In an ideal world, the map of Israel (and its neighbors) would look something like the map above. Israel could be the orange shaded nation in the middle, while Palestine would be tha nation shaded in gray. This is the "Two-State" solution that most people want and believe in.
With the effective annexation of the West Bank, successful negotiations could have taken place on Israel's terms, as it would control what land would have been given to Palestine for nationhood. But this was, is, and probably not be what Israel wants to do. Instead, it has placed illegal settlements in key sites in the West Bank, making it impossible for a practical two-state solution to be negotiated.
There is no way to say any one party to this inter-generational conflict is guilty or innocent. The forebears of today's Israelis were kicked out of the land by the Romans roughly 2,000 years ago. The British promised this land to both Jews and Arabs at the end of World War 1, and the aftermath of World War 2 made it necessary for Jews to establish a home in their traditional homeland.
- - - - - -
Recently, the US abstained from a vote condemning Israel for its illegal settlements on the West Bank. Trump went wild, saying that Obama has betrayed our national interests. But whose interests come first - USA's or Israel's? The only reason that America doesn't abandon Israel is the political support Israel gets from American Jews and Christian Fundamentalists who want a place for the Messiah's second coming. Both groups support Israel for religious reasons, and not for reasons that benefit America.
There is only one reason for America to support Israel, and that is a moral one. We should support democracies wherever they are found, and respect them even when they act in their interests, not ours. But if we did that as a policy, we'd never have had the pissing match with Iran, we'd have never have used the CIA to overthrow Salvador Allende, and we'd insisted on an official "Two-China" policy. Sadly, Israel is evolving into an Apartheid state, and none of the pro-Israel camp seems to care. Soon, demographics being what they are, there will be more disenfranchised Arabs in the lands Israel controls, and no way to allow them a voice in their lives - as that would come out as "Death to Israel!"
Time is running out for a Two-State solution, and Israel's actions are only making matters worse for that solution. Our Secretary of State has effectively said, that in a Single State solution, Israel could either be a Jewish state or a Democracy, but not both. Most people want the Two-State solution, but radicals are making this impossible. Is helping the radical element a way to make peace? I doubt it.
- - - - - -
Today's GOP is filled with people who would usurp the power of the presidency and invite the Prime Minister of Israel to speak to Congress, bypassing the State Department. It looks like they will give Israel everything it asks for - and then some. This is not a healthy development. It'll be like a kid in a candy store, and mistakes of excess will likely be made. Slow moving initiatives with countries such as Iran will be scuttled. Who knows what will happen then?
Every nation has a right to be secure in its borders. And every people have a right to be treated fairly in the nations in which they live. The Israel-Palestine conflict will likely be with us for generations yet to come, as both sides are taking positions only meant to stir up people for the benefit of those other than themselves. Religious zealots living in Israel have no desire to live in peace with their Muslim neighbors. The Arab side is no better, as Muslims have been taught for generations that the Infidel is their sworn enemy, and that the Infidel must be expelled from Muslim territory.
In a way, the Arab nations are right. Solve the problem of Jerusalem and you'll solve the problem of the Middle-East. Sadly, I don't see a huckster real estate promoter being up to the challenges this region will present him in the next four years....
Recently, I was watching TV when Ben Carson said that he felt Islam was incompatible with the constitution, and that he was uncomfortable with a Muslim being president. Politically Incorrect? Sure! But he said what a lot of the people in mainstream America feel, and are voicing in both rural and urban settings. So why are the pundits giving him a hard time?
In an age where the Middle East is center most in the political debate, often ahead of jobs, education, and health care, the religion of a candidate for POTUS often gives us an idea about his/her thinking about an issue. Would you have wanted Joe Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, having to deal with a possible rapprochement with Iran? I certainly wouldn't. But I wouldn't want either a Sunni or Shiite Muslim directly involved with the negotiations either - they may have too much emotional "skin" in the game to make a decision which meets the best interest of ALL Americans.
Carson did say that he was comfortable with a Muslim in the Legislative branch - as long as he/she subscribed to the basic secular values of the United States. And in many ways, most Americans support people who are not religious extremists being part of government at all levels.
