Should I, a kippah-wearing progressive, be concerned about state-supported policies—implied or legislated—essentially forcing conversion to Christianity to participate in public schools in the U.S.?
Being skeptical that Islam is peaceful is perfectly reasonable: both the plain text of their holy books and how the early spread of the religions occurred supports the conclusion that Islam is fundamentally more favorable to violence than Christianity.
No religion that gains the support of the state remains peaceful for long. The logic of being the "One True Religion" ultimately leads to the conclusion that the "others" must be marginalized, converted and finally eliminated.
There was a reason that Jews fled Catholic Europe and went to the Muslim Ottoman Empire where they were welcomed and prosperous.
The God of the Bronze Age Abrahamic religions was a bloodthirsty monster and his followers saw themselves as made in his image and justified (if not commanded) in shedding the blood of the "others." The angry God hangs over Jesus threatening the world with annihilation if they don't obey.
In the end violence is what religions do--- best to avoid them all.
You certainly have a right to an opinion, but to be clear, your anti-theist opinion is still an explicitly Christianity (and Islam)-privileging one. The notion of the “one true faith” is not a Jewish one—nor is it a notion held by any ethnoreligion. Faiths with peoplehoods (e.g., Judaism + Samaritanism, Druze faith, Yazidism, Mandaeism, & Alawism) typically forego the proselytizing component that faiths founded in, well, “belief-in”/“belief-about” (e.g., most Christianities, Islam, & Bahai Faith) demand to continue propagating. So, the “one true faith”, in my Jewish eyes, means little; my ethnoreligion posits that G-d gave us, the (non-literal) descendants of the patriarchs and matriarchs of the Hebrew Bible, a way of being and believing of our own; that doesn’t mean that G-d gave us The Way—G-d has been in relationship with non-Israelite/Hebrew peoples and communities outside of G-d’s relationship to the Jewish People. As a result, conversions to Judaism/Jewishness happen frequently, yes. Still, they involve—across all Jewish movements—a “tangible” component and a corporeal “buy-in” greater than a shift in beliefs. Jewish conversion means becoming a corporeal member of a heritage, a bloodline, that cannot be undone by, idk, becoming a Christian again, in the same way that being born a Christian and becoming a Muslim can. That’s what I mean by your opinion privileges Christianity.
I was just responding to Chasing Oliver's statement that "...Islam is fundamentally more favorable to violence than Christianity." I hold that thesis to be wrong. Most religions at different times, places and contexts can be prone to violence. Of course it isn't the religion that causes that.
Human being are by nature violent and murderous and it takes a lot of civilizing influences to keep human violence at bay. Religious beliefs and even mere philosophies have often served to tame the beast in us.
BUT religion has also been one of the masks that can be worn to justify and even command the violence and cruelty. Philosophies that can be as dogmatic as any religion can also be used for murderous ends.
I grant the concluding sentence was overstated. Violence is not what religions do. Its just that when religions do become violent they do it just as well and perhaps better than anyone.
And it is also why in this traumatic moment for our civil society I am concerned with the wall of separation of Church and State melting away.
I have mixed feelings about this notion of Judaism as merely an ethno-religion.
As a Jew, I don't view Jesus as G-d come to earth in human form, but as a primary lawgiver (and transformational figure) -- on a par with Abraham and Moses, beyond the other prophets -- whose message (and historical function) was:
a) The transformation of monotheism from a tribal faith into a gift from the Jews to human consciousness itself, accessible and applicable to all the world's people(s); and
b) A resolution of alienation (original sin) as redemption through Love.
I'm also willing to view Judaism as the oldest branch (or, if you prefer, the very trunk) of a religion currently known as Islam.
Then, too, there's Spinoza -- who (despite those who excommunicated him) can be viewed as yet another transformational figure in the evolution of Judaism.
FWIW, my own view is that one remains Jewish as long as one subscribes to the Sh'ma.
Muhammad never said anything like "those who live by the sword will die by the sword" or "if someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn your left cheek to him also". I agree the Old Testament is pretty BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD, but Jesus's teachings are borderline Jain.
Chaplains in lieu of "school counselors" and "mental health professionals"?
Seems OK to me, given that they're performing the same function -- albeit, based on divergent belief systems. In the case of those "mental health professionals," quack "Science" is regarded as (the only legitimate) religion. More pernicious, still, is the notion of "behavioral health" -- a one-way ticket to Brave New World, administered by the likes of Nurse Ratched.
To put this more bluntly (and clearly): Schools (or the State) shouldn't be in this business in the first place. Imparting values (or "mental health") should be the realm of parents (and ultimately [for adults], of the individual) -- and this applies to sexuality, too.
If there's genuine, hard evidence of parental abuse -- or criminal or physically dangerous activity by a minor -- the authorities can be called in. Beyond that, a busybody is a busybody.
Having them alongside chaplains is fine. Replacing them with the latter is stupid, as the former has a completely different and vital role which the Chaplain is less suited to provide.
I actually agree that (as options) they should be available side-by-side -- rather than one replacing the other -- precisely BECAUSE they're performing the same (or parallel) roles, albeit buttressed by divergent belief systems.
The remainder of my preceding comment explains (or illustrates) my basis for this contention.
Should I, a kippah-wearing progressive, be concerned about state-supported policies—implied or legislated—essentially forcing conversion to Christianity to participate in public schools in the U.S.?
