|
Tuesday Mar 04, 2008
Posted by Ira Sharkansky
Whenever one of these notes touches on a matter of religion, I am reminded about the sensitivity of the topic. It is easy to step on tender toes, no matter how careful I am to phrase what I have to say. The most recent example concerns the report about the denunciation of homosexuality by Shlomo Benizri and other SHAS members of Knesset. Along with that, I included the well known phrase from the Book of Samuel about David's love of Jonathan. While I emphasized the ambiguous and problematic nature of the material, responses to the note in the blog section of the Jerusalem Post were very clear about the abomination that I had committed.
The theme common to several of the comments was that the Bible was clear; that the love between David and Jonathan was equivalent to that of a father for his children or a man for his brother. Only a reprehensible ideologue like me could twist it into a justification of homosexuality. Some of the comments came from people with limited understanding. One said that the passage was from the Torah, which is the first five books, and has a different status in law and commentary than the books of Joshua through Chronicles (in the order of the Hebrew Bible). One dastardly respondent even referred to me as a woman. This did nothing but recall my embarrassments as a child when people identified me as a girl because of my name. Two of David's colleagues when he was a young man and leader of bandits were named Ira; and both became ministers in his government when he was king. (See II Samuel 20 and 23; I Chronicles 11 and 27.) Several years teaching and writing about religion and politics, and two sabbaticals spent at Brigham Young University and the University of Utah provided me with considerable education about the sensitivity of religion. Calling the young David a leader of bandits is likely to provide me with another lesson. Before screaming, please read I Samuel 25. The episode of Nabal depicts David operating a protection racket. He and his men collected resources from farmers whom they protected from marauders, with themselves among the potential marauders. Nabal's wife Abigail pleaded with David not to take revenge on her husband for refusing to pay for protection. By the end of the story, Nabal was dead and Abigail was David's wife. Large numbers of people make their way to religious shrines in the hope of improving their health, achieving other goals, or overcoming problems. Christians have Lourdes, Fatima and a host of other sites noted for their powers; Jews visit the tombs of Rachel and famous rabbis; Muslims go to Mecca as well as several sites associated with key figures in Shiite or Sunni history (and occasionally bomb them in order to insult and kill despised rivals). The Knesset delegation of SHAS is not composed of simple people who walk on their knees, flail themselves, or wail in hopes of attracting the attention of a deceased intermediary with the Almighty. They are sophisticated politicians who currently have 10 percent of the parliament. They have served as prominent ministers in several governments, and have used their political muscle to garner resources for their primary schools, religious academies and teacher seminaries, as well as the construction of new neighborhoods designed for the large families of their affiliates. We can never know the true beliefs of politicians who speak and act in order to garner votes and resources. In the case of Jews, moreover, the emphasis is more on performing acts according to God's law, and not proclaiming belief. Jews remain Jews, no matter what they believe. Religious Jews judge one another by what they do or avoid. Homosexuality is a hot button for the Orthodox. The emphasis is on what is forbidden explicitly, rather than artful interpretations of David's comment about Jonathan. Especially prominent have been opposition to gay marches, most notably in Jerusalem. The problem comes when members of Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox communities discover that they are homosexual or lesbian. There are care givers and families who express understanding and support. There are also families who shun those who sin, individuals who live in conflict, as well as teachers and rabbis charged with taking advantage of people dependent on them. There are ultra-Orthodox politicians who assert that homosexuality resembles bird flu and causes earthquakes, and others who remain silent and may thereby be expressing reservations. For the next two weeks, we plan to be enjoying the sights and tastes of Sicily. I will try to keep from asking, "Who runs this place?"
Be the first to comment to this post
|
 |
About this blog
Window on Israel
Hebrew University Political Science professor evaluates the latest happenings in Israel.
|
Combined feed for all JPost.com blogs
Recent Comments
Ed M. United States: I am an American, the way we have to fight a war today disgusts me!! we have to be politically correct when we fight wars today, we have to advise lawyers today, PATHETIC!! war is hell, during WWII and to some extent vietnam, because vietnam was a political war run by beurocrats in Washington. My point is if you have to go to war, you fight to win, no matter the cost to mosques, collateral damage, civilians, etc. the war in the pacific was ended with 2 bombs, and the Japanese were begging to end the war, in Europe we bombed everything into oblivian, no political correctness, just VICTORY!!
ben hillel: Sharkansky says that Israel's potential next leaders have greater experience than the U.S. presidential candidates. That's right, but it fails to note what kind of experience that constitutes. Bibi was a failure as PM, and as finance minister had great success in simultaneously making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Barak was completely ineffective. Then let's take -- well you take, please -- Mofaz, who has done nothing at Transport and whose major accomplishment as chief of staff and at Defense was failing to prepare the army for what it faced in 2006.
Mike Germany: Don't envy the Norwegians, let the European nations serve as a warning. It took the compeat destruction of the continent bafore Europeans stopped waging war and settled down to building themselves a future.
The Mideast is now n a position Europe was in a century ago - Will it take the compleat destruction of the region to achieve lasting peace?
|
|