MICHAEL DAVIS WORLD

You can't make this stuff up, so we don't!

God Only Knows, by Martha Thomases – Brilliant Disguise | @MDWorld

November 22, 2014 Martha Thomases 3 Comments

images-2Among the things for which I am thankful during Thanksgiving, this most secular of holidays, is the fact that I don’t live in Jerusalem.

I mean, Jerusalem is a beautiful city, with a lovely climate, gorgeous buildings, and a sense of history so thick you can slice it.  Unfortunately, it also is a picture book example of why one doesn’t want to live in a non-secular society.

Israeli Jews control part of the city.  Israeli Arabs and Palestinians control other parts.  There are places sacred to Jews, Muslims and Christians, and sometimes all of them at once.

Now, I’ve been interested in religion and mythology (if that isn’t redundant) since I was in elementary school.  When I was in Israel, I was thrilled to go to the sacred sites to which I was permitted entry.  There were all kinds of reasons I was not — too Jewish, too female — but I didn’t feel it was my place to cause a fuss.

The most recent cause of tensions in Jerusalem is the insistence by some ultra-conservatives that Muslims should no longer be able to control and worship at the Temple Mount, one of the most sacred places to both Jews and Muslims.  There may be a bit of historical justification for this (it was the site of the Second Temple, a Jewish holy place before the birth of the Prophet), but it has been superseded in modern times by an agreement by the Israeli government to let Muslims have it.

I would very much like to see this place.  It is the Holy of Holies, where the priests made sacrifices and spoke to God.  I’d like to see what kind of window treatments he selected.

That said, I doubt I’d be allowed to enter if the site was controlled by Israeli Jews.  It would most likely be treated as a sacred place, not historical.  And the gatekeepers who insist they are the experts on the sacred do not include women as equals.

Anyway, because of the anti-Muslim sentiment whipped up by the conservative Israelis, a few Palestinians felt threatened and shot up a group of rabbis.  Now the rabbis are dead, the Palestinians are dead, and their homes are being demolished and their families left on the streets.  I think they are getting the concept of fairness mixed up with everyone being miserable.

If there is a good side to this, it’s a small one.  Mahmoud Abbas, chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, condemned the attack on the synagogue.  He was pressured to do this by John Kerry, but he did it, the first time this has ever happened.

Anyway, I was thinking about all this when I read about a recent kerfuffle with Richard Dawkins, the prominent atheist.  I’m not going to link to it here because he has said he was misunderstood on Twitter, something with which I can relate.  I disagreed with what I thought he said, but that’s not really the point I want to make, either.

Journalists thought that what Dawkins said was important because he is a prominent atheist, and a Twitter war with him would be like a Twitter war with Pope Francis or Pat Robertson.  It’s not the same thing.  Atheists and agnostics (and most Jews, and certain kinds of Christians and Muslims) don’t blindly follow a spiritual leader.  We/They consider the evidence and experience before us, read and study those things of interest, and come to our own conclusions.

The problem, as I see it, is that some atheists see the world in the same way as some religionists.  They (and only they) have the truth, and they won’t be satisfied until that truth is acknowledged by everyone.  At their worst, they have a tendency to dismiss religionists as superstitious and stupid.

Don’t get me wrong.  I, too, think some religionists are superstitious and stupid.  I suspect I would consider the murdered rabbis among them, because I have as little patience with fundamentalist Jews as I have with other fundamentalists.

But that doesn’t mean I want them to be murdered while in prayer or at any other time.  If prayer gives people comfort, I’m all for it.  If keeping kosher, or wearing a wig, or not shaving certain parts of your body makes you feel as if you’re in touch with the divine, go for it.  In my volunteer work, I see many families devastated by cancer, for whom faith is the glue holding their families (and their sanity) together.

My only problems arise when you use your sincerely held beliefs to interfere with my life and my sincerely held beliefs.

Mine, by the way, include living the best life I can.  And by “best,” I mean both the most virtuous and the most pleasurable.  The concept of a deity is pretty much irrelevant to this perspective.  This idea is not original to me, but is part of a Jewish tradition that goes back millennia.

Media Goddess Martha Thomases is especially grateful this year for the warmth from her family and friends, since the climate is supplying any.

Previous Post

Next Post

Comments

  1. Neil C.
    November 22, 2014 - 7:08 am

    Martha,
    That’s how I feel about most thing with religion, believe whatever you want, as long as it doesn’t interfere with my life. That’s why statements such as “”the U.S. is a Christian nation” makes me cringe. I am Jewish, but show a little doubt about any Israeli actions and you’re branded anti-Semitic (though I do believe the Palestineans bring most of it on themselves, the whole ‘destroy all Jews’ thing). I remember when I was at NYU, I was pulled in by the “mitzvah mobile’ to do the whole tfillon thing. Once was enough of that, after that I didn’t answer yes when they asked if I was Jewish.

