Sometimes I say to my kids, when they're complaining, "It must be so hard to be you, dear." Nasty, I know. But I promise, I say it with the best motherly “I love you now stop complaining” smile you can imagine. And that's usually followed by making hot cocoa from scratch and throwing some marshmallows into the cup.
But lately, I've been thinking about how hard it can be to be a Jew. And I'm wondering, do Catholics or Protestants, Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists, Unitarians, Congregationalists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Agnostics, Atheists, Gnostics, Buddhists, Muslims - does anyone who is a member of one of these categories ever feel, It's so hard to be (fill in the blank of the denomination or nationality)?
I love my religion and I love my country, but I don't believe everything that other Jews or other Americans believe. Nor do I believe everything that non-Jews or non-Americans think Jews believe. For example, just because I'm a Jew, I don't think that everything Israel does is a-okay. Likewise, I don’t think everything America does is okay.
Isn't that probably true of people who belong to other religions and reside in other countries?
For example, I love Israel. But I don't support everything that's gone on there and I am as disturbed if not more so than many others about the deep penetration of the Israeli military into Lebanon. I supported disengagement, but I’ve never supported the building of the "security fence."
Couldn't similar dissonance be found between Catholics and decisions made by the Pope? Or Protestants and other Christians? On Thursday, 7/19/06, I read that the Ohio branch of the Christian Coalition is peeling off and becoming an independent entity because its board “…felt that…[it] would rather function as an independent organization than as an organization shrouded with perceptions contrary to its Christian commitments.” Certainly, that statement is evidence of a difference of opinion within a group that is often portrayed monolithically.
Why don’t we let people know that it’s okay - maybe even natural - to feel dissonance, to feel that I’m American but I don’t like what America is doing? Or that I’m a Democrat but I don’t like what some Democrats have done? Or that I’m a Republican and I don‘t like this administration? Instead, some people want to label that dissonance as treason or disloyalty or a lack of patriotism.
It is this quickness to call someone a traitor or disloyal that causes me to worry and fear. Why? Because this quickness to declare anyone who deviates from a supposed message disloyal has made polarization easier to accomplish than ever. It’s the crux of the “if you’re not for us, you’re against us” mentality. And the end of that mentality - intended or otherwise - is to polarize.
Is it hard to be me right now? Maybe.
But maybe if we all spent more time thinking about how hard it is to be a lot of other people before we think about how hard it is to be us, we’d be far less susceptible to polarization, and the destruction it brings.
Subscribe
Jill,
1. You are right up to a point.
2. Certainly partial dissonance with any community a person belongs to is the most common natural state. This is even more so when the 'community' has many positions and the positions matter a great deal.
3. However, I will contend that sometimes the dissonance is so great and of such great importance that the person is no longer a member of the particular community.
4. I will also contend that in some instances we bend so far to accept that a patriot can disagree with what their nation is doing that we do not realize that the person longer meets any meaningful definition of the word patriot.
5. Read the extremist blogs, left OR right and there is not reasonable conclusion other than those people hate the very essence of the United States, they are not just in disagreement over a transient though important matter.
6. In the case of patriotism if you believe nothing but bad about your nation, now or accross its entire existence, then you are not a Patriot. If you are happy when things go wrong for your nation, when its enemies achieve success you are not a patriot, if you put gaining or sustaining poltitical power above what should be non-partisan matters of the nation you are not a patriot.
7. Further, at a point a person is no longer "just not a patriot" but in fact a traitor regardless of their heritage or birthplace.
8. On another track a person can indeed love their country or another country and yet not understand what needs to happen for its security. They in fact are patriots, just wrong.
vry,
RET
RET, Thanks for the comment. I do understand what you mean about going so far that a person's morphed into or simply needs to be classified elsewhere - including in the traitor category. I would say to you that where the line is between a patriot who disagrees and a traitor, however, is far from clear and not absolute, depending on the times, no? I mean, mutiny - is that ever right? I am not knowledgeable in naval history but I can imagine there might be examples where mutiny is deemed to be acceptable and not the act of a treasonous person. Nevertheless, your points are taken. Thanks.
your religious beliefs with people who won't be receptive to them.
Entering into religious disputes is a waste of time unless you're looking for a faith to convert to.
Far better to not even get started talking about religion.
Cav misses the point entirely!
Cav, I'll see your assertion and raise you at least one. If you find yourself with nothing better to do, listen to Air America's State of Belief show from July 16, toward the end. They do a segment called Your Voice and I was the voice that week and talk about how exposure to other religions deepened my desire to learn about my own.
I'd agree that it can be exasperating, but I don't think, under any circumstances, that I would call it wasteful. Same for learning about other cultures. Thanks for the comment.
