The Rise Of Tikkun Olam Paganism

Arutz Sheva ^ | 27 December 2002 | Steven Plaut

[Nix 2]

The Rise Of Tikkun Olam Paganism
Steven Plaut
27 December 2002

I have long had a pet peeve about the vulgar misuse and distortion of the Jewish concept of Tikkun Olam (repair of the world) by assimilationist Jewish liberals in the United States and elsewhere.

Elements of American Jewry have fallen captive to what can only be described as Tikkun Olam Paganism. Tikkun Olam Pagans are people who misrepresent Judaism as nothing more and nothing less than the pursuit of the liberal social action political agenda, all in the name of a suitably misrepresented Tikkun Olam. It is the banner waved by the countless "social action" committees at synagogues across America and in other liberal Jewish circles in support of liberal-leftist causes, including some that are harmful to Jews and some that are just plain wacky.

The Tikkun Olam Pagans` pseudo-religion consists of the following reductionist "theological" foundations:

1. Judaism in its entirety is essentially the advocacy and promotion of social justice.

2. Tikkun Olam means pursuit of peace, environmentalism and economic equality.

3. Justice, peace and equality are synonymous with this week`s PC liberal-leftist political fads.

Ipso facto, all of Judaism is reduced to the pursuit of being a nice liberal. Now, as it turns out, each one of the propositions listed above is totally false.

This Judaism-as-Liberalism form of reductionism is extremely common in the Reform synagogue (especially its misnamed Religious Action Center) and is universal in the Reconstructionist movement. It is popular among many Conservative Jews and even has its Orthodox advocates. A search for the term Tikkun Olam on the Internet will show you how near-universal is the equating of this concept with liberal "social activism." Even the far-left anti-Israel magazine Tikkun, published by "Rabbi" Michael Lerner, has misnamed itself after the concept. Indeed Tikkun magazine has even advocated the use of illegal psychedelic drugs by Jews and demanded that Jews understand Osama bin Laden`s "pain, " all in the name of Tikkun Olam.

The equation of Tikkun Olam with liberal political activism is so commonplace that it is recited as an ethical basis by many of the same liberal "social activists" who cannot recite the Shema prayer correctly, who practice no Jewish ritual, and have no idea of what any other concepts are in Judaism. For a nice laugh, ask some of these people to explain even one basic Jewish concept other than Tikkun Olam.

But a clarification is in order. Tikkun Olam does indeed play an important role in Jewish theology and ethics, but its meaning is nothing like that understood by the Tikkun Olam Pagans. Tikkun Olam, the "correcting" of the universe, has little if anything to do with things like social inequality, environmental cleanliness, and distribution of wealth and jobs. Rather, it refers to the Messianic era, when G-d`s laws will replace human laws, when G-d himself will be the acknowledged ruler, when all forms of idolatry will cease and all will turn their hearts to the One G-d. In other words, Tikkun Olam is a theological notion and not a trendy socioeconomic or political one. Tikkun Olam is mentioned in a major place in the Aleinu prayer that closes all prayer sessions, but again it is in conjunction with the wish to see idolatry and paganism erased from the earth. There is no mention of "social justice" or environmentalist issues, no gun control proposals and no AIDS marches. This will no doubt come as a rude surprise to Jewish assimilationist liberals. It is all the more ironic that Tikkun Olam is dredged up as underpinning for some forms of "activism" that are themselves little more than idolatry, such as the worshiping of trees, whales and nature in the name of "Eco-Judaism" by some radical Jewish environmentalists.

Even if one believed a certain amount of "social justice" could be squeezed under the Tikkun Olam theological umbrella, this would hardly justify the hijacking of the concept as artillery support for the liberal-leftist political agenda. At most, Tikkun Olam can only be conscripted as support for liberal social activism if one believes that this activism really promotes social justice. If it does promote social justice, then the incantations regarding Tikkun Olam are superfluous -- the "causes" are justified on their own merits. But does anyone today seriously believe that liberals and leftists only promote causes that are "socially just" and moral? Suppressing school choice and supporting Palestinian terrorism, affirmative action apartheid, and many other liberal causes promotes injustice and immoral outcomes.

