After Donald Trump's recent announcement that the U.S. will recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, I read a news item that said the Dome of the Rock was the "third holiest site in Islam", while the Church of the Holy Sepulcher was the most sacred Christian site.
How did they decide these things? Is there an SI unit for holiness that can be used to compare say Westminster Abbey with Notre Dame? How is holiness accumulated? Is it the number of people who've rubbed a thing with their hands or slobbered on it, or perhaps the number who've knelt and kissed the floor while farting at the ceiling? Is the holiness of the Wailing Wall strengthened with each head bob by an orthodox Jew?
Does any of this mumbling, rubbing, slobbering, nodding, kneeling and farting change the atomic structure of these locations? I don't think so. All they add is layers of grime.
Jerusalem has been the site of horrors to rival Auschwitz, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to live there. It should be a monument to the futility of religion.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
You know, they say Israel is supposed to be a holy land. I think it is a cursed land.
I don't know.any of those pls we but perhaps they're holy because of their history. I know that Israel is holy because of its history in which God called Canaan the land of milk and honey, a holy land. Jerusalem is also holy because of its history.
If by holy you mean a celebration of rape and violence, then sure it is holy.
Chica__2009,
The area called Canaan is part of the fertile crescent area in the Middle East. So for people from more desolate areas it could have been seen as the land of milk and honey.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertile_Crescent#/media/File:Fertile_Cresc...
The Babylonian Empire of 609-539 BCE was based on the Fertile Crescent = https://www.science.co.il/israel-history/Babylonian.gif
At least the "two state solution" has been exposed to more people for what it really is, a cover for both technically legal and illegal annexations of land by the Zionist tribe. There won't be peace until either the Muslim tribe there has been ethnically cleansed from Palestine, or the Muslim tribe have equal rights to Jewish and Christian tribes in a single state of Palestine-Israel.
Apparently, there is a Humanist group in Israel (or Humanist is the label they've chosen) but there seems to be no "atheist area" as there are Muslim, Jewish and Christian areas of towns. Even the self-styled Humanists (capital H) call themselves "humanistic Jews" which to me is a contradiction in terms...
http://www.shj.org/humanistic-jewish-life/israel/
I am all for preserving culture but not at the expense of a common culture and humanists I speak to in Europe emphasise inclusiveness. National borders, national laws and citizenship we are stuck with but culture we can choose.
I think these tribes over-emphasise history and it is most important to identify with the people of our time period rather than our historical tribe.
Jerusalem is an excuse to carry out aggression by one group against the next and nothing more. there is nothing "historic" about it. The Dome of the Rock is supposedly where mohamed ascended into heaven. It didn't happen so that is bullshit. It is also supposedly where the resurrection of jesus took place. Didn't happen so that is bullshit. It is supposedly where King David built the first temple to god. That may have happened but since there is no god a temple nothing is bullshit. At any rate, it isn't worth killing people over.
I recently went to a "Last Night of the Proms" concert. As is traditional, they played various patriotic songs like "Rule Britannia" so the audience could sing along. These days it's more of a parody of patriotism than the real thing.
One of the songs was "Jerusalem" with words by William Blake and music by Sir Hubert Parry. Over the years there've been calls to make this song England's national anthem. The United Kingdom has a national anthem, but England doesn't. William Blake is one of my favorite nutcases, and Parry's music is great. But is it really a good national anthem? Maybe with a bit of rewriting by Monty Python....
When Blake wrote "Jerusalem" in 1804, Jerusalem was perhaps a symbolic bright city on a hill. These days it's a symbol of everything that's dirty and disgusting about humanity. So when we were singing "Till we have built Jerusalem in England's green and pleasant land", I was thinking it was like wanting to build Auschwitz or Hiroshima or Mogadishu or Pyongyang in England.
How dare you question these statements. According to my religion, my sock drawer is the 4th holiest site in christianity and the 5th holiest in islam and the 6th holiest in buddism. I dare you to call me a liar