JF:>>I suspect that Gandhi's position on that is by no means not unrelated to his own advocacy of a secular India. Although Gandhi was a very devout Hindu, he was emphatic in support of India being a secular state in which Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians etc. would all have equal rights. <<
The twist on a twist in the case of Israel is that they so repeatedly declare that Israel is a SECULAR state. And critics of Zionism point out it is mostly a secular political philosophy and nationalism. I usually counter with observations like, 1. Most religious Jews have been won over to Israel as a Jewish state, even if not the one of prophecy. 2. Zionism is self-contradictory in at least two senses: it was sold as a form of socialism that excludes people based on their religion and ethnicity (because it displaced upwards to 1 million Arab Palestinians to be created) , it is supposed to be a secular political philosophy that raises the idea and actions of the state to a national religion. 3. When Truman rushed ahead of his own cabinet and advisors in order to recognize Israel, he wasn't recognizing Israel, he was recognizing an entity known as something like 'the Jewish state in Palestine'. YC:>>although he did not understand at all what to be "a chosen race" meant for the religious jews - a terrible burden and a sacrifice << I'm not really sure I follow your point here. The Christian traditions we are most familiar with often emphasize the individual as chosen while Islam has a stronger sense of chosen community (which Christian radicals like Anabaptists also have). What makes Judaism different doesn't have much at all to do with the Old Testament Judaism but rather the late classical, early middle age development of Talmudic Rabbinical Judaism, which tried to impose separation from its largest schism, Christianity, by making conversion and inter-marriage so much more difficult than either Christianity or Islam. That is not to say that separation wasn't also a concern of the Christians, but you can easily see how these attitudes could become mutually re-inforcing. One could only be Jewish by 'blood', one would have to choose willingly to be a Christian. Which is an overstatement (conversion to Judaism was actually possible but very daunting by the time Christianity was completely distinct). If its strictures weren't so often violated, TRJ might have ended up like one of the other major schisms, the depopulated Samaritans. Islam seems to have been developed as a 'universal church' for the 'Abrahamic religions', possibly including Zorastrians. Its strong conversionary and assimilative powers were, contrary to popular modern western belief, due to its doctrinal expansiveness and flexibility, but then held back by the Arabic language and issues in the succession of power--that is until dominant forms of political Islam hit up against European Christianity, which, ironically enough, also harbored European Talmudic Rabbinical Judaism, the very element that would conquer Palestine in the name of a 'return to the promised land'. CJ _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