The US Constitution says that no religious litmus test (my words) shall be used to qualify a person for running for any office in the United States. This is a good thing. But it doesn't prevent the individual from using a person's religion as a guide to how he/she would deal with certain issues. For example, POTUS is a 24x7 job. Would we want someone who "religiously" observes Shabbos to be president? I'm not sure. But we've already had a Christian (in the 1800's) who would not work on Sunday be elected president, and as a result, we actually had a day in our history where there was no sworn in President of the United States. Could we afford this today?
Years ago, people worried about JFK being Roman Catholic - Would he obey the Pope before fulfilling his duties to America? History tells us that he put America first ...after sating his sexual appetite. This is why we need to know as much as possible about a presidential candidate before supporting him or her. Sometimes, a person's religion can be simply posturing (as in the case of JFK) - or one of real belief (such as with Jimmy Carter). Either way, religion is an important factor in who we choose for president....
In the end, I think this will quickly become a non issue, but not for the reasons I'd want it to happen. Instead, the Democrats and the remaining GOP Candidates will be out gunning to take down Donald Trump, and not having a serious conversation about the role of religion in politics and government.
For the most part, I don't give a hoot about my neighbor's religion, save a small number of things:
- What holidays does he/she celebrate, so that I can give them friendly greetings on those days?
- Does the practice of that neighbor's religion interfere with my life?
- Is my neighbor's practice of religion causing direct harm to others?
If a neighbor is Jewish, I might wish him/her a happy Chaunnakah. If a neighbor is Muslim, I might wish him a happy end to fasting after Ramadan. But sometimes people of my own Christian faith can be the most perplexing.
- - - - - -
Recently, there has been a lot of press discussing the alleged sexual abuse by one of the Duggar sons upon several girls - including his sisters. Normally, this would be a story confined to the back pages of most newspapers, save for one thing - the Duggar family has become extremely visible because of their "reality" TV show.
The Duggars are evangelical fundamentalists who have a very strict code of behavior - boys and girls must not touch each other (kissing, holding hands, etc.) until they are betrothed or married. This implies that there is a lot of sexual repression going on. In one report that I heard (I can't remember where), the children did not know that the son's sexual touching was inappropriate behavior. And when discussed in their local church, a goodly many people as well didn't realize that this behavior was inappropriate. In short, the way to prevent sin, ignorance, had failed to protect a family from evil....
If we take a step back, and recall the story of Adam and Eve, the one commandment given to the two people was to NOT eat from the tree of knowledge. In short, ignorance was bliss. Gain useful knowledge, and one can see that life was not heavenly, but hellish instead.
In the case of the Duggars, the only way to prevent disaster was to promote ignorance. Any break in the pattern of their lives, and people would find out something was seriously wrong. To distract others from seeing this family for what it is, the Matriarch slandered the transgender community - saying that transgenders are out to molest young girls. Do they not see the motes in their own family's eyes?
- - - - - -
If the Duggars were a small group of crackpots, like the people from the Westboro Baptist Church, this would not be a problem. But we're seeing this this kind of transphobia, hatred of gays, and hypocrisy runs deep in the bible belt. In a recent interview on Fox News, one pastor was ranting that it was no one's affair about what the Duggars did - even when molestation took place. Dr. Drew stated that anyone with children (especially 19 of them) should supervise their kids well - and the evangelical pastor went nuts! The pastor was defending a member of his tribe, no matter how much evil had to be covered up. Can you imagine what is going on in other evangelical households where ignorance is preached and sexuality is repressed instead of being dealt with in a healthy way?
- - - - - -
Right now, the GOP is beholden to a large number of crack pots like this family - who get the vote out, and keep the Red States glowing a bright red. But how long can this last? The mainstream party bosses know this is a problem, but don't know how to solve it. They are afraid of losing to a demographically superior Democratic party. So they won't risk anything that would lose the Red States, in order to flip more "middle of the road" states from Blue to Red.
