Years ago I saw a video of Clark Clifford expressing the American recognition of Israel back in I believe 1948. He quoted a verse from the Pentateuch about the land being promised to the Jews. I also read that Truman ignored the advice of the State Department and Defense Department to not recognize Israel. My memory says a big part of his motivation to support Israel was his Biblical Christianity and past close business friendship and relationship with a Jewish man. My memory also says part of Islam is the belief that Ishmael father of the Arabs was the actual son of promise of Abraham complete with proto sacrifice instead of Isaac and that the promise of the holy land was passed down to him. Talk about irreconcilable differences! Of course all this memory stuff needs to be checked, except the Clifford one, I remember my shock at hearing an official quoting the Bible to justify American policy.
Zionism was originally a more secular impulse as the Orthodox Jews had settled on waiting for the Messiah to effect the return to the land of Israel and it was considered hubris to attempt to do that beforehand. But you’re right the physical land concept is hard wired into Judaism. New Testament Christianity is explicitly heavenly country and heavenly Jerusalem oriented with the transformation of this reality into that effected purely by God and not by force by Christians - which shows the aberration of the various crusades against Islam, heretics, and pagans. Though Europeans did have to fight off a good number of jihad motivated wars of conquest and slave raids.
I have to disagree with you on the idea that Zionism is foundational to Judaism. Zionism was foundational to Judaism then. And some modern Judaism and some modern Christianity prioritizes ancient Hebrew texts and believe they define the religion now. But one thing Protestants are taught is the primacy of the Bible and even ex-Protestants like us can fall into the trap of believing the scripture defines the religion instead of the other way around- or the scriptures being a fan wiki for a religion that’s true meaning is in community celebration and connection with each other or nature or the divine.
This leads to a bigger question I like to ponder about the nature of religion and the divide between “pagan” and “non-pagan” religions. What would have happened if the ancient Hebrews (and others) had never written down their beliefs? What is there were no Torah, Bible, Koran, Upanishads, etc? What would those religions look like? I suspect many religions would look little different- some versions of Hinduism, Islam, and Catholicism are more adaptations of rituals which existed long before the texts than religions created by anyone reading their scriptures and trying to recreate the past. But when people from a Christian background encounter a new religion, we generally want to read their book- assuming that the written word is given the primacy in other religions that it is given in Christianity. And religions which have no book like Shinto or various Native American religions are not seriously studied by students of religion. European paganism is shoehorned into the category of “real religions” by an over-reliance on texts like classical authors of Greece and Rome, the Norse Sagas, and descriptions of ancient life by various travelers and conquerors.
Another thought that has occurred to me is that our modern, Western outlook forgets that much of ancient scripture was once set to music. In losing or ignoring the musical aspect of these sacred texts, I wonder if we have lost the ability for their meaning to be moderated through the emotional language of music. For example, we read the Book of Joshua literally. But imagine if some future civilization read Slayer lyrics without any context to understand that “Expendable Youth” is not a hymn of praise for killing young men in war but a bitter, sarcastic commentary on warfare? And then tried to emulate the attitude they would assume we had? Compare that to what would happen if 2500 years from now, some future civilization was still singing “Expendable Youth” the way we still play classical music and just seeing it as part of their heritage and not defining it. Or changed the lyrics to fit their world, whatever that would look like. I’d say the section option would be far truer to the foundational principles of Slayer-dom than a literal interpretation of their lyrics would be.
Such a relief to see your criticism of Solnit! Thanks for letting that out. And excellent answer to the very boring question! I wrote "I do not consent" on my ballot here in the UK...
"This god’s deal was this: I chose you as my special people. You are better than everyone else. If you obey me and honor me, I will give you this land forever and ever, let you dominate it, and make you fruitful and multiply." So this isn't just Zionist. The mentality is the same behind e.g. the UK politicians, bankers, lawyers etc who come through the public (i.e. private) school system over here. They are brought up to believe they are special, specially chosen, better than everyone else. They deserve to rule over those upon whom this gift was not bestowed. It's their birth right. There's quite a bit of discussion at the moment about the mentality of Rome. I don't know if it started with the Jews of the Old Testament, but it certainly didn't end with them.
No one has anything that isn't given to them, or that they don't take. Not life, or property, or freedom.
