Is idolatry by any other name still . . . idolotry?

Right near the end of her book, Armstrong writes, "In montheistic terms, it is idolatry to see a shrine or a city as the ultimate goal of religion. Throughout, we have seen that they are symbols that point beyond themselves to a greater Reality. Jerusalem and its sacred sites have been experienced as numinous" (423).

This is SUCH an interesting perspective - and one I hadn't thought of before. But, it totally makes sense. This is idolatry, really. I'm surprised that I didn't see it, because I can go on and on (but I won't!) about the ways in which the contemporary practice of the monotheistic religions is thick with idolatry (sometimes it even seems that idolatry reigns).

So, I do have some questions about this. First, do you think that practitioners of the monotheistic religions do see Jerusalem as "the ultimate goal of religion?" I don't think that Christians do, and Dr. Sessa solidified that on Tuesday. What about Jews and Muslims? Is Jerusalem the end-goal? Or, is it cast as the religious goal in order to give "weight" to political and territorial claims?

Also, how is this vying for Jerusalem as idolatry not a more common thread in the discussions of it? Now that I've read it in Armstrong, it seems so obvious. Yet, I don't know that I've ever heard this come up in a conversation about contemporary Jerusalem and the conflict there. It seems that perhaps this is another example of religion "picking and choosing" in order to advance political claims. (i.e. Using Leviticus to claim that homosexuality is "wrong," but ignoring other laws presented in this same book of the Bible, some of which are QUITE disturbing.)

Questions for Guest Presenters

GAH! BLOGGER! Why do you despise me??

Okay. Taking a moment.

Here are my questions (that won't show up in the comment section on the class blog, for some reason):

I'm sorry if this ends up showing up twice; it got deleted the first time!

1. Where does Christianity and its followers fit in in regard to the current situation in Jerusalem? It seems that so much of the centers around the relationships between Jews/Isrealis and Muslims/Palestinians. Yet, there are Christians living in the city and Christians who pilgrimage to Jerusalem because it is a holy site. What is their impact on the current situation?

2. We talk a lot about the misconceptions that are in circulation regarding Islam and its followers - perhaps this is especially true for those of us who study the Middle East in some way. What would you say are some misconceptions of the other religions involved here, and how do those misconceptions play into the conflict in Jerusalem, as well as the global/media response to it?

Ch 10-13 Response

This may sound really weird, but for the last few chapters of Armstrong’s book, I’ve found myself wondering, “Where have all the Christians gone?” Throughout this text – well, the more recent chapters anyway – we’ve seen how the monotheistic religions and their expansion have played into this destruction-rebuilding-repeat cycle in Jerusalem. I’m sure that this will become clear as we proceed through the text, but I keep thinking about this as I’m reading – how did we get to the point where we are now, where the conflict is really between two of these monotheistic religious groups? Where are the Christians in the contemporary conflict?

I mean, obviously, they are there. Obviously, Christians also pilgrimage to, and live in, Jerusalem. But, why aren’t they vying for space in the same way that the Israelis and the Palestinians are? Or, are they aligning with Israel, since Judaism and Christianity or born out of the same tradition (or, rather, Christianity is born out of the Jewish tradition)? Armstrong’s text has shown us that no religious group was “good” or “bad.” The situation is complicated, and all of the groups have both been dominant and oppressed. But, in the more contemporary period – or maybe even since the Crusades? – Christianity has been so closely associated with imperialism, colonization, etc. So, why not in contemporary Jerusalem? (Don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing that Christians should try to colonize Jerusalem; I’m just intrigued by the question.) At first I thought that maybe it was the fact that Jerusalem, while also a site of praise for Christians, is also a site of anguish, given the crucifixion, etc. But, then, isn’t Jerusalem clearly a “mixed” location for all of the religious groups?

Swirling Thoughts

Blogger and I are having some relationship troubles. Well, actually, it’s not blogger at all. It’s my five year old computer that feels like it should short circuit occasionally, and in the process, eat the occasional blog post. (I’m getting a new computer this week – weeee!)

Hence, my blog post that I wrote Thursday morning never got posted. So, I’m going to write three this week (sorry to inundate you; please bear with me!). Rather than redoing my post on the chapters we’ve already discussed in class, I’m going to go somewhere else with this blog entry (I hope that’s okay!). I have A LOT swirling around in my head right now, so I apologize if this seems disjointed or rambly. I’ll try to make it make as much sense as possible!

Part of what inspired this mental tangle (or, at least, part of what made it more complicated that it already was) is the fact that I watched “Promises” this weekend. Dr. Horowitz mentioned this move in class a few weeks ago, so I netflixed it to check it out. In case you haven’t seen it, here’s a trailor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySJaH7OXzOA (Also, the whole move is on youtube if you don’t mind it being choppy.