  2. Martha Thomases
    November 22, 2014 - 7:18 am

    Neil,

    When they would ask me if I was Jewish, I would say, “Not Jewish enough.”

  3. Swayze
    November 22, 2014 - 7:32 am

    Yet in HighSchool you were too Jewish. Go figure.
    But like the chair in “goldilocks” you are really Just Right.

  4. Howard Cruse
    November 22, 2014 - 8:20 am

    Both nations-behaving-badly and organized-religions-behaving-badly seem to be the themes of the day all over the world, and Israel is not immune. Not is the U.S. So much money and potential good will being squandered when there are seriously expensive and morally constructive things that could be being accomplished if we weren’t stuck in interlocking syndromes of devisiveness .

    These are uncommonly dispiriting times for me personally. It’s good to be reminded by observing my friendship circle that humanity has not been permanently driven off the road by the power-obsessed.

    Thanks for the column, Martha.

  5. Howard Cruse
    November 22, 2014 - 8:22 am

    P.S.: My intended spelling above was “divisiveness,” of course.

  6. Liz Haase
    November 22, 2014 - 9:22 am

    Martha,
    You did not piss me off at all. I agree with you and am glad you wrote this column, too.

  7. mitchell
    November 22, 2014 - 9:05 pm

    Excellent comentary martha and about pissing
    People off , thats been my job for many years
    now. I also like this guy cruse. Spot on take on this ungodly scenario that has been unfolding over there for centuries now. Sort of like that prehistoric plant that only blooms every century or so with a terrible fragrance. Dragging the world down in an ever tight spiral. Sad stuff in a daily.
    More on this later.

  8. johanna hall
    November 23, 2014 - 6:34 am

    right on, Martha! You are a godess in my pantheon.

  9. Mike Gold
    November 23, 2014 - 10:17 am

    Every time atheists express our opinions on matters of importance, religionists drag out the old saw horse (sorry, I meant “meme”) “Some atheists see the world in the same way as some religionists. They (and only they) have the truth, and they won’t be satisfied until that truth is acknowledged by everyone.” By definition, we do not. We take responsibility for our actions because we can not palm them off on our invisible friend. If you believe in the supernatural, that’s absolutely no skin off of my ass — until you discriminate against me because of my beliefs. Even the act of defending ourselves is received with the retort “Oh, you’re as bad as THEY are.” Never “as bad as WE are,” I note.

    Some folks are a lot less polite than you were, Martha. They conflate expressing one’s philosophical point of view with proselytizing. You’d be astonished at how common this is. Not everybody is as cosmopolitan as New Yorkers think they are.

    All most atheists want is the same right to express our philosophies as the religionists enjoy. We have nothing near this right, and whenever we open our mouths the holy-holies chirp “oooh, you’re a fanatic! You’re a zealot. You’re a hypocrite no different from those you criticize!” According to national polls, atheists are less trusted than convicted criminals. If you don’t think that’s discrimination, then you don’t know what discrimination is.

    Fuck them. Enough is enough. More and more of us are standing up for ourselves. Look at the demographics; the religionists have a lot to worry about. They’ve panicking.

    I don’t understand why to brought up Richard Dawkins, as you invalidated the response to his alleged comment, which you did not publish. You’re a good writer, and every story needs a villain.

  10. Rene
    November 23, 2014 - 4:52 pm

    Mike –

    Richard Dawkins is not an asshole because he is an atheist. He’s an asshole because he says stuff like “It’s immoral not to abort a child with Down’s Syndrome” or “When a drunk woman is raped by a drunk man, both are to blame” or “Women are mutilated and killed in Islamic societies, and Western feminists are complaining about being rudely approached at in conventions” (the last one because some women dared to complain about male behaviour in atheist conventions).

    And those are only a few in Dawking’s Top 10 of asinine stuff. I don’t know which “controvesy” Martha is refering to. But Richard Dawkins saying something stupid and then backtracking clumsily is hardly news.

    You gotta admit that this stuff about downplaying rape and harassment is hauntingly similar to what some right-wing Evangelicals keep saying.

    Not all atheists are your buddies, Mike. Some, like Dawkins, sometimes have opinions that are frighteningly close to right-wing Social Darwinism.

  11. Mike Gold
    November 24, 2014 - 8:40 am

    “It’s immoral not to abort a child with Down’s Syndrome.” Hmmm… well, I don’t agree with that statement as worded, but I would not fault a couple who aborted a fetus with Down’s Syndrome.

