Name:     Michael L. S.   [E-Mail]
      Location: 
      Website:  Middle East Resource Center


 

HOME PAGE

---

RECENT POSTS:

Hi and shalom to all!

I'll deal with the remaining selected feedback to my religion piece and then sign off for this year.

5-- According to a couple of personages, I was apparently raised a Xian (or in a Xian environment) and now I'm "rebelling." Probably in the same way pimply teenagers start smoking to show their "maturity." Man. What do you say to such tripe? No, I was not raised a Xian. I wasn't raised anything. My parents are atheists. Nor was I raised in a Xian environment; I was raised in an atheist (communist) environment. And no, that doesn't explain why I'm, as many would no doubt put it, "anti-religion" because I actually was genuinely religious at one point in my life (relatively recently). Even if I had been raised as something or other or had grown up in one type of environment, it would only prove MY point, scilicet, that religious belief is primarily the product of active or passive inculcation, as opposed to being a universal and self-evident truth. (Of course, it never COULD be a self-evident truth for the simple reason that the veracity of religious claims is not evident in any manner.) Nor am I rebelling from anything. Because in order to rebel from something, that something kind of has to exist first. And since I do not believe in the existence of Jehovah or Allah, it would be rather dumb to rebel against them!

6-- This is from a wannabe genius and political scholar: "democracy is the will of the majority; if majority wants eg. porn banned, then it's OK." Crikey, it looks like I'll have to give a lecture on political systems now, too. Democracy is the rule of the majority with the respect for and protection of minority rights. Otherwise, it would be perfectly democratic for 50.01% of people to decide to massacre the other 49.99%. Come on, people, what is this: high school?! Being in the majority does not give you the right to abuse your power. Is the Saudi regime democratic? (And by Saudi regime I mean the entire legal, political and social establishment, not the democratic or otherwise nature of the people in power.) I think not. You always have to have the sense of proportionality and the cost-benefit consideration in mind. And above all, you can NOT prohibit or prescribe something because a "holy book" purports to endorse such a course. It's not your role here to help your "god" do "his" "business." If your "god" cannot handle things alone, then "he" is not cut out for the job. Get another one. You keep your beliefs to yourself, do what you think your "god" wants you to do, but leave the rest of us alone.

7-- I closed the series with an appeal to be tolerant. And there (and here) I was "bashing" religion. And one lady believes these two are contradictory and that I am hence a hypocrite. It seems like a potent argument. Except it's a straw man (my most favorite logical fallacy!). I have not been bashing religion at all. I have said numerous times that, while religion does not hold much stock with me, people have every right to hold whichever beliefs make them happy. I HAVE, however, been bashing such manifestations of religion as encroach or seek to encroach on the lives of those who do not share them. It's not so abstruse a concept to comprehend, surely.

8-- Several people were giving me the "'god' is love" shtick and thus took exception to my saying that I would "tackle, debunk and savage [their] beliefs." Except I never said I would do that. I stated I would tackle their beliefs if and when they bring them into the public domain and seek to impose them on others. I do not deny that religion has its positive aspects and can be thanked for some good things in addition to bad ones. But doing good things should not proceed from religious belief; they should be something that comes natural. You don't need religion to love and respect other people or help those in need. All I am saying is: if you want to believe in something--religious or otherwise--, that's fine by me. Just keep it to yourself.

And one last word on this subject and the subject of people's convictions in general. It's a quote, I'm not sure from where:
"People believe what they want to believe. They find meaning where they can and they cling to it. In the end, it really doesn't matter what's a trick and what's true. What matters is that people believe."

You can apply that as much to religion as you can to personal relationships or the Middle East.


* * *

Well, even though we celebrate our own New Year, it's impossible to escape the commotion of another "common" one being at its end. 2004 was in many ways a catharsis, both for me and for Eretz Yisrael. And we are definitely ending this year much better than we commenced it. So, without waxing all lyrical and analytical, I wish you all a very happy, healthy and fulfilled 2005. May it be everything good that this one wasn't.

>> send me your opinions by e-mail <<

Shalom shalom, everyone!