This wouldn't be so bad if the damage these people cause were limited to their own states. But they have taken an "opposition for the sake of opposition" approach to politics - they refuse to make trade offs with people on the other side of the political aisle. (I'm not sure if I can say that the Democrats are much better. What I can say is that the GOP is inconsistent in their areas of hypocrisy, while the Democrats are consistent in their areas of hypocrisy.)
Although I am a registered Republican, I haven't voted their way in ages - there is a consistency in bills they'd enact if voted into power, and I don't want to see that happen. (I prefer the devil I know, to the one I don't.). Now that the public sees income and wealth distribution as a problem, the GOP is jumping on this cause - something the Democrats have talked about for ages. Both sides are BSing the public. But only one flip flops as quickly as the GOP.
- - - - - -
I fear what will happen if crackpots like the Duggars gain political power. We already have one member of the Supreme Court who has hinted that he believes in short term creation. What would this do to Science and Mathematics education in this country? We've already seen Texas consider the prophet Moses to be one of our "founding fathers". What's next? How ignorant can we become? How much further can we fall behind our global competition?
Although I don't like the idea of a Republican Party who openly supports a Plutocracy, I am even more against a party who combines that with religious litmus testing. There were valid economic points being made by many in the GOP in their political discussions, and they were being lost because of this unholy arrangement with religious fundamentalists. To me, the one thing that has helped make this country great is the separation of church and state - allowing everyone to be free to practice their faith as they please - even the Duggars. Take away that separation, and watch America relearn the lessons Europe learned hundreds of years ago. Do we want to go through that process ...again?
Sadly, we're seeing in some of the "Red States" a push to break down the wall that separates Church and State. Although many of the people think this to be a good idea, saying that "if we go back to God's word, then all will be right with the world", history has shown this idea to be the furthest from the truth.
- - - - - -
If one looked at Europe before the "Peace of Westphalia", one would see a collection of European states fighting each other, with people being expelled from their homelands because they did not worship in the same church as the princes that rules their principalities. This was not a stable situation, and it was not good for the princes nor was it good for their subjects.
According to Wikipedia, the main tenets of the Peace of Westphalia were:
- All parties would recognize the Peace of Augsburg of 1555, in which each prince would have the right to determine the religion of his own state, the options being Catholicism, Lutheranism, and now Calvinism (the principle of cuius regio, eius religio)
- Christians living in principalities where their denomination was not the established church were guaranteed the right to practice their faith in public during allotted hours and in private at their will.
- General recognition of the exclusive sovereignty of each party over its lands, people, and agents abroad, and responsibility for the warlike acts of any of its citizens or agents. Issuance of unrestricted letters of marque and reprisal to privateers was forbidden.
Over the long term, the associated treaties that defined this peace helped define the nation-state we know today. People could worship in their own churches - even though the crown may be associated with a different religious sect. Europe stumbled into a policy which would reduce the risk of sectarian violence between Christian sects.
Undoubtedly, the well educated among our Founding Fathers were aware of these treaties, and wanted to make sure that the fledgling United States would not have religious wars between the states. The 1st amendment to the US Constitution reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As a result, religious sects had to market themselves as this country grew Westward. Often, the first church in a community gained most of the parishioners - but this was not a hard and fast rule. Later immigration might result in new churches being built for people who belong to different sects, and we had relative peace. (I choose to skip over the persecution of the Mormons for now, as it is a notable exception to this trend.)
Even now, in most areas outside the "Bible Belt" most people don't care what church, temple, or mosque their neighbors belong to. Sadly, in the "Bible Belt", there is a large number of people who believe that they should roll back America to the "good old days" where traditional Christianity was the default religion - as if the 1950's were great for all of America. These people judge others based on their conformity to tradition, claiming that these cultural norms are defined by God - and punishing those people who don't follow these norms. Challenges to any authority are squelched - even when the person in authority is corrupt and self serving.
We see people trying to use fear of God to control others, such as this post that God will destroy America if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Same Sex Marriage equality. Why do they fear this change? I know of no traditional marriage which has been harmed by two people of the same sex getting married. The answer, as I see it, is that people in cultures (or subcultures) where tradition is valued very highly do not have adequate skills to cope with and manage the unknown. So instead, these people try to use both secular law and pseudo-religious dogma as their tools to keep others in line with tradition.