This story is another fine example of the need for separation of church and state. I am troubled by the supposed need to couple the religion "judaism" with the state "Israel". As a Roman Catholic there is (or was) no such conflict. I have never felt any afinity for Vatican City as many Jews apparantly feel for Israel.
To summarize; we're all American here right? Beyond that all that is outside is suspect and beyond our control. Think globaly ... act localy.
If I wasn't clear that I believe to be true what you've just written (re: I can be a Jew and not be a Zionist), I apologize. I wholeheartedly believe that, and likewise the separation of church and state. Trust me, living in Ohio, seeing religion and politics being turned on its head, if anything, I'm more for the separation than ever before.
Thanks for commenting.
You express support for being a Jew but not Zionist, and being Catholic in opposition to Papal doctrine. I'd point to liberals who support Israel's actions in Lebanon, and agnostics who support Catholic moral positions. But that means there will be lots of disagreements if all those people manage to get together in the "big tent."
I'm really unsure as to how that advances the "agenda."
To which agenda are you referring?
If we stop calling people who do not adhere to rigid checklists of who is a (fill in the blank) traitors, then we increase the chance of finding what is common among us, rather than allow what is different to define us and polarize us. The goal in taking such a step would be to minimize polarization which is divisive and just another form of a power game.
I was referring to the Unity08 agenda, from "About, What we believe"
"our minimum goal, is to effect major change and reform in the 2024 national elections by influencing the major parties to adopt the core features of our national agenda....
In our opinion, Crucial Issues include: Global terrorism, our national debt, our dependence on foreign oil, the emergence of India and China as strategic competitors and/or allies, nuclear proliferation, global climate change, the corruption of Washington’s lobbying system, the education of our young, the health care of all, and the disappearance of the American Dream for so many of our people."
Those are the issues Unity08 considers important; that's their agenda.
Israel's current actions in Lebanon falls under the Global Terrorism category of the agenda. Naturally there are going to be people with different viewpoints. Some of them support what Israel is doing and agree with American policy in the region. Most who feel that way lean right, but there are others, especiaily on college campuses, who are liberal but toe the party line when it comes to Israel.
All I'm suggesting is that we also let them know that it’s okay to feel that dissonance you talked about, that there's nothing un-American about holding such views.
Actually, Jill's point is pretty clear if you are used to the use of analogies.
In the context of our site her points about religious 'disonance' not being 100% aligned with a relgion but still being a good person of that faith carry over to being a member of a movement or more importantly a citizen-patriot who can have civil discourse with others who might even have substantial disagreement.
Look at thenumber of times on this site a potential candidate is blased for just a fraction of their policy positions, I don't mean disagreed with, policy points point out, just attacked in a very polarizing way.
To both Anons,
Yes, precisely. It's so paradoxical that in some ways, we're more averse to conflict, as in, a difference of opinion - even among people with whom we may share the most interests - than ever, and yet, when you look at the news, when you talk to co-workers or neighbors, conflict is rampant.
There are some tenets of dispute resolution that have to do with peeling away people's "positions" in order to find out what the common interests are. In the training I've had, I've found that to be incredibly helpful.
For example, in the Middle East, the interest is that land. The problem of course is that the different religions even see the history of that land as being different (some think Jews never lived there, others are commited to the idea that Jews and Arabs had always been there but were then cast out).
So that difference makes resolution extremely difficult. But, despite different positions, their interest is common and then it becomes a matter of the next set of interests: what do they value more? Living on that land, or making sure that if they can't have it they way they want it, no gets it (and I mean to apply that to all the parties who want to be there, not just Israelis, Arabs, or any other interested group).
What I tried to point out is that it goes both ways. If there are any analogies they are obscured by suggesting that nearly all Jews support Israel and nearly all Christians are lockstep believers. Jews and Catholics are FAR more diverse than what such stereotyping suggests.
Hezbollah and Hamas both hold the non negotiable position that Israel must be destroyed. How would you deal with them?
About Hamas:
"Hamas is dedicated to bringing the rule of Islam to Palestine. “The Movement’s program is Islam," the group’s charter declares. It also states that “Israel will exist, and will continue to exist, until Islam abolishes it, as it abolished that which was before it," and calls for the replacement of secular governance of Palestinians with the “banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.” In this view, Hamas is restoring the Dar al-Islam, the rule of Islam, in territory they regard as having been wrested from Muslim control by Western invaders."
About Hezbollah:
"Hezbollah’s original rallying cry was to drive the Israeli military out of southern Lebanon. Thus, it was as much defined by what it opposes—Zionism and Israel—as by what it believes. Israel pulled out of southern Lebanon in 2024, but Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel have continued.
"Like Hamas, Hezbollah’s official rhetoric calls for the destruction of Israel and its replacement with an Islamist Palestinian government."