A personal rant coming up. Someone please tell me: whatever's happened to the notion of responsibility? Is it just me or does everybody and his dog nowadays seem to abdicate all personal responsibility for own actions and for consequences of those actions? Correct me if I'm wrong but we are all sane invividuals here. And as such we are the ones making our decisions in life--if we're mentally labile, then other people make choices on our behalf. We are also adequately intelligent to be able to foresee the effects our actions are likely to have. So why is it that certain individuals seem to think it acceptable to reach decisions and then blame everybody but themselves when said decisions result in adverse ramifications? You see it every day on Jerry Springer, Ricky Lake or, in Britain, Trisha. You lie, you cheat, you renege on your promises, you abandon people when the going gets tough... - and then you act perplexed and outraged when your victim reaches the boiling point. Yea, you have the effrontery to victimize YOURSELF! Suddenly the person whom you'd mistreated for a long time becomes the one at fault because they've seen thru your little game and grown sick of the abuse. Suddenly THEIR feelings and promises and sacrifices are belittled even though you'd lied worse than Mata Hari, broken every single promise you'd ever made to that person and never made a single sacrifice; indeed, actively avoided making sacrifices no matter at what expense to the other side. Absolutely pathetic. Fortunately, things have this funny way of working themselves out. Skulduggery and injustice get their just rewards. A "friend" of mine who used to be a cop knows that pretty well and is enjoying a whole new life in Zimbabwe now. Ultimately though, one doesn't know whether the main protagonist is more pathetic or their friends who come to the studio to cheer them on and sling mud at the person who got screwed by their protege(e). Oftentimes those "friends" know straight jack-diddley-squat about the other person or the real circumstances between the two. Yet, they feel qualified to dispense advice and indeed pass value judgments about the other individual's true feelings and intentions. Of course, the real culprit in the saga is thrilled to get such support. And so more and more water keeps being run on the mill of self-righteousness. The main issue is completely lost in the entire web of "I rub your back, you rub mine" or "I seek to excuse my wrongdoings, you seek to excuse them, too." How supremely sad and stupid. But all the same, the genuine victim in it all should not concern themselves about it. As I wrote last time, there is no point wasting time on people, things, preoccupations and events that do not deserve it. My advice is: be the best person you can, treat others the way you would want to be treated, don't use or abuse anyone, don't lie, don't cheat, don't break promises and enjoy life. Those who are decent and genuine people will love you for it. Those who are not will fizzle out of your life. And good riddance. You've probably conjectured by now that the foregoing was not brought on merely by an edition of Jerry Springer. Yes, I speak from experience. I might write one time about that experience; right now I just can't be assed.


* * *

OK,

¡¡¡ BULLSHIT ALERT !!!

...because the dissenting reactions to my religion work were really a bunch of bullshit. Most people have been nice and civil. So it should behove me to respond in kind. Unfortunately, even the most courteous of statements can be plain stupid. This was no exception. You see, I try, I really try. I endeavor to be polite and explain in the most genteel way possible that "when I said x, I meant...x!!" But when I have to repeat that thing twoscore times, it kind of ever so slightly incenses me. Because not to be able to understand something that is written clearly and simply has to mean that a person is stupid, playing stupid and/or not in control of their senses. Here are some of the reactions. (I can't be bothered with all the quotation marks and attributions so I'll just paraphrase.)

1-- One of my favorites: even though the probability that eg. Xianity is small, it pays to believe just in case. After all, what have I to lose if I believe and it turns out to be false!? The good old Pascal's Wager. It contains such an amount of obtusity, illogic and inaccuracy that it almost incites me to have a fit. Rather than dissecting this crap myself--lest it turns into an essay--I invite you to see what a pal of mine has written on the subject: Bad Arguments --scroll down to number 5 (though I strongly recommend you peruse the whole page).