Some traditional cultures, such as the Amish, simply shun those who do not follow the group's edicts regarding following tradition and associated behaviors. But the Amish also allow for their children to make a "knowledgeable" decision, giving them time to learn about the outside world before committing to the Amish tradition. Contrast this with the Hasidim, who do their damnedest to make sure that their population is as ignorant as possible about the outside world as a whole. But it's not my intent to bad mouth people from traditional cultures, as it is to make note of a line between an informed decision and a decision made out of ignorance and fear.
Years ago, Southerners used religion as an excuse to preserve slavery. Now, the social dysfunction once limited to the South has infected other states - and is being used to deny rights to a new class of people. Although I am a straight male, I feel that I must stand up for the Gays and Lesbians in our community. If I don't help them defend their rights, who will be there to protect mine when I need help?
Has anyone noticed that the cultural divide in America in the 21st century isn't that much different from a map of the United States drawn at the time of the Civil War? Most of the states drawn in blue are "liberal" states, while most of the states drawn in gray and territories drawn in brown are "conservative" states. In a previous entry, I noted that the lunatics are now in charge of the asylum. What I didn't note was how geography plays a big part in a region's cultural values.
Areas of high population density are often hotbeds of cultural diversity. One can not but have his or her values tested by being in contact with people who think differently. A typical New Yorker will have coffee at a pushcart staffed by an Iranian, eat lunch at a Kosher deli staffed with Mexican labor, and have dinner at an Italian restaurant staffed by Albanians. On another day, that same person may eat breakfast at a Greek diner staffed by Columbians, have lunch in a cafeteria staffed by native born Americans, then have dinner at a Soul Food joint before rushing off to an Irish bar....
Contrast the above to life in smaller towns in the old Confederacy. In many of these small hamlets, one might not even find one decent restaurant - and have to grab a burger at the local pub. (Charlie Daniels' "Uneasy Rider" comes to mind here.) Due to the remoteness of many of these places (think of small towns in the Rockies and in Appalachia), many people socialize with people who often are related to each other by inter-generational intermarriage. Their views often aren't challenged, as they only meet people like themselves on a regular basis. When one lives in these smaller communities, the locus of social activity is often the local church. This doesn't sound like much, but think of it as the one institution in the South that wasn't crushed after the civil war, and you'll see how dysfunctional values of 150 years ago could be preserved to the present day.
Religion, as an institution, changes much slower than society in general. This is good, when people need a connection to the eternal. It is bad when dysfunctional values are passed on from one generation to another. Years ago, my mother made a big deal about our church changing the hymnal being used every Sunday. Imagine what it was like dealing with the issue of slavery - something which the bible permits and has rules for. If a person comes from a society that accepted slavery, and was forced to end it - it is likely that the religious institutions would be slow to follow the political mandate. It is also likely that these same institutions would help people find ways around the political mandates (legal and illegal) - which we saw in the era from Reconstruction to the Civil Rights battles of the mid 1900's.
People in conservative areas are slow to change with the times, and there are still traces of institutional racism found across the USA - including the "Northern" states. In Nixon's "Southern Strategy", he knew what language the GOP could use to flip it from Democratic Blue to Republican Blue. And he was successful. Unfortunately, he also eliminated the mixing of conservative and liberal values in BOTH parties which helped stabilize American government. Now, we have a very conservative GOP which uses both a religious and plutocratic litmus test for its candidates - and its influence is growing in the short term, while demographics condemn it to likely failure in the long term.
Would we have been better off if the South had left the Union? I'm not sure - it'd have been one hell of a hard border for both sides to police. Socially, I think the North would have been better off, and would have looked more like today's Canada with its higher priority on social welfare and fairness. The South, however, would have had a history similar to today's South Africa - with a period of Apartheid and ostracism from world politics, followed by a more democratic, but polarized country.
Instead of what could have been, we have what we have now - a country fragmented along a rural/urban divide, where the more conservative elements are holding off on the needed investments in our common future. Sadly, I don't see anything changing soon....