The real issue is whether or not liberal political fads promote justice and peace and morality. And the only way to settle that question is to debate these "causes" analytically and on their own merits: Tikkun Olam has nothing to do with it. Analytic debate, of course, would require some training and study of social science, policy analysis, cost-benefits accounting, and history, and liberal poseurs are far too lazy for all that, preferring effortless ethical posturing and recreational compassion. They are much too busy patting themselves on their ethical backs.

To emphasize these points, let us state what is not covered under the heading of Tikkun Olam:

1. There is nothing in the Torah concept of Tikkun Olam that can justify government programs that take people`s private wealth and property away from them to help the poor. There is, of course, a Jewish religious precept requiring charity for the poor -- at least 10% of one`s income in two years out of seven -- but never to exceed 20% of one`s wealth, even if one is feeling ultra-compassionate. This charity, however, is privatized welfare and generosity, never state-run confiscation of property in the name of doing good. There seems to be rabbinic disagreement over whether government taxes that take away more than 10% of one`s income, especially to finance the welfare state, exempt one even from this 10% tithe. The only other biblically-mandated income redistribution involves supporting the Levites.

2. There is nothing in Tikkun Olam that can be considered to be a judgment holding that income and wealth disparities are evil in and of themselves. Wealthy people are expected to give charity to help the poor; the poor are expected to give charity to the poorer. No one is expected to give charity to those too lazy to work or who are poor because they are drunks or addicts.

3. There is nothing in Tikkun Olam that can be regarded as a condemnation of materialist desires and pursuits. Quite to the contrary, Judaism is not embarrassed at all about asking G-d to make us rich, such as in the Havdala prayers, where we ask for lots of silver.

4. There is nothing in Tikkun Olam that could be remotely regarded as justifying affirmative action programs that discriminate against Jews. There is nothing that can justify pursuing ethnic "equality" through quotas, through lowered standards and preferences, and certainly not through programs that give other ethnic groups preferences ahead of Jews.

5. There is nothing in Tikkun Olam that can be regarded as sanctioning homosexual relations. Indeed, the Torah makes these a capital offense.

6. There is nothing in Tikkun Olam that can be regarded as supporting the public school monopoly or single-payer health care system. People who want such things should have the intellectual honesty to come out and debate these on their own merits (if they have any), not by hijacking the concept of Tikkun Olam.

7. There is not even the tiniest inkling of a rationalization in Tikkun Olam for granting Palestinians or anyone else territorial rights within the Land of Israel.

8. There is no basis in Tikkun Olam for refraining from retaliating militarily against those who attack Jews.

9. There is no basis in Tikkun Olam for claiming that animals have "rights."

10. There is no basis in Tikkun Olam for refusing to acknowledge that human environmental goals must be traded off against other social and private goals.

11. There is no basis in Tikkun Olam for abortion on demand.

12. There is no basis in Tikkun Olam for opposing capital punishment for convicted murderers. To the contrary, the Torah explicitly endorses capital punishment for murderers.

A first giant step toward real Tikkun Olam would be the renunciation and discrediting of Tikkun Olam Paganism.

[Nix 2]

Quite interesting essay, but do you KNOW who Rabbi Kahane was and the things that he accomplished on behalf of people who essentially had run out of hope?
If you mean to imply that we have made Rabbi Kahane into a mythical figure, I can assure you it is nothing of the sort. But I haven't slept now in nearly 72 hours and I just can't remain coherent right now. I would, however, appreciate if you would clarify exactly what point you are trying to make about Rabbi Kahane so that I can give you a proper response.
Thanks in advance.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I would, however, appreciate if you would clarify exactly what point you are trying to make about Rabbi Kahane...

Rabbi Kahane was larger than life, a hero in the truest sense of the word.

I also sorely miss my friend Irv...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Quite interesting essay,

Well, since you think so, here is the first half of it I left out of the previous posting to you...

The Drama Complex

The traditions of Greek tragedy as in Oedipus Rex are based upon the religious traditions of the Greeks - - the idea of destiny or a preordained fate subject to the whims of the gods.

Socrates saw this fallacy in Plato’s Euthyphro, when he asked Euthyphro what was pleasing to the gods and how could someone be pious to the gods when they all wanted something different than the others. It made no sense to observe the divinity of one god and ignore the demands of another god. How could a person know what it was to be in accordance with the will of the gods in this respect?