2-- Oh, another gem: there are so many people in the world who believe that there just HAS to be "something to it". A posteriori, anyone? OK smartass, according to that, there's gotta be more of "something to it" to Islam than to your strand of Xianity seeing as there are a helluva lot more devout Muslims than there are followers of your particular Xian sect. You don't get it: the only reason Xianity is of any material significance today is that Constantine of Rome accepted it in the fifth century. He did it for rather selfish reasons: to stave off a mutiny. He institutionalized it as the religion of his imperium. And because he was a powerful man at the head of a powerful empire which subsequently dissolved into powerful entities which are still moving and shaking the world today, Xianity became and stayed prominent. Of course, you can see it as "the hand of 'god'." I can see why you would want to view it as such. But then it must also have been that selfsame "hand of 'god'" which occasioned the subsequent events directly related to the institutionalization of Xianity. One of the collective first acts of Xians following Constantine's conversion was the torching of the biggest contemporary library in Alexandria (ie. a source of knowledge; surprised? I think not). Then came the forced conversions of pagans and others, witch hunts, manipulation of people, extortion, etc. And that was just the beginning. We know all about the Crusades, blood libel, Inquisition, Conquistadores, colonialism, the Hundred-Year War and a plethora of other things. So, if all that can be ascribed to the "hand of 'god'", then that "god" is an asshole. Or wait!! Could it be that the bad things were caused by the devil/sinful man? Yeah, I bet that was it.

3-- As the Slovenians would say: ampak to še ni vse! That's not all folks. It really DOES get "better." Here's a classic: I also believe certain things to be true. Eg. I believe that any supernatural entity has not made contact with us or that eg. the Bible contains errors. So, I'm a believer and hence I also have a religion. This is basically that hackneyed old hogwash that "atheism/agnosticism is a religion, too, because we believe that 'god' does not exist." The sheer imbecility of this one also prevents me from tackling it in a structured and reasoned fashion. Let me venture to though. Firstly, if you want to get into semantics, then I don't believe, rather I think. Just like I think DR Congo is a damn hot place. Or that the IQ of George W. is lower than that of Herr Gerhard Schröder. But, you see, these "beliefs" can be conclusively proven to be correct or incorrect using recognized scientific means. My "belief" that the supernatural entity--if it/they exist(s)--has not established or maintained a discernible contact with or impact on the human race can be proven thru empiricism, logic, anthropology, etc. Another important facet to bear in mind is that my "beliefs" about the supernatural play a very marginal role in my life. I do not spend my time, money, emotions or anything else in my daily life on my "religious" "beliefs."

4-- "Do YOU know what happens after we die?" Ie. can I provide a better answer than any religion as to where we "go" upon death? Geez. No, I cannot. If I could, the mystery of life would not be much of a mystery, now would it, Sherlock. But just because I don't know what happens after death does not mean I will take the first "answer" that is given me, regardless of how flawed and illogical it is. Which reminds me: when I was in attendance at a church once, I heard an elderly gentleman--otherwise quite clever--rationalize his being a Xian (the evangelical, fire-and-brimstone type) thus: "I'm a Christian because no-one's ever offered me anything better!" And you could hear Amens shooting out all over the place. "Jesus"... You don't buy a frigging second-hand vehicle on such a basis!!! Let alone do you subordinate your life to a set of rules and beliefs which guide your every action and thought (at least in principle) because you hadn't encountered a better alternative!!? Give me a break. Fact is, we DO not and CAN not know what the purpose of life--and hence its sequel, if any--is. All we CAN know for sure is that this is the only life we have. So don't waste it on asinine things. Forget dictating to other people how to live, hatred, nationalism, chauvinism, pursuit of riches. I've never heard of a person taking their wealth, diplomas or flag beyond the grave. So set your priorities straight and enjoy this life unencumbered. I'll write more about that on some other occasion.

More "arguments" tomorrow!

>> send me your opinions by e-mail <<

Oh wow:



Ladies and gentleman, that is a former college classmate of mine. (And, of course, I have her permission to post her picture here.) She e-mailed me a couple of days ago out of the blue to wish me a merry Xmas and a happy New Year, etc. (I set her straight soon enough on the Xmas bit ) and we started catching up on things. My goodness, I nearly fell off my chair when I "saw" her. She HAS changed. Still sweet and pretty but no longer as ditzy as she used to be back, oh, four, five years... - not, of course, that there's anything wrong with being slightly ditzy. Well, I'm extremely glad to be in touch again with people who seemed to have drifted out of my life (even if not always so in happy circumstances). But there IS a deeper point to this post than Sandra. Oh come on, you know I have to "intellectualize it up" a bit, right! After all, I DO have "illusions of grandeur"!