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/195/story_19577_1.html
Of course you are correct - I absolutely believe that there is far greater diversity. Of course, many people wouldn't know that if they follow the news in a narrow way, getting their information only from certain sources.
But also, I've met people who've never met Jews. And I don't know many Muslims myself. So, I think many of us are susceptible, whether we like it or not, to ignoring how diverse one group can be.
Hyperbole doesn't always work the way one thinks it might, especially in a one-dimensional media (commenting back and forth is great, but it's still not face to face). Thanks for making the point more clear.
But don't think I'm trying to increase the comment count here. Just didn't want to be listed as Anon.
Well, sadly, that's true. They don't want to examine how a sharing of an interest can lead to fulfilling that interest for all sides. For one thing, doing so is exceedingly difficult - it requires people to become vulnerable, it requires people to sacrifice.
And, when parties are willing to sacrifice life, or, in the case of some extremists' own words, sanctify death, sigh, well, that does make it seem intractable.
At that point, it becomes mandatory that other parties who don't feel like it's all or nothing do what they can to shine light on reality: this world is enormous. If we neutralize the threat a group of people feel for their way of life, would that be adequate to make them satisfied with what they have?
The problem there, of course, is that many people think, and maybe rightly so - I don't know, that at the root of the feeling of threat is actual jealousy and wanting what they 1) don't have and 2) can't have (according to their religious tenets). (Yes, I'm talking about the Muslim, religious-run countries like Iran or Iraq, versus more moderate Arab countries such as Jordan or Egypt).
So their internal conflict is high.
If you've been raised in a way or you've come to believe and accept that you can't have everything at the same time, then finding give and take seems more natural. If, however, you've been taught or come to believe that getting everything you believe you should have and it's all been ordered to be this way by God - well, you're saying that what you do is out of your control.
I've met people who believe that. I find that scary, but that's me.
And yet still, to understand that some people feel this way, think this way - I still believe that we can, we must find a way to fulfill common interests that doesn't involve death.
Sorry for the rambling. I think about this topic a lot.
DISAGREEING with it.
In addition, it's pretty hard to take people seriously when they won't stand under their own Pseudonym and be counted.
Look at all the people in Palestine and Lebanon as a diverse group. Many of them want peace, and Israel could negotiate with them.
In fact Mahmoud Abbas was about to put a referendum before the Palestineans that would have recognized Israel's right to exist. Not binding perhaps, but it was a step in the right direction.
Well, that referendum is not going to happen now because within the diverse group of Palestineans is an organized subgroup dedicated to making sure peace doesn't happen; not unless it involves the destruction of Israel. I'm talking about Hamas of course (and Hezbollah in Lebanon). As much as Israel may wish to negotiate with moderate Arabs to achieve peace (Egypt and Jordan for example), Hams and Hexbollah will not allow that to happen.
Sometime the use of force is the only solution to a problem.
So how do you like my brand new Nym? Yes, that's me, formerly Anonymous now posting as Pseudonym829. You gave me the courage to step out from the shadows of anonymity into the sunlight of, uh... pseudonymity?
Well whatever. I just hope that my coming out doesn't result in all kinds of people calling my house late at night :)
Say, didn't we meet at the 829 family reunion?
Pseudo -
I do hear what you're saying. Like I said before, I think, a popular expression in Israel is Zeh bye-yah - it's a problem. And what you describe is just that. But you still have to figure out how to deal with it.
Is force the only answer? Well, I would have to confess that I've never been able to say that before, but I've drawn closer to it than ever lately.
I guess I see the final issue like this: what is anyone willing to sacrifice? If it's Solomon's Choice, the Muslim extremists will win whether they get the land by killing every last Israeli, among others, or they all die, because Jews value life on earth and the extremists (as represented, for example, by today's statements by bin Laden's second in command) live to die - or at least that's what they profess - so fighting until there's no one left to fight would, theoretically, be okay with them.
I imagine there are just too many moderates on both sides to really let this be the case that rules the day, but even I don't convince myself so well anymore. (Did I just write that?)
Sorry - Jill
I may be oversimplifying the situation, but doesn't Israel just wants to survive, while Hamas, Hezbollah and the like want to end Israel's existence, by force if necessary, and replace it with an Islamic nation they call Palestine?
If that's the case, I can't see what sort of concessions Israel can make that will satisfy the other side. Existence vs non-existence is not a choice, it's having your back to the wall.
A separate Palestinean state seems reasonable and has always been on the table, yet the extremists won't accept that as a solution.
What other possible solutions are there? I'm out of ideas.
