Posted on 11/22/2011 4:51:54 AM PST by Misterioso
Is Judaism, long championed as a great lifestyle for thinkers and questioners, actually collectivist?
Abandoning Eden wrote a post recently about "Holocaust-shaming", a term I had never heard of before she mentioned it. The phenomenon exists, though, and I wonder why no one else (that I can tell) has discussed it much.
Like other tragedies that have befallen the Jews, the Holocaust is used as an emotional tool to manipulate non-believers, rebels and even mild skeptics into practicing the religion. Many of us have heard arguments such as, "Your great-grandparents were gassed/enslaved/shot because they were Jews, so you'd better stay Jewish!" These claims are often persuasive because the Holocaust is both a relatively recent event and also an intense example of human carnage. The argument seems to say: Who wouldn't want to honor the memories or souls of his tortured predecessors by keeping their traditions?
The problem with this, though, is not just that tragedies don't prove the validity of a belief system. (If this were the case, those who Holocaust-shame would also tell people to become Muslims in honor of those killed in Bosnia...or live in inner-city ghettos so as to understand black culture.) The deeper problem is an opinion which many of my fellow travelers will disagree with, but I'll say it anyway:
Judaism is not the bastion of individualism that so many people like to claim it is. It is in fact a deeply collectivist belief system. It is a worldview that prizes the survival of the collective over the happiness or fulfillment of individuals, to say nothing of the triumph of truth itself. It is a way of life that limits the minutiae of everyday life, whose very purpose is to serve an all-powerful yet petulant deity while extolling the virtues of a very specific, collective nation.
This seems obvious when one thinks about terms like "Jewish survival", "Jewish continuity", "the tragedy of intermarriage" and others. It is obvious when listening to Jewish music, virtually all of which talks about the collective Jewish people or collective worship of God. It is even more clear personally as I watch some of my closest relatives treat me as though I do not exist, replacing me with my frum sister-in-law. What matters, in the end? The continued existence of Jews and Jewish practice. And thus in this context, Holocaust-shaming makes perfect sense.
To me, Holocaust-shaming is simply one of many ways that frum (or even not-so-frum) Jews use to guilt others into practicing the faith/lifestyle. And in my opinion, the Holocaust is a terrible reason to believe in Judaism. How about examining whether Jewish beliefs hold up to reality, or whether they help people to lead healthy and happy lives? Those sound like better gauges than the surreal suffering endured by European Jewry and their descendants (physical or not).
* http://tinyurl.com/77amrbc
Clickable: http://tinyurl.com/77amrbc
Uh, lots of religions use guilt and/or fear to keep their members in line. How many Christians would be religious if it were not for fear of an afterlife in H@ll?
Most people are Christian or Jewish because they believe in the faith. I personally view Christianity as the best path to a good life more than anything. The teachings of Jesus are brilliant and if people abided by them we wouldn’t have the problems we have today.
I disagree. Most people believe in a certain religion because they were brought up to do so. How many Muslims would choose those religions if you only started indoctrinating them into it after age 18? I have noticed that a lot of young adults seem to gravitate to Buddism for some reason (I am not a Buddist).
That is NOT to say religion is not a positive thing. It mostly is—especially the Judeo-Christian variety.
When the author describes the Lord God as petulant he reveals his anger toward God and his family.
IMHO I believe it is because it is considered "exotic" and cool.
Unfortunately, nobody else that ever lived has ever been able to "abide" by the teachings of Jesus for even an entire week of their life. That's why we need Jesus in the first place and that is the reason for Jesus primary mission - to save sinners.
If there is no justice, either in the here or hereafter, there is actually no reason to be a good person other than any particular circumstances you find yourself in.
For example, you may not molest a child, but only because you fear the physcical consequences imposed by its brother, or society, not because you think it is wrong.
Or, if you live in, say AFghanistan, you have no reason to restrain yourself.
A lot of people are guided by their own moral code. But a lot of people are also guided by what they think they can get away with. Sometimes, the two things blur too. Lets not pretend otherwise.
Forgive me, but that bit of "conventional wisdom" is ridiculous.
I was a complete agnostic. I didn't first become religious and only then believe in Hell because the religion was "trying to keep me in line."
I became a Christian because I experienced Hell. First, I saw clear as a bell that whatever the heck is wrong with the world is not due to any political, economic, or philosophical system but because the human heart is broken. Wounded. There's something seriously wrong with it. I can't see God, but I'd have to be an idiot not to see original sin.
Second of all, I've led a very happy, contented life in many ways. But when the sheer emptiness, the sheer nihillism, the sheer meaninglessness of it all hit me like a ton of bricks one day, that's when I found Hell. Despite all the good things in my life, I was becoming Hell. I felt it. I knew it. It was either change my direction, or become something I truly truly hated.
Christianity didn't keep me perpetually in fear of something happening in the future. It saved me from something that was happening already.
OK. But how did they develop that said moral code? And, if belief in a God that judges passes away, while the first generation may continue to hold a moral code, will the second, the third? I think not. Check the recent history of the West.
Further, not all moral codes are equal. Would you like to subsstitute that of Islam, or Kali-worshippers, for that of Judeo-Christianity? But if there is no absolute authority on what is right and what is not? Why is the later better than the former two, let alone Marxism. And dwhat gives Marxism its authority, anyway?
The answer is nothing. Without a Supreme Authority, all morals become a matter of taste. Hitler is only a villain because he lost. If he had won, why the worst he would be would be Stalin, and maybe he would have been Roosevelt, in the opinion of our generation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.