    That’s a statement guaranteed to piss off people on both the Left and the Right, isn’t it? But I mean it. Not all couples are equipped — financially and/or emotionally — to deal with such situations. And there’s hardly a plethora of people hungering to adopt such babies. Healthy white babies command quite a premium on the baby market; babies with horrific diseases, not at all. Do the staffers at the Misericordia Home still refer to their back room as “the gargoyle room?” Probably not; it’s both politically incorrect and totally disgusting. But understandable: it’s a natural reaction to such unimaginable horrors. And, yes, I had worked with Misericordia back in the day.

    I don’t agree with everything Dawkins says, and it’s possible I’m more familiar with the broader view of his work than most here. Maybe not, but I find him courageous enough to express his beliefs even those with which I strongly disagree. Sort of like Gore Vidal, another writer I followed but with whom I did not always agree. On the other hand, when he says stuff like “the greatest threat to women’s rights is Islamism,” he’s got my interest. My problem here was that Martha raised the topic of Dawkins’ alleged comments without quoting them: were I editing this column, I would have asked her to either justify the mention or cut it out.

    Absolutely, not all atheists are my buddies. Not by a long shot. My personal Sturgeon’s Revelation applies to potential friends and associates as well as everybody else, including religionists and right-wingers. As it turns out, atheists have pretty much the same batting average for me as the rest of humanity.

    I’ve always said I’m an egalitarian.

  12. Martha Thomases
    November 24, 2014 - 8:50 am

    In an earlier draft of this article, I linked to a news story (not this one, but close enough: http://www.kansascity.com/living/religion/article4048417.html) which must have fallen away in my rewrites.

    I didn’t think the specific claims were important to discuss because I didn’t think they were necessary to my point, which is (in case I wasn’t clear) that atheists are not a hierarchy, that there is no one person who speaks for them, and that Dawkins views, whether I agree with them or not, have nothing to do with my interactions with other atheists or anti-atheists.

    Clearly, I have no problem with Dawkins (or Mike Gold, or Rene, or anybody) expressing his or her views. In terms of communication and discourse (but not the law), I think it is more productive to use what my shrink called “I” statements. For example …

    • It’s better to say, “I don’t believe in God” rather than “People who believe in God are idiots.”
    • It’s better to say, “I believe that morality stems from empathy and compassion,” rather than “People who say only Christians are morals are bigots.”

    Again, not attributing any of these things to Dawkins. The arguments his recent statements prompted gave me a springboard to other issues to think about, not actual content.

  13. Rene
    November 24, 2014 - 10:00 am

    Mike –

    I agree with you there. I would not fault a couple expecting a baby with Down’s Syndrome for choosing an abortion. But that is quite different from condemning the couple as immoral if they go ahead with the pregnancy. Dawkins’s views have the rotten smell of eugenics.

    Is Dawkins’s courageous? I don’t know. Committed and dedicated to his views? Absolutely. Courageous, I don’t know. Are Fundamentalist Evangelicals courageous when they express their disapproval of homosexuality?

    You may say that Dawkins is more courageous, because the Evangelicals speak from the safe haven of belonging to a powerful majority.

    But while I agree that atheists are a minority that face prejudice in a lot of quarters (for instance, while running for political office in the USA), atheists ARE the comfortable majority in a lot of places, like some university departments, scientific institutions, branches of the entertainment industry… Probably even more in England than the USA.

    It might be said that a biologist with views that disagree with Dawkins’s is the one in the position of weakened minority, as witnessed in the many occasions when Dawkins used his prestige to block and hinder other scientists that have challenged him.

  14. Mike Gold
    November 24, 2014 - 10:17 am

    “Are Fundamentalist Evangelicals courageous when they express their disapproval of homosexuality?” Well, that depends upon the venue. I think they’re being courageous when they engage in an honest, open, fact-based and jingo-free debate. And that does indeed happen. But you’re absolutely right: atheists do not have that safe haven of being part of a powerful majority.

    Equality in the venues you noted is whip cream. Substitute the word “atheists” with “blacks” or “women” or “left-handed German-speaking midgets” and you’ll see the problem. If somebody doesn’t trust you just because you are black, a woman, an atheist, a Muslim, a socialist, or a left-handed German-speaking midget, then that person is discriminating against you.

    Being the spokesperson for a minority cause is the result of a decision, one that history has shown us is often made by people with very powerful egos. Maybe that’s what it takes — it probably is; wallflowers make for lousy spokespeople. Dawson starts his day defending my philosophical beliefs, and he ends his day by going home to bed with Lalla Ward, to whom he’s been married for over 20 years.

    OK, I’m not jealous but, damn, that’s one lucky atheist.

Comments are closed.