I had my birthday a few weeks ago--I turned 25--and it got me thinking. (For those of you who've heard me moan about this before, feel free to skip the next two paragraphs. ) I cannot believe I'm 25. Since I have this notion that I will not make it past fifty, this point, then, would signal the conclusion of the first half of my life. I do not find that tragic in itself although it IS slightly unsettling: not that long ago it would never have occurred to me to quantify longevity. Life was there ahead of me, stretching forward as far as I could see and beyond. I knew I would start thinking about death some time; I only reckoned that would not be until I was well in my twenties. Well, whaddaya know: now I am. *sniffle* But that's not the point. I know I'm still very young so it's not a big deal. It's something else that occurred to me which I wanted to mention. Now, I'm decidedly NOT a retrospective person, one to hark back, analyze the mistakes, forfeited opportunities, what-ifs, coulda-shoulda-wouldas. In fact, I find such activity to be wholly unprofitable and quite inane; immature. We should learn from our mistakes, by all means, but to allocate more than a fleeting second to sorrow or longing for something in the past is truly futile and potentially damaging to one's self-esteem and to one's capacity to marshall the future as best as one can. Basically, let bygones be bygones and look forward to the infinite opportunities that the future holds. Having said all this, you might demur at what I'm about to say: I REALLY wish I had not spent my time in high school and at college the way I did. Some of you knew me back then, others (luckily) did not. I'm not ashamed of how I was and what I squandered my time and money on, I just fervently wish I could return to that time and live it over again. Those of you who are lucky (yes, LUCKY) enough still to be at school, by Jove enjoy every minute of it. Don't waster your time on angst, extremism, and what you might see as utopian ideas. Fact is, you are in all likelihood not mature enough to have been able to form genuinely firm and rational views. That is not to say that you should not espouse any views; I am merely adjuring you not to enthrone them as the focal point of your lives. Pupils and students cannot change the world anyway so put your attention to where it belongs; you have no real responsibilities yet so use this to your advantage. Believe me, enjoying this time with your friends--indeed making friends and widening your circles--, falling in love, being a bit crazy is what will mark this period of your lives. When I was young, both my parents and grandparents kept reiterating to me: enjoy your schooldays, it is the best time you'll ever have had. And I thought: what bullshit, I can't wait to grow up. Well, they were right.

But son of a gun, time DOES fly by. Some memories I have go back 21 years. That's more than two decades. Goodness, I can still remember my time in the kindergarten when the biggest worry I had in the whole world was: I hope to G-d they don't give us those disgusting green beans for lunch today. Sheesh. And here I am now buying a place to live and, indeed, wondering in which country to settle. I couldn't wait to reach the age of twelve (that used to be the legal limit above which children could ride in the front seats in automobiles)--see the silly preoccupations some kids have --and this is me having twice exceeded that limit. And that perennial consternation: when will I be eighteen already, oh when, oh when. If only I could go back to wondering about that... This is not feeling sorry for myself in any way though; it's more of a reminiscence, trying to find a context for my life and put it there.

And what IS that context? Well, life it ephemeral. Against the backdrop of the infinity of space and time, it amount to literally nothing. Imagine that: I, one individual, among six billion others, on a tiny planet circling a spec of a "star" which is in a morsel of a galaxy of which there are googols and googols more. And behold, here is me thinking my life and my problems are of some importance. You know what the solution is? Let's just say that the phrase "don't worry, be happy" is much more than a melodious ditty. "De-problemize" your life. Your parents, partner, friends, boss, neighbor, government screwing you? Screw them. They'll pass away just as you will, and humus will conquer all. So don't fritter away the time you have before the humus gets you exercising yourself about things which will be of no importance to anyone by and by. OK, before y'all start musing whether I've gone nuts, let's move on.

* * *

Hehe, probably because I use "big" words and write about things on the more "intellectual" side of life, "some people" seem to think I have delusions of grandeur. No names... ...but get a life. And well, first reactions to my series on religion have been coming in. It IS amazing just how big idiots some people can be. Get this, from--shamefully--a Michael: "Your one sad guy [...] you sling mud on all religions exept your own." *sigh* NOW do y'all see why I keep saying that I hate nothing more than injustice and human stupidity? Because this Michael's retardation has advanced to such a level that it is impossible to tackle rationally. There are two ways I could answer this: (1) I COULD be courteous and bring to this individual's attention the fact that I've not extolled any religion, including my own (oh, wait a second, I do not HAVE "my own" religion...what now, Michael? *fazed*), and that I've dealt--rather objectively, I think--with all religions of a particular type in my "series" here, or (2) I could tell him that he's a semi-literate fuckwit who got some crazy-ass comprehension problems. No two guesses there.