The origins of drama come from the esoteric ideals directly related to religion. Religious ritual is psychodrama designed to conjure up images in the mind of the viewers and/or participants. This is illustrated no better than by the Greek traditions of using masks in their plays. The actor can hide himself behind the illusion of a character’s mask, the audience can focus not on the actor, but on the image of the character represented - - one form of idolatry, among others in pagan Greek polytheism.

The Greeks were idolaters, they were pagans. The images in their drama was a representation of something. What did Oedipus represent?

There are a number of examples in Oedipus Rex that show some similarities to Judaic tradition. Moses was also cast off into the world like Oedipus as an infant. They were taken into royal households to become kings. Both could have claimed the kingdoms of two nations. Ultimately, neither of them did. Moses was forbidden entry into the promised land and declined to take the crown of pharaoh in the kingdom of Egypt.

Job, like Oedipus, was subjected to many afflictions beyond his control. He was also a figure of mythology that was a victim of a destiny or the will of some divine interventions. (There is a debate among Judaic scholars about the origins of the book of Job. Some say it was written by Moses, others claim it was a story more ancient than Abraham.)

To the pagan Egyptians, the pharaohs were gods. Each had their own special privileges of divinity. The pagan Egyptians had their own pantheon of gods like the pagan Greeks, several of which the Greeks adopted. (Set and Typhon are convenient examples.) The pagan Egyptians were also idolaters like the Greeks; their temples, architecture and art are replete with sacred idols. They both practiced human sacrifice. (These practices extended to the pagan Romans as well.) Is Oedipus representative of the pharaoh Akhnaton?

The parallels to the story of Oedipus and to the pharaoh Akhnaton are remarkable. Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky ignited some historical debate that is yet to be resolved by historians concerning the chronology of the reign of Amenhotep IV (Akhnaton). The actual dates of history are fluid since we know about so little, except for the artifacts and remnants of literature left behind. However, as the debate rages, Oedipus and Akhnaton; Myth and History shows some compelling ideas related to the topic.

Akhnaton effaced all of his father’s names from the records, in the temples, and changed his name. To the Egyptians this destruction of someone’s name was akin to murdering their soul, robbing them of their eternity.

One of Sigmund Freud’s earlier followers, Karl Abraham, contributed an essay to the first volume of Imago, published by Freud in 1912, entitled Amenhotep IV (Akhnaton). This was of interest in that the essay talks about how Akhnaton did not entomb his mother Tiy next to her husband after her death, and that Akhnaton’s rivalry with his father for possession of his mother extended beyond death.

Velikovsky goes farther to say Akhnaton actually did possess his mother. But, ignoring this, focus on the figurative implication:

In this connection it is interesting that Oedipus, whose parentage is regularly ascribed to Laius, is also called in some ancient sources the son of Helios (sun ⁱ).¹ Oedipus’ descent from Laius is a vital element in the legend; such an unmotivated change in the parentage of the legendary hero seems strange but is understandable if the prototype of the legendary hero was Akhnaton.

A royal son and descendent of the god Ra, like other pharaohs before him, his claim to divinity soon demanded an equality with his father, Aton, the sun.ⁱ

"Thou art an eternity like the Aten, beautiful like the Aten who gave him being, Nefer-kheperu-ra (Akhnaton), who fashions mankind and gives existence to generations. He is fixed as the heaven in which Aten is."²

So wrote his foreign minister in a panegyric to the king. Next Akhnaton insisted that he had created himself, like Ra. Of Ra-Amon it was said he was the "husband of his mother." The "favorite concrete expression for a self-existent or self created being (was) ‘husband of his mother.’"³

He claimed to be Ra-Aton, and in this spirit he also took over his father’s name, Nebmare (Neb maatre), as if he himself was his own father. (Velikovsky, p 71-72)

^1. "Auch ein Helios wurde als Vater des Oedipus genannt." L.W. Daly’ in Pauly-Wissowa, Real- Encyclopädie der classichen Altertumswissenschaft, article "Oedipus," Vol. XVII, Col. 2108. Cf. Also W.H. Roscher, Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie, article "Oedipus" by O. Höfer, Vol. III, Cols. 703, 708.

^2. The Tomb of Tutu (Davies, the Rock Tombs of el-Amarna, VI, 13).