He’s gone. Don is gone. Long gone. Neuralink leash animates him as necessary.
Being skeptical that Islam is peaceful is perfectly reasonable: both the plain text of their holy books and how the early spread of the religions occurred supports the conclusion that Islam is fundamentally more favorable to violence than Christianity.
No religion that gains the support of the state remains peaceful for long. The logic of being the "One True Religion" ultimately leads to the conclusion that the "others" must be marginalized, converted and finally eliminated.
There was a reason that Jews fled Catholic Europe and went to the Muslim Ottoman Empire where they were welcomed and prosperous.
The God of the Bronze Age Abrahamic religions was a bloodthirsty monster and his followers saw themselves as made in his image and justified (if not commanded) in shedding the blood of the "others." The angry God hangs over Jesus threatening the world with annihilation if they don't obey.
In the end violence is what religions do--- best to avoid them all.
You certainly have a right to an opinion, but to be clear, your anti-theist opinion is still an explicitly Christianity (and Islam)-privileging one. The notion of the “one true faith” is not a Jewish one—nor is it a notion held by any ethnoreligion. Faiths with peoplehoods (e.g., Judaism + Samaritanism, Druze faith, Yazidism, Mandaeism, & Alawism) typically forego the proselytizing component that faiths founded in, well, “belief-in”/“belief-about” (e.g., most Christianities, Islam, & Bahai Faith) demand to continue propagating. So, the “one true faith”, in my Jewish eyes, means little; my ethnoreligion posits that G-d gave us, the (non-literal) descendants of the patriarchs and matriarchs of the Hebrew Bible, a way of being and believing of our own; that doesn’t mean that G-d gave us The Way—G-d has been in relationship with non-Israelite/Hebrew peoples and communities outside of G-d’s relationship to the Jewish People. As a result, conversions to Judaism/Jewishness happen frequently, yes. Still, they involve—across all Jewish movements—a “tangible” component and a corporeal “buy-in” greater than a shift in beliefs. Jewish conversion means becoming a corporeal member of a heritage, a bloodline, that cannot be undone by, idk, becoming a Christian again, in the same way that being born a Christian and becoming a Muslim can. That’s what I mean by your opinion privileges Christianity.
I was just responding to Chasing Oliver's statement that "...Islam is fundamentally more favorable to violence than Christianity." I hold that thesis to be wrong. Most religions at different times, places and contexts can be prone to violence. Of course it isn't the religion that causes that.
Human being are by nature violent and murderous and it takes a lot of civilizing influences to keep human violence at bay. Religious beliefs and even mere philosophies have often served to tame the beast in us.
BUT religion has also been one of the masks that can be worn to justify and even command the violence and cruelty. Philosophies that can be as dogmatic as any religion can also be used for murderous ends.
I grant the concluding sentence was overstated. Violence is not what religions do. Its just that when religions do become violent they do it just as well and perhaps better than anyone.
And it is also why in this traumatic moment for our civil society I am concerned with the wall of separation of Church and State melting away.
I have mixed feelings about this notion of Judaism as merely an ethno-religion.
As a Jew, I don't view Jesus as G-d come to earth in human form, but as a primary lawgiver (and transformational figure) -- on a par with Abraham and Moses, beyond the other prophets -- whose message (and historical function) was:
a) The transformation of monotheism from a tribal faith into a gift from the Jews to human consciousness itself, accessible and applicable to all the world's people(s); and
b) A resolution of alienation (original sin) as redemption through Love.
I'm also willing to view Judaism as the oldest branch (or, if you prefer, the very trunk) of a religion currently known as Islam.
Then, too, there's Spinoza -- who (despite those who excommunicated him) can be viewed as yet another transformational figure in the evolution of Judaism.
FWIW, my own view is that one remains Jewish as long as one subscribes to the Sh'ma.
Your mileage may vary. ;-)
Are you joking or are you ignorant?
Muhammad never said anything like "those who live by the sword will die by the sword" or "if someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn your left cheek to him also". I agree the Old Testament is pretty BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD, but Jesus's teachings are borderline Jain.
Chaplains in lieu of "school counselors" and "mental health professionals"?
Seems OK to me, given that they're performing the same function -- albeit, based on divergent belief systems. In the case of those "mental health professionals," quack "Science" is regarded as (the only legitimate) religion. More pernicious, still, is the notion of "behavioral health" -- a one-way ticket to Brave New World, administered by the likes of Nurse Ratched.
To put this more bluntly (and clearly): Schools (or the State) shouldn't be in this business in the first place. Imparting values (or "mental health") should be the realm of parents (and ultimately [for adults], of the individual) -- and this applies to sexuality, too.
If there's genuine, hard evidence of parental abuse -- or criminal or physically dangerous activity by a minor -- the authorities can be called in. Beyond that, a busybody is a busybody.
“Mental health professionals” means counsellors.
Having them alongside chaplains is fine. Replacing them with the latter is stupid, as the former has a completely different and vital role which the Chaplain is less suited to provide.
I actually agree that (as options) they should be available side-by-side -- rather than one replacing the other -- precisely BECAUSE they're performing the same (or parallel) roles, albeit buttressed by divergent belief systems.
The remainder of my preceding comment explains (or illustrates) my basis for this contention.