THE SECOND ONE, Michael, the second one.

I'll address some of the polemic I've received next time.

Heyeh shalom!

>> send me your opinions by e-mail <<

Firstly, what am I? It's difficult to pigeohole me because even I myself am not thoroughly sure. I have presented my way of thinking about the "spiritual." Let me summarize: (1) I entirely reject the possibility that any religion in existence previously or today is "true" because the probability of its being so is so negligible as to be insignificant. (2) I do not hold it possible to verify the existence of a generic supernatural entity. (3) I can see no evidence that, IF the said supernatural entity does indeed exist, it has initiated or maintained any discernible contact with or impact on the human kind. So, principally I am a secular humanist, which means that religion, particularly the spiritual part of religion, does not play an active part in my ordinary life. I am also nominally Jewish because I feel I owe a duty to my nation to continue almost six millennia of tradition. Besides, Judaism has served as a mortar that binds the bricks together, ie. in times of peace our beliefs helped us stay unique and united; in times of war and turbulence it helped us remain true to ourselves and survive. Do I do the mitzvot? No, not consciously. Those which I observe I do because they are part of my personality. I guess there are a few which I keep for tradition's sake, such as not cutting my peyot with a razor, but it is just the motions.

Does that make me a bad person? I don't think so. I am not debauched, dishonest, callous, licentious, gluttonous, hateful, avaricious and all those other things commonly associated with "heathen." If anything, I think I tend to be a lot more caring, mild, sensitive, positive and "upstanding" than the vast majority of deeply religious people I've met directly or (of) whom I know indirectly. I am a strong "believer" (for want of a better word) in NATURAL LAW. That is to say, I hold we are all naturally/biologically born with a sense of "right" and "wrong", which is entirely independent of any religious system. For that reason, observations can be made that every known culture in the world, no matter how isolated from one another, autonomously set the limits of behavior at a certain (common-to-all) point. I will not belabor this matter and will only state that all cultures censured eg. murder or theft. Even the cultures which practised human sacrifices or cannibalism sought to rationalize it. Now, if you seek to rationalize or justify an act, that means you DO recognize that it is wrong or, at least, that it commands justification or excuse. Consequently, there has been no group specimen of people among which killing another was something done as naturally and intrinsically as eating or drinking. Just to make it clear, natural law is NOT any kind of religion to me in the loosest of sense; it is merely an observation.

Religiously, I can only be described as agnostic. That's AGNOSTIC; not gnostic, not atheist, not heathen, not rebellious, etc. Many have misconceptions about what agnosticism means and that includes even those styling themselves as agnostics. Agnosticism is uncertainty, unknowability and unprovability of the existence of a supernatural (divine) entity, and subsequently the state of imperturbability about whether such an entity really does exist. Nothing more and nothing less. Agnosticism does NOT mean quibbling about the veracity of Xian, Muslim or some other defined theology. As I have shown: fact is, we cannot be sure if an intelligent, supernatural entity or force exists, let alone whether that entity exercises power over us and nature as a whole. So the best way to encapsulate my attitude toward religion and "god" is that neither concerns me in the slightest. I live my life according to my instincts and according to the adage: "treat others as you would want to be treated." No, I do not apply that proverb consciously to my actions; it comes naturally. I also have an extremely acute sense for JUSTICE and FAIRNESS. Any mistreatment of a human being has a profound effect of revulsion on me. Forgiveness does feature prominently in my thinking but exacting justice overrides it.

