Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Sectarianism

Expand Messages
  • Sbkidde@aol.com
    Fellow members, ? Sectarinism runs contrary to the goal of peace. ? Please consider the following passage: ? John 20:19 (NRSV) When it was evening on that day,
    Message 1 of 1 , May 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Fellow members,
       
      Sectarinism runs contrary to the goal of peace.
       
      Please consider the following passage:
       
      John 20:19 (NRSV) When it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and the doors of the house where the disciples had met were locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you."
       
      I read the bible and recommend that others do as well. I am however against sectarianism. I cannot assert that the Christians of the time did not have anything to fear from anybody. It would not be true.
       
      The phrase concerning the "fear of the Jews" however is still highly controversial. It requires contextual interpretation. It was written at a time when the Christian sect was newly derived from Judaism. It was written as an appeal for converts to Christianity. Christianity had entered the general competition as a competitive sect. 
       
      Statistically speaking, it was not ALL of the Jews whom the Christians had reason to fear. Neither was it only "the Jews" whom they had to fear. After all, there had been certain leaders within the empire that had been crucifying any number of the people in conquered territories to frighten them into submission. The people whom they had to fear are those whom we still have reason to distrust, the extermists.
       
      How are we supposed to expect peace in the Middle East, if we speak with over-generalizations as though they were accurate summarizations? Not all Jews are zionist terrorists. Not all Palestinians are jihadist terrorists. Most people want peace without violence.
       
      The Fatah constitution of the PLO is anti-Zionist, but it is not against the state of Israel. It will entertain the two state solution. The covenant for Hamas on the other hand states that they are against "Israel."
      What they mean is that they are against competition and democracy because they believe that "Israel" or "struggle" promotes anarchy and an on-going state of war. They claim that the koran is their constitution because they are "paper shy." They don't want to invest a great deal of time in editing their own written or verbal communications. Briefly stated, they are non-constitutional in their political views.
       
      They promote jihad or holy war presumably because they believe that ultimately, if people do not have choice regarding religion and government they will have peace. This is single party politics through theocracy. Naturally, while I am opposed to any such ideology, we have to admit that there are "Christians," "Jews," and members of other religions that believe that such a state is the only form of government that will "make things work." Non-believers in the single party mentality just make atheism into the religion of the state.
       
      While we are correct to oppose the unjustness of killing noncombatants, we also need to remember that there are those that are associated with Hamas and other organizations that would change the radical language in order to accomplish a viable political solution.
       
      Those of us that live in a constitutional society take that which is written about politics seriously. We find that written claims that are dedicated to the eradication of a political state are extremely offensive. The claims are not only indicating that the people that are making them want to change a state of organization, they are affirming that they are willing to use any means necessary to do so.
       
      Those that are not constitutional in their political orientation are not as concerned with the social consequences of what they write and say. They want to make strong statements that will draw attention to their lack of regard for "political correctness." While many of these non-constitutional types are single party extermists that are disruptive to the political process, not all of them are.
       
      Many are simply feeling so overwhelmed by the complexity of the world that they don't want to get involved with its government in accordance with the rules. For them, the rules only get in the way of ordinary living. They want to simplify the system by reducing it to a single party.
       
      This attitude shows the problem with low self-esteem. The political process is investigated at the elementary and secondary levels of education. Collegiate levels of study have requirements for history. It is totally inappropriate for a citizen to default to a single party position in a democratic society. Such a position is rightly defined as extremist.
       
      People that use the bible, the koran, judaic scriptures, or any other "scripture" to justify sectarian attitudes are extremists that need to correct themselves. Otherwise, there will be consequence. The consequence is that they will stand in need of correction. Whether they receive the correction from society or elements thereof, it will be coming from outside themselves. This is a distasteful business because it runs contrary to the natural respect for free will. Nevertheless, the need for correction will be perpetuated until the offending party or parties stand corrected.
       
      Peace,
       
      Steve K. 

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.