^3. W.M. Flinders Petrie, Egyptian Tales (XVIII-XIX Dynasties) (1895), pp. 125-126. More properly translated "bull of his mother."

Dr. Velikovsky is not without critics, but his assertions are most profound. I attribute much of this to the ancient conflict between the pagan and the Judaic that still rages, although the pagan civilizations of Greece and Egypt are long since dead. This conflict was represented in Othello and in Death of a Salesman. Here with Oedipus, it is represented in the arguments over historical chronology.

‘By the Prickings of My Thumbs, Something Wicked This Way Comes’

Iago as an archetypical devil and his role in Othello mirrors the ancient psychodrama of the pagan Egyptian gods. Iago’s line here in this soliloquy also suggests a parallel to the function of Set in the esoteric and pagan Egyptian cosmology.

Iago:

Divinity of Hell!
When devils will the blackest of sins put on,
They do suggest at first with heavenly shows,
As I do now. (Othello II, III, 340)

Egyptian Book of the Dead:

Behold, I am Set, the creator of confusion, who creates both the tempest and the storm throughout the length and breadth of the heavens. (Naville, p. 39)

Iago serves this role as Set, the Destroyer, who kills his brother Osiris out of jealousy for his popularity. Plotting and weaving a tangled web of deceit, Iago creates confusion, a storm of intrigue that ensnares his victim, Othello. Much like the bejeweled chest of precious wood that Set used to trap Osiris at a feast under the guise of playing a game, Iago also delights in luring victims into a sparkling illusion that imprisons them so that he can manipulate others into serving his desires of destroying them. The entrapment of Othello in a prison of his own delusions of purity and nobility, the manipulation of Cassio under the cherished promise of regaining Othello’s favor, and the treasure of Desdemona used to tempt the ever stupid Rodrigo, all fit this model of esoteric cosmogony.

The idea of Iago as an archetype is not new. In Magic in the Web; Action and Language in Othello, Robert B. Heilman writes:

…we move into the symbolic dimension and use the word archetype to describe that compression of possibilities which is so inclusive that all other characters of the same order seem but partial representations of the original idea. Iago is this kind of character; he is infinitely more than the skillful manipulator of a stratagem… (Heilman, p. 12)

Not far from this, we can also see the intent to cast Iago as the Satan of the Judaic, Christian, and Muslim mythoi. A clue to this is where Iago says; "I am not what I am." (Othello I, I, 65) as opposed to the biblical phrase "I am that I am," representing the Judaic God (Exodus 3:14). More imagery and figurative language used in Iago’s dialogues with other characters, symbolic interactions with them, is also another way to see Shakespeare’s intentions concerning the character.

Set, Satan, and Shaitan are the same. "Satan" is a Hebrew word for the pagan Egyptian Set. Satan, Shaitan, Set or Seth ("Set-hn" as spoken in the ancient Hebrew) is a pagan entity, the "adversary" of Judaic theology. (A "pagan" is anyone not Judaic, Christian or Muslim, according to primary dictionary definition in most college editions.)

The Greeks called Set "Typhon," who was the war god assigned to Upper Egypt. This also represents another contravention to the "accepted" etymologies of words like "typhoon" in English, which is erroneously listed as the Cantonese "tai fung" in many dictionaries. English has more commonalties with Greek and Latin.

Interestingly, "Setebos" was the Patagonian god or devil, alluded to by Shakespeare through Caliban in the Tempest:

Caliban:

His art is of such power
It would control my dam’s god, Setebos,
And make a vassal of him. (Tempest I, II)

This is a curious reference by Shakespeare that is indicative for a pattern of etymology outside of established acceptance.

Iago:

The Moor is of a free and open nature,
That thinks men honest that but seem to be so,
And will as tenderly be led by th’nose
As asses are. (Othello I, III, 392)

There is a recurring theme that alludes to the hostility between the pagan Egyptians and the Judaic in Othello. The father of Othello was an Egyptian. The term "asses" in this soliloquy is a literary allusion to this often-bloody conflict between these forces.