And that sense for justice is precisely what gets me so fired up about religion. On the one hand, as some would say, if I think religions are wack, then why expend such energy countering them? No, it is not because I'm defiant against "god"/"God"/"G-d"/etc. but because of that aspect of religion which I emphasized in the second part of this series when I referred to religions which are "actively advertized by the holder thereof." I do not have any issue with any belief. I have a problem with cases where those beliefs exit the private sphere of the individual or group of consenting adults because that is the point at which they (the believer) fields their dogma in the marketplace of ideas. And in any marketplace critical evaluation is part of the game. So, if you want to air your beliefs, then I will tackle, debunk and savage them. If you wish to legislate to make me behave in accordance with those beliefs, I will fight you like a son of a bitch and will seek to legislate against such ideas. You see, I WANT to be able shop on Sunday. I WANT to be able to screw whomever I please. I WANT the woman who's carrying the child to be able to decide whether she wants to have it. I WANT to be able to have a dick up my ass if I choose to have one there. I WANT to be able to determine my kid's hair color. I WANT to be able to watch consenting adults have a gangbang. I want to be able to JOIN in the gangbang. I WANT to be able to listen to Eminem. ... I don't do most of those things. In fact, I don't do any of them--except shop Sundays and listen to Eminem--nor do I have much of a desire to. But I want to have the OPTION of doing them. I want other people to have that option. I do NOT want our lives to be even theoretically limited on the basis that a book says they should be and because some people believe that book to contain instructions from "almighty 'god.'" If you wish to proscribe things on workers' rights, health and safety, public order or similar grounds, then, by all means, we can have a debate. Both (or all) sides can present their logical, scientific, scholarly perspectives and a decision can be made using logic, science, reason and other methods while ensuring that principles of democracy and civil liberties are safeguarded. But no: "we have to ban x because 'god' is against x" is simply not good enough. Not only is it not good enough; it's total bullshit. After all, you owe your religious beliefs to a fluke or two. If Constantine hadn't bought it, Xianity would've remained an insignificant cult. Today it would probably be of the same fortitude and importance as Zoroastrianism (and the humankind would be at the 26th century stage of development but never mind that). And Islam might never have happened. If you'd been born elsewhere, you'd be able to have four wives. Or you'd be able to view all the legs in mini-skirts your eyes could register. Or you'd be living in servitude of whichever sort. And you'd be just as convinced your religion and your view of life and all that matter are the right one.

Oh, I HAVE to do some Xian-bashing. Xianity--the kind prevalent in the US--tends to be about sentimentalism, as perfectly illustrated by this site (the title says enough): Jesus Christ Suffered And Died Then Rose From The Dead So You Can Go To Heaven. If you manage to look past their trying to suck up to Jews, fabricate some sort of affinity with us, and the very ironic warning "Beware of Cults!"(!!!), you see what it boils down to: grandiose claims which do not stand historical, anthropological, sociological, LOGICAL or any other kind of scrutiny. These people are the ones waging the "war of civilizations" at this minute and you can find them on both sides. They've turned countries into police states, people's lives into misery, human concord and moves toward understanding into suspicion and odium. Now, some of you will say I'm much harder on Xianity than on other religions, notably Islam. And that is, to a degree, true. The main reason, however, is not any personal experience I've had or grudge but good old-fashioned science and logic--this time history. You see, Islam can be "excused": it is younger and going thru the same stages as Xianity did. We all know what Europe and the "Xian lands" were like only a century ago. We know of the Inquisition, witch hunts, stakes, endless ideological and nationalistic wars (of course, religion was used merely as a tool to achieve other, one might say "superior", interests), manipulation of people, intimidation of dissenters and so on and so forth. But evolution did its thing and most such areas and people have sorted themselves out by today. Islam is probably at the same point where Europe was at the time of the Reformation, maybe even past it. The most infuriating recent development has been the idiotic fundamentalist Xian Bush administration incensing Muslims. They have done nothing but radicalize millions of people who, in a few decades or maybe a century or so, would have achieved the kind of healthy secularization as erstwhile Christendom did in the second half of the last century. Secularization which does not forbid believing in what makes you happy but which DOES mandate separation of religious belief and functioning of the state. And now morons Bush and neo-conservatives have managed to thrust the Muslim world back into the 19th century. Perhaps that's a rather bleak way to look at things but I don't believe I am too far off the mark.

The answer? One word: tolerance. As platitudinous as it may sound, we have to tolerate each other but not just to the point of acceptance. We have to go further and acknowledge others' attitude toward us, toward beliefs whose veracity cannot be proven using conventional, scientific means. Xians and Muslims and others have to understand that their beliefs are based on faith, not evidence provable by employing said scientific means. They have to accept that the way to move forward is for them to confine these their beliefs to the domain where they belong: private life and/or group of PRIVATE consenting adults (just so nobody tries to interpret that as giving green-light to religionist governments). It's amazing what we can achieve when we use reason, logic and objectivity. Somehow, however, I will not be holding my breath on this one.

>> send me your opinions by e-mail <<