If it's given to you, it can be taken back or withheld down the line. Or come with strings.
If you take it, whoever you're taking it from will try to take it back, maybe with interest. Or will hate you for taking it and make your life hard however they can. Or their friends will do these things.
Nothing in the universe is free. Even the gods are subject to this.
I'm still a bit baffled Rhyd as to why you won't make a tactical vote to keep Trump out of the white house. Opposing fascism whilst denouncing the fake left is not mutually exclusive. Or do you see both candidates as equally bad ?
I know this seems counterintuitive to most Americans, but a larger scale, Harris is actually the more dangerous candidate and will greatly increase the instability of Europe and the Middle East. She’ll bring back America as the “world police,” and this means more suffering and especially more neoliberal capitalism globally.
So it’s actually that I am choosing not to vote “tactically” for Trump to stop Harris, not the other way around.
But there is one bright side to Harris. On a longer scale, the internal mess of a Harris win might finally cause what remains of the old left in the US to finally give up on electoral politics altogether and instead work to build a dual power situation through a new kind of politics (similar to Wagenknect). And it also might finally make the left here in Europe throw off the chains of NATO.
But I keep thinking this with every Democrat, and it never actually happens.
That sounds like a reasonable position! By the way let me take this opportunity to thank you for Being Pagan, it was just the book I needed and has been very helpful for my spiritual practice.
“But then, if you reject that foundation, is there really a religion there at all?” Literally millions of pluralistic, ecumenical, and often secular Jews would like a word. Hell, even conservative Jews who want a two-state solution would like a word. I don’t know, maybe you could have talked to a couple of us.
Fascinating that of the 4 sections of your piece almost all the comments are about the Jews. But the fact that you quote unironically the phrase “Jewish supremacist…” Suffice it to say your notion of Zionism is incredibly tendentious. Hey, maybe one of your pieces could be a seance where you channel Julius Streicher.
I don’t care if you’re a Marxist Druid or a rump Schopenhauerian faction of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you have a big Jew problem, sugar tits. Blocking you stat.
Years ago I saw a video of Clark Clifford expressing the American recognition of Israel back in I believe 1948. He quoted a verse from the Pentateuch about the land being promised to the Jews. I also read that Truman ignored the advice of the State Department and Defense Department to not recognize Israel. My memory says a big part of his motivation to support Israel was his Biblical Christianity and past close business friendship and relationship with a Jewish man. My memory also says part of Islam is the belief that Ishmael father of the Arabs was the actual son of promise of Abraham complete with proto sacrifice instead of Isaac and that the promise of the holy land was passed down to him. Talk about irreconcilable differences! Of course all this memory stuff needs to be checked, except the Clifford one, I remember my shock at hearing an official quoting the Bible to justify American policy.
Zionism was originally a more secular impulse as the Orthodox Jews had settled on waiting for the Messiah to effect the return to the land of Israel and it was considered hubris to attempt to do that beforehand. But you’re right the physical land concept is hard wired into Judaism. New Testament Christianity is explicitly heavenly country and heavenly Jerusalem oriented with the transformation of this reality into that effected purely by God and not by force by Christians - which shows the aberration of the various crusades against Islam, heretics, and pagans. Though Europeans did have to fight off a good number of jihad motivated wars of conquest and slave raids.
I have to disagree with you on the idea that Zionism is foundational to Judaism. Zionism was foundational to Judaism then. And some modern Judaism and some modern Christianity prioritizes ancient Hebrew texts and believe they define the religion now. But one thing Protestants are taught is the primacy of the Bible and even ex-Protestants like us can fall into the trap of believing the scripture defines the religion instead of the other way around- or the scriptures being a fan wiki for a religion that’s true meaning is in community celebration and connection with each other or nature or the divine.
This leads to a bigger question I like to ponder about the nature of religion and the divide between “pagan” and “non-pagan” religions. What would have happened if the ancient Hebrews (and others) had never written down their beliefs? What is there were no Torah, Bible, Koran, Upanishads, etc? What would those religions look like? I suspect many religions would look little different- some versions of Hinduism, Islam, and Catholicism are more adaptations of rituals which existed long before the texts than religions created by anyone reading their scriptures and trying to recreate the past. But when people from a Christian background encounter a new religion, we generally want to read their book- assuming that the written word is given the primacy in other religions that it is given in Christianity. And religions which have no book like Shinto or various Native American religions are not seriously studied by students of religion. European paganism is shoehorned into the category of “real religions” by an over-reliance on texts like classical authors of Greece and Rome, the Norse Sagas, and descriptions of ancient life by various travelers and conquerors.