The Egyptian priest Manetho associated the Jews with the Hyksos and Moses with the Egyptian priest Osarsiph. It was at this time that the belief the Jews worshipped an ass – an animal holy to the Egyptian god Set was established. Both the Jews and the pagan Egyptians used the labels (i.e., Satan, Set, Seth, or "Set-hn" as spoken in the ancient Hebrew) to defame each other. How fitting that amidst this epic struggle and bloody conflict, the entity known as Satan was born into the World. Such conflict continued through the Maccabean period (with Antiochus Epiphanes), and continues into modern times on several fronts. Often it is claimed by the Neo-Pagans that Satan is only found in Christianity. How can this be if Satan is undeniably a Hebrew word adapted from the name of the pagan Egyptian god Set? This cannot be reconciled with the fact that it is a Hebrew word.

Othello’s instruction to Desdemona about the handkerchief is also telling. Ponder the actions of Iago in the play and Othello’s words to Desdemona: " ‘Tis true: there’s magic in the web of it." (Othello III, IV, 65)

What does all this have to do with Shakespeare and Othello? Consider the period of time in which William Shakespeare lived, his oft criticized and "unconventional" use of spelling, punctuation and terminology in a time where there was an effort to standardize the English language. King James I acceded to the throne. He published the detailed treatise Daemonology, because of his concern about witchcraft in Britain (this did have an effect on the presentation of Macbeth and other plays).

There is the matter of the King James Bible to consider. There was pressure from the Church and open condemnation concerning secular drama. (English theatres were actually shut down for 18 years prior to 1663 when a Puritan government came to power.) Latinⁱⁱ was used in the churches, composed the language found in Bibles, hymnals and was frequently used by the nobility in matters of state affairs. Often history has been colored by the occlusion of religious concerns; translations were subject to interpretation not always in the interest of accuracy.

Camille Paglia, professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, artfully depicts the dynamics at work in her book Sexual Personae; Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson:

Spenser, Shakespeare, and Freud are the three greatest sexual psychologists in literature, continuing a tradition begun by Euripides and Ovid. Freud has no rivals among his successors because they think he wrote science, when in fact he wrote art. Spenser, the Apollonian pictorailist, and Shakespeare the Dionysian alchemist, compete for artistic control of the English Renaissance. Shakespeare unlooses his metamorphic flood of words and personae to escape Spenser’s rigorous binding…" (Paglia, p. 228)

Unless the whole of the professor’s book is taken in as a scholarly commentary on pagan beauty and it’s relation to sex, culture, politics and art or literature, there is some confusion for most readers concerning the analogies being made here…

Spenser’s radiant Apollonian armouring becomes Milton’s louring metallic daemonism, militant and misogynistic. Satan’s legions gleam with hard Spenserian light. Milton sinks when he sings of the foggy formlessness of good. His God is poetically impotent. But his noisy, thrashing Spenserian serpents and monsters; his lush Spenserian embowered Paradise; his evil, envious Spenserian voyeurism: these are immortal. Milton tries to defeat Spenser by wordiness, Judaic word-fetishism, tangling the Apollonian eye in the labyrinth of etymology. Shakespeare succeeded here by joining words to pagan sexual personae…" (Paglia, p. 228-229)

This "Judaic word-fetishism" from the above is most illustrative. Like the complexities of the Elizabethan court protocols (relaxed under King James I), the use of language, definitions, etymologies, and the recording of history has also suffered a suppression by those with an interest to keep some things hidden. This is why I will assert that despite authoritative and scholarly denials, William Shakespeare had privy to occult knowledge not commonly available to others in his time, as well as a powerful English King’s ear and patronage.

Iago as the Setian, or Satan does not separate him from being human, but does indicate Iago as both devil and human (Antichrist), the embodiment of ‘original evil.’ (Heilman, p. 41)

Iago represents an inherent, autonomous evil, not a developing one as in the character of Macbeth. Desdemona unknowingly contributes to Othello’s willingness to eat the poison pome, tricked by the perspicacious serpent that is Iago. The Garden of Eden represented by Desdemona’s purity is plowed asunder with the sins of sanctimonious delusions, Othello murders her and takes upon himself the power to render his God’s divine judgement. Satan conquers the human spirit with Othello’s seppuku.