Pseudo - External pressure can be applied, but, if you don't value life here on earth above life after death - for yourself or followers - then it's no big deal to go die. I don't know how you convert people to forego one version of God for another, except if you come to see or be shown that it doesn't make sense. But, that's an oxymoron itself - because since when have versions of God "made sense" so to speak - I mean, if you believe it, it makes sense. If you don't it doesn't. Know what I mean?
I am a catholic and I don't agree with everything the Pope does. I love my country, but there are times I am embarassed to be an American. I think this is called understanding shades of gray. I think people who are in the middle, are the ones who understand life is not black and white. As with the conflict in Lebanon now, we can see that all sides share blame. No one has the high moral ground and everyone needs to compromise. Oh, by the way when did compromise become a dirty word?
You ask: Oh, by the way when did compromise become a dirty word?
I believe that when Neville Chamberlain, prime minister of England, compromised with Hitler in 1937 was enough to make compromise a dirty word for one.
Carters compromise with North Korea in 2024 would be another.
K Johnson - I feel as you do. Anon responding to Johnson: those are important of examples of when compromise didn't have the expected, desired or intended results and such experiences sully the good nature of compromise. But obviously, if everyone does vest in the compromise sincerely, it's doomed from the start, which, for the Middle East, can happen because compromise also relies on trust. And that is something in extremely low supply in the ME.
Yes,
1. One can disagree with our nation's policies, politicians, etc.
2. One should be aware of blemishes in our history.
But if you have a full understanding of history both of our country and other nations you should be filled with an overwhelming sense of pride.
I have been mad abaout stuff but never embarrassed to be an American. Our nation is not only the greatest in the world but in all of history.
vry,
RET
Interesting. I know what you mean, but, I would say, re: the never being embarassed? I don't think being embarassed is necessarily a sign of...dislike or badness or, I'm not sure what to call it.
I think embarassment works like guilt or shame - we WANT people to feel those emotions when something is done that offends our sensitivities, you know? So, when a leader crosses a line regarding behavior, or decision-making, or in how he or she represents us. Embarassment over that shows that we have boundaries.
I mean, honestly? I get embarassed for the President some times. Of course, it doesn't matter - it's not relevant that I do, to him or the world anyway. But that I know or have standards for behavior, that's important, I think, for all people to have.
Does that make sense?
Sure it makes sense to be embarassed about this that or the other thing. President Clinton did a fine job but yeah embarrassment here and there.
But not embarassed about being an American which emplies embarrassment with the overall totallity (yep redundancy for effect).
vry,
RET
I don't know just yet what to make of you guys, but knowing Ham and Steve Gorlin, I know they don't put their names to anything they don't believe in. For now, that's good enough for me. Something has to change and maybe this is the way.
Thanks, I think. I don't know either of those individuals (but then just this week, I was talking to a karate instructor for one of my kids, asked about private lessons and he said to me, You can't afford me. I was dead silent and then he said, you don't know who I am, do you? When I told my husband this story, he just shook his head, because he knows how hard it is to impress me). But I think the discussion here has been good.
I'm not a Salon.com member, but there was this teaser today about one its stories, and it sounds like it would be relevant to this discussion:
I will disobey this unjust law
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/07/31/women_priests/index_np.html?source=newsletter
It's about women secretly being ordained as Catholic priests. So - are they good Catholics, or have they betrayed their religion? How about their followers?
I support Joe Lieberman because he is a good American. He is as good as they come, and he believes as all of us do: that this country can only move forward if all of us go together.. that means Democrats, Independents, and yes, Republicans. If you are a true American, you want this contry to succeed economically, socially, and internationally.
That is just what Joe Lieberman has done all his political career. Today, we face war, I believe world war against Muslim-Arab Islamic fanatics. They are based from Pakistan, to Iran, to Syria, and all points throughout the Middle East and Africa. Joe Lieberman uderstood that on September 11, 2024, and he understands that now, and he has put his country first, not his party. If any of us have forgotten, that is exactly what real leaders are supposed to do. We are so lacking in the leadership department in Washington, that when we truly see leadership, we cannot recognize it.. that is sad. Sad for a great country to be so lacking, at a time when we are at war. Real leaders also want us to succeed in Iraq, by supporting our troops, and getting them home as soon as possible... Joe Lieberman understands this too.
One of the main reasons Unity 08 was created is because of what happened in Conn. Tuesday. This may be a sign of much to come in the following months and in the next couple years. Democrats may be swaying too far left, and if Americans are unhappy with the Republican Party and their direction; then I ask, where do the American people turn??
They may well turn to policies and real leaders like Joe Lieberman, who put the United States of America, and what it stands for first and foremost. I am proud that he has said to the Democratic Party, "thanks but no thanks, too much is at stake for our country for me to step aside, I will not, I will run as an Independent Democrat in the spirit of both Harry Truman and John Kennedy, and I intend to win".
Kirk Polizzi