Over on my blog there is a post called Why Be Jewish in which we explore some of the reasons why people are members of the tribe. I would have crossposted it here but I didn’t want to take that much of Meryl’s bandwith.
Why Be Jewish is the kind of question that some people roll their eyes at because it sounds flip, but there is real meaning to it.
Certain core beliefs should be questioned and challenged. When it comes to matters of faith the reality is that you cannot truly say who is right or wrong. Sure, some people will claim that they have the answers. They’ll assure you that they have a personal relationship with G-d, a direct line that makes them an authority.
That is the kind of claptrap I roll my eyes at. Don’t get me wrong, I think that it is perfectly fine to believe that you have that sort of relationship, just don’t try to force the rest of us to believe that you are owners of the sole true path.
Earlier this week I was engaged by a few people in a conversation about Obama’s speech and was asked what I thought about it. I told them that I thought that he had over reached and that I don’t believe that conditions exist for a real peace.
And then I asked them why they think that the Palestinians deserve a state. It engendered a look of horror and two minutes of a half baked lecture on how bad I was for even posing the question.
I listened and then I asked them to give me a definition of what a settlement is. They hadn’t ever thought about it. It hadn’t even crossed their minds, all they knew was that they pictured settlers as being big and bad people.
One of them attempted to cover up their shortcomings on this with a lot of bluster about how bad Israel had been. I deflated that argument in all of two minutes.
The point here is not to say that I am incredibly smart or wiser than the next person. For me the issue was trying to illustrate how without a deeper and more clear understanding of the issues it is impossible to come to an agreement.
If you can’t define what a settlement is you can’t determine what is “legal” and what isn’t. If your argument for creating a state is “because” you don’t have much to stand on.
It doesn’t mean that valid reasons don’t exist, it is just more evidence that far too many people prefer to argue with emotion and not with fact.
But what do I know, according to them I am just another example of the Israeli unwillingness to bring peace. Now if only I had the kind of power that they attribute to me.
And then I asked them why they think that the Palestinians deserve a state.
It engendered a look of horror and two minutes of a half baked lecture on how bad
I was for even posing the question.
I listened and then I asked them to give me a definition of what a settlement is.
They hadn’t ever thought about it. It hadn’t even crossed their minds, all they knew
was that they pictured settlers as being big and bad people.
The problem is that so many people don’t ever come into contact with people who disagree with
them. Heinlein said, “I never learned anything from someone who agrees with me”. I wouldn’t
go that far, there are very few absolutes, but it’s a good point.
If your core assumptions are never tested (“It’s all the Joooooos fault” in this instance),
then you can’t really debate or even understand the issue.
That’s much more prevalent on the left these days, but it’s hardly their property.
People like to belong, they also like to think they’re smart. So if you hang out with people
because you think they’re smart and you want them to think you’re smart, you aren’t going to
challenge them and you’re going to go along when they ridicule people who do challenge them.