The Iago evil is redefined for us: his method is planned confusion, The metamorphosis of opposites, the use of "shows" that keep things from being seen in their "true colors. (Heilman, p. 65)

This idea of ‘planned confusion’ from Heilman shows the analogy I made earlier with the Egyptian Book of the Dead and these same lines of the soliloquy. The bejeweled chest of Set’s game to trap Osiris, the weaving of a web, an illusion, the storm of intrigue and the tempest prior to Othello’s arrival in Cyprus. The purity of Desdemona is also a subject Iago continues to assail…

Iago:

So will I turn her virtue to pitch." (Othello II, III, 350)

These images of color are a tool used to portray the darkness, iniquity or evil all throughout Othello as are other references employed to contrast against the divinity and virtue of the Judaic mythoi. Just as the ideas of the heavens being blackened by the gathering storm, the bright daytime sky is always darkened by foul weather. Much of the play projects the imagery as occurring during the night. There is a metaphorical divergence at work as a dramatic device illuminating a contemplative audience to the spiritual battle between the sacred and the profane, of Providence’s divine light and the primordial darkness of Chaos.

When dominated by the Spectre, the self becomes a hermaphroditic Selfhood, whom Blake calls Satan or Death…

…Incestuous self-insemination: the grappling duo is a new Khepera, the masturbatory Egyptian cosmos-maker. Actors and audience are a sexual octopus of many legs and eyes.

The contest between male Spectre and female Emanation is archaic ritual combat. I find homosexual overtones in the betrayal of the self into a queasy spectral world ruled by dark, deceiving male figures. Note the elegance with which Blake’s Spectre theory fits Shakespeare’s Othello. A conspiratorial Spectre, Iago, is homoerotically obsessed with splitting Othello, through jealous fears, from his Emanation, Desdemona. (Jealousy and fear are the Spectres’ regular weapons.) Othello, cleaving to his Spectre instead of casting him off, destroys himself. He ends by not killing his Spectre but his Emanation." (Paglia, p. 287-289)

Iago also represents homoeroticism in Othello from the beginning. Not just in his obsessive hatred for Othello but in a seeming contempt for heterosexual relations as evidenced by his reference of Cassio being "A fellow almost damned in a fair wife." (OthelloI, I, 21) There is the opening act, the masturbatory fever pitch and sexual imagery of Iago’s speech.

It should also be noted in reference to the pagan Egyptian mythos, Set had a battle with Horus, son of Osiris, where he was emasculated. Set managed to tear out one of the god’s eyes.

Iago also seems to have this sexual impotence about him, an inborn hostility for women and disgust for heterosexuality as a result. Iago also feels rendered impotent that he was passed over for position by Othello in favor of Cassio, as well as by his own rage. This rage could also be construed as a sadomasochistic component to Iago’s character.

In addition, the description to Othello by Iago about Cassio’s nocturnal speech conjures up a homoerotic imagery. It is also interesting to contemplate the prohibition of women being on the stage, where men in drag portray female characters.

Iago also sets out to mutilate Othello’s spirit, much the same as Set dismembering Osiris. Iago as Set, declaring war, plucks away at Cassio, Othello’s ‘favorite son,’ who’s vision is partially taken away by drink. Cassio does rise to take Othello’s place as governor of Cyprus. Horus accedes to the throne of the heavens. Wounded, the Setian is bound and tortured in the Abyss…

link to part II

[knighthawk]

Although many on this list have been called to this thread, just in case somebody forgot some one.

[veronica]

DEAR WORLD...

[veronica]

Bump.

[Fiddlstix]

Good website
Thanks for the Ping

[Nachum]

Do you remember the American Jewish test?

Ask a secular liberal Jew to take the test:

1) What day is celebrated on December 25th?

2) What day is celebrated on the 10th of Tishrei?

3) What does Easter commemorate?

4) What does Shavuot commemorate?

5) What was the name of Jesus' mother?

6) What was the name of Moses' mother?

[TrueBeliever9]

Thanks so much for the flag - I would have surely missed this very excellent post. I am familiar first-hand with some reconstructionist; their religion, although in the name of Judiasm, is indeed another religion of THEIR invention and choosing. It is not the Torah of YHWH. Thanks again for bringing this to my attention.

[onedoug]

Thank you for the consolidation.

Good post.

[Salman]

Historically Christian churches do this, too.

If Jesus was just another liberal weenie only more so, why should anyone care what he would do?

• Moses, the Ur-liberal
• Jesus, the Ur-peacenik
• Why can't Islam have these types?

[Imal]

Sounds like the Kahanist scum are back at it again