In short – without giving anything away – the movie traces the experiences of a number of Jewish and Palestinian children who live in Jerusalem and the surrounding areas. Some of these children (two secular Israelis and a number of Palestinian children) decide that they want to meet each other. They spend a day together and then, two years later, the filmmaker asks them to reflect on their experiences. I’m not going to mention what they say, because I don’t want to spoil anything.

Watching this, for me, really resulted in a feeling of dislocation. And perhaps this is not surprising, given all of the instances of exile, destruction, rebirth, colonization, etc. that we have been reading and talking about in class. I feel like the more I learn, the less I can separate myself from world events. And the less “at home” I feel in the U.S. – yet I have no other home. I found myself feeling sad that I’m not able to go on this year’s trip to Jerusalem because I started having this feeling of . . . there must be something there. In that space. I had this feeling that Jerusalem must have something to offer, something to give in the way of explanation. And then I think, this is just me. U.S. born and raised. I have no explicit ties to Jerusalem. And I still have moments of feeling pulled to it. I can’t imagine how strong Kasa’s feelings must have been! And then to get there and . . . there is no explanation. It’s all so perplexing.

“Promises” also made me think of a couple of other projects. One – mentioned by Dr. Horowitz on Thursday – is the Compassionate Listening project. (Started, in part, by a Quaker. Yay!) Here’s a video about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZM69RV6OjI And their website: http://www.compassionatelistening.org/ It also made me think of the Seeds of Peace Camp, which I’m somewhat familiar with because I’m from Maine, which is where the camp is located: http://www.seedsofpeace.org/

So, all of these things bring me back to questions about dialogue. Does dialogue work? Does “humanizing,” listening too, empathizing with “the enemy” work? Is this simply idealistic?

Armstrong Reading Response: Why Jerusalem?

One of the things that I’m finding increasingly interesting about Jerusalem as a city is its history of destruction and recreation. Or, perhaps, its recreation through destruction. For example, I wonder if the final destruction of the temple that left all but the Western Wall standing actually somehow made the site even holier than it would be otherwise. I’m sure that people would still go there in droves, but would so many people make pilgrimages there if the history was not full of this destruction? (Similarly, would so many people travel to ground zero in NYC if the twin towers hadn’t fallen?)
So, again, this raises the bigger question for me of, why Jerusalem? We’ve already talked in class about how Jerusalem’s appeal is fairly surprising given that it’s geographically not in a very desirable position. (Though I do wonder how much this has to do with the fact that Jerusalem is on a hill – “the city on the hill” - and thus is so noticeable.) But, still, an endless number of cities and civilizations have come and gone. They’ve been lost in destruction and never rebuilt. They’ve faded overtime. What is it about Jerusalem that keeps it holding on? Obviously, the fact that it has deep meaning for the three main monotheistic religions is part of it, but other holy cities do not garner the attention that Jerusalem does. And other cities that have been destroyed, well . . . that’s been it. They’ve been destroyed. So, again, why Jerusalem? And why all of the attention now? Is part of Jerusalem’s ability to survive its history of destruction? Would Jerusalem be a city of such meaning if it were not currently such a contested, conflicted, explosive site?

(Mostly) No Words. Just Images. What do YOU make of me??

You May Say I'm a Dreamer . . .

(Reposted from the class blog - whoops!)

I'm thinking a lot about dialogue. To be honest, I'm thinking about dialogue on a fairly constant basis, but I am thinking about it especially after doing this week's readings and because of the subject matter and nature of this class in general.

In Women's Studies (as well as in some other disciplines in the humanities), we LOVE to talk about dialogue. We love it. We see it as very core to what we - as scholars, academics, activists - do. For example,the Women's Studies classroom - and the feminist movement(s) more broadly - is really centered around dialogue. We speak of bringing a "multitude" or a "diversity" of voices into a space in order to displace the idea of a singular, over-arching authority figure. It's a way of legitimizing and honoring different people's knowledges and experiences. It's also a gesture toward embracing and including voices that have been marginalized.

In my own work, I too talk about dialogue. Grad students (for better or worse) become very good and spitting out our research interests in two sentences or less. When I speak of mine, I talk about looking at conflict narratives and "putting them in dialogue with each other." Even as I type this, I have trouble clearly conceptualizing what that means. It's the part of my research that still seems a bit fuzzy. I think that this project of looking for dialogue will mean reading women's narratives with, through, and against each other in order to see if there is any "conversation" taking place, to see if these narratives "speak" to each other in any way.

I'd love to hear what we each are personally hoping to get out of this project of dialogue. Why enter into this sort of transnational dialogue? What are our aims? How do we enter into this dialogue productive and realistically? Is it okay to be idealistic and hope that dialogue truly does have the power to transform? Does it?

Wow. I'll stop asking questions now. These are just some of the questions I've been carrying with me. I thought perhaps I'd share them.

Also, I'm fine with either an open or a closed blog.

Signing Off,
Say