Another thought that has occurred to me is that our modern, Western outlook forgets that much of ancient scripture was once set to music. In losing or ignoring the musical aspect of these sacred texts, I wonder if we have lost the ability for their meaning to be moderated through the emotional language of music. For example, we read the Book of Joshua literally. But imagine if some future civilization read Slayer lyrics without any context to understand that “Expendable Youth” is not a hymn of praise for killing young men in war but a bitter, sarcastic commentary on warfare? And then tried to emulate the attitude they would assume we had? Compare that to what would happen if 2500 years from now, some future civilization was still singing “Expendable Youth” the way we still play classical music and just seeing it as part of their heritage and not defining it. Or changed the lyrics to fit their world, whatever that would look like. I’d say the section option would be far truer to the foundational principles of Slayer-dom than a literal interpretation of their lyrics would be.
Such a relief to see your criticism of Solnit! Thanks for letting that out. And excellent answer to the very boring question! I wrote "I do not consent" on my ballot here in the UK...
Jewish supremacy. I need to digest those words.
"This god’s deal was this: I chose you as my special people. You are better than everyone else. If you obey me and honor me, I will give you this land forever and ever, let you dominate it, and make you fruitful and multiply." So this isn't just Zionist. The mentality is the same behind e.g. the UK politicians, bankers, lawyers etc who come through the public (i.e. private) school system over here. They are brought up to believe they are special, specially chosen, better than everyone else. They deserve to rule over those upon whom this gift was not bestowed. It's their birth right. There's quite a bit of discussion at the moment about the mentality of Rome. I don't know if it started with the Jews of the Old Testament, but it certainly didn't end with them.
I've been doing Simon Haisell's longread of the Wolf Hall trilogy, in which Thomas Cromwell trains Henry VIII to call the Pope 'The Bishop of Rome'
No one has anything that isn't given to them, or that they don't take. Not life, or property, or freedom.
If it's given to you, it can be taken back or withheld down the line. Or come with strings.
If you take it, whoever you're taking it from will try to take it back, maybe with interest. Or will hate you for taking it and make your life hard however they can. Or their friends will do these things.
Nothing in the universe is free. Even the gods are subject to this.
I'm still a bit baffled Rhyd as to why you won't make a tactical vote to keep Trump out of the white house. Opposing fascism whilst denouncing the fake left is not mutually exclusive. Or do you see both candidates as equally bad ?
I know this seems counterintuitive to most Americans, but a larger scale, Harris is actually the more dangerous candidate and will greatly increase the instability of Europe and the Middle East. She’ll bring back America as the “world police,” and this means more suffering and especially more neoliberal capitalism globally.
So it’s actually that I am choosing not to vote “tactically” for Trump to stop Harris, not the other way around.
But there is one bright side to Harris. On a longer scale, the internal mess of a Harris win might finally cause what remains of the old left in the US to finally give up on electoral politics altogether and instead work to build a dual power situation through a new kind of politics (similar to Wagenknect). And it also might finally make the left here in Europe throw off the chains of NATO.
But I keep thinking this with every Democrat, and it never actually happens.
So no. There’s no good choice here.
That sounds like a reasonable position! By the way let me take this opportunity to thank you for Being Pagan, it was just the book I needed and has been very helpful for my spiritual practice.
“But then, if you reject that foundation, is there really a religion there at all?” Literally millions of pluralistic, ecumenical, and often secular Jews would like a word. Hell, even conservative Jews who want a two-state solution would like a word. I don’t know, maybe you could have talked to a couple of us.
Fascinating that of the 4 sections of your piece almost all the comments are about the Jews. But the fact that you quote unironically the phrase “Jewish supremacist…” Suffice it to say your notion of Zionism is incredibly tendentious. Hey, maybe one of your pieces could be a seance where you channel Julius Streicher.
I don’t care if you’re a Marxist Druid or a rump Schopenhauerian faction of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you have a big Jew problem, sugar tits. Blocking you stat.