Separation of Synagogue and State

When I had first come up with the idea for this post it was going to be far more relevant. However, the most recent Lebanon/Israel conflict has ended for the greater part - or at least its appearance in the nightly news- and the entry is less current.

During the conflict I noticed the frequent use of the word "anti-Semitic" in relation to people's positions on the hostilities, generally used to describe would-be opponents or critics of Israel. Now, before going any further I should note that this specific blog is not intended as a discussion of Israeli foreign policy or domestic issues. (I'm not that brave, yet.) My intended discussion is the seemingly unique place Israel holds in the American dialogue and the use of "anti-Semite" in that dialogue.

Israel seems to hold a special place in that the nation is the religion and the religion is the nation. Several other places around the globe may be strongly identified with a religion and vice versa (Saudi Arabia - Muslim, Japan - Buddhism, Ireland - Roman Catholic, etc.) but these places aren't held in the American eye as being one in the same as the religion. Statements can be made about the nations without automatically assuming a statement about the religion and the religion themselves aren't seen as rooted in power in the nation. (I'd argue that Islam and the nations of the Middle East have a more comlplex realtionship in the American mind then Israel and Judaism). What is it about Israel that makes any statement about the nation of Israel be seen as a blanket statement about Judaism?

I think there's a couple of reasons.

First, the connection in the Judeo-Christian tradition that resonates with the average American. Christian or Jewish, both groups can identify to a common religious history, at least as far as the end of the Old Testament, and a basic moral structure and view of God. Second, a huge amount of non-Jewish (I believe the term is gentile) guilt. The holocaust sits in the history books as one of the most tragic events in human history. And all that racism, tragedy, and horrific systematic genocide was aimed for the most part at one group, Judaism. There wasn't an Israel before the holocaust but there was one after. The events are tied together in the American mind.

There's additional arguments for America's relationship with Israel such as American bases in the Middle East, an ally in the middle-east, a customer for US arms, etc. I think these arguments make sense for why America has a political relationship with Israel but doesn't address the apparent merging of Israel and Judaism as a single entity in the American mind.

Personally, I view Israel as a nation. A nation that happens to be predominantly Jewish. I agree with some of their policies and disagree with others. I don't think that makes me anti-Semitic and defining a discussion about Israel in the narrow terms of anti-Semite or non anti-Semite (is that just Semite?) does little to further any sort of growth.

Thoughts, opinions, critiques, insults ?

*PS-Ignore Just Read and Just Saw - they don't work yet*

Lightning fast connection.....Lazy as hell writer..

Ok, so I'm back after demands from fans (at least that's what I'll tell myself). Very stoked about the response to the inaugural blog. Interesting ideas, actual participation - exactly what I was looking for. Let's keep it up. Now, depending on the daily news I got a ton of ideas to toss forward but BK offered up a talking point from my initial post and I figured I'd just bring it to the forefront for the next discussion.

Bad Klown stated:

My feeling is that the west and United States in particular suffer from a guilt complex driven by our prosperity. In addition, I counter your question with a question. Because of our prosperity is there a obligation for us to fix the problem, or more precisely does fully understanding and comprehending a problem dictate a more active role in solving a problem?

Now the previous blog was addressing environmental concerns but I'll broaden it to a general technologies, not just environmental. The short answer, YES.

...or at least address the problem from the comfort of our prosperity if not fix it completely. We (I refer to the west but specifically US since I have a vote here) do have an obligation to try and move technologies forward if we can. BK made a very astute point that extremely poor countries aren't gonna care about the environmental impact if they are just trying to heat their homes or get clean water. The west, however, has already mastered the basic technologies that are used world wide. We have the choice and THEREFORE the responsibility to try and push that technology forward. In a way, I view it as part of a basic morale structure. Those with more help those with less. (Yes, I could actually do this a ton better myself). The difficult part is cash, right ? Should companies be forced or subsidized by the governments to research new technologies ? Should the market purely determine what succeeds or fails? I don't see those things working and I don't have an answer.

As to the guilt part, I'm an Irish-American Catholic. Guilt's part of my basics make-up. But with this I think its somewhat warranted. Looking around my house at what my wife and I have and thinking about what others don't.....I could definitely give back to the community specifically, and the world in general.

The Start

So I'm starting a blog. Why ? Same reason as, everyone else - ego, more specifically stroking mine. 'Cause my thoughts and opinions are important for the world to see, right? In actuality, just the circle of friends and family that are bored at work and need something to kill time immediately before or after lunch (or dinner and breakfast for those on late or early shifts).

Now with this blog I'm looking for some debate. I've found that especially with close friends and family I forget to ask their opinions about the issues of the day. I guess familiarity breeds less conversation. So I'm looking for feedback.

What's the first topic ? I was gonna go with globalization in general but, frankly, that's a pretty hefty thing to start with so I'm gonna try something else.

A couple days ago a co-worker asked me if I believed in global warming. Now, I'm very very pro-environment. I like more open space, the endangered species act, parks, solar energy, recycling and the whole gambit. My immediate response was "Of course I believe in global warming". Throughout the years I paid attention to the information concerning increase in temperatures, changing landscapes and stuff. As the conversation continued I realized my opinion was set pretty early on. Although I'm aware of the scientific data supporting my opinion its largely a belief at this point and less an opinion arrived at by thorough examination of the data. That started me thinking. Possibly some of those who don't agree with global warming (or more specifically mankind's role in it) its a similar situation. All the scientific data in the world isn't going to change their "belief" on certain issues - even issues that would seem to be able to be supported with hard data.

So here's talking point:

Is part of the battle for environmental concerns lost in a belief structure, rather than hard scientific data?

I also apologize ahead of time for poor writing. I'm an engineer by day, not a writer.