb the status quo as little as possible. Territories were best acquired and incorporated into the empire without a fight, and so long as tax revenues kept flowing, there was no need to "rock the boat" too much. Since the Crusader states, for example, were never part of a larger empire, this wasn't an option. Armstrong painted Roman occupation as relatively benign, until radicals agitated the situation.
2)Regarding the whole politics/religion thing. Which comes first, the chicken (politics) or the egg (religion)? I would argue that the political is indeed separate from the religious, but that the political uses religion as justification for politics. Thus, in modern times Jews and Muslims could agree on how the Temple Mount/Haram ash-Sharif is administered, but when there is a political opportunity, then religion gets trotted out to justify whatever destabilization there is in the status quo.
In other words, I think you don't need to tease out the religious from the political, because it already is separate. The two only come together (in an unholy mess) when politics demands it.
Brianna,
ReplyDeleteBeing religious is defined differently among cultures and nations. You mentioned the American society, more than 70% of the Americans define themselves as religious, regardless of their religion. Do you think this is right? If 80% are religious, why the percentages of single mothers are high? Why for example there is no holiday for Easter or other religious holiday except Christmas?
what i means by separating religion from politics is for example Turkey, when they separated religion from politics and life they succeeded, they are among the few Muslim countries that can compete world widely because they became secular.
In response to Brianna's comment, is it the influence of religion that play on politics or just human morality. I see how religion plays a role in the ban of gay marriage, but abortion and many other issues are based on human morales and human rights. You can seperate religion and government by not basing a constitution on bible, Quran, or Torah. Religion will always influence people's actions but so will human rights.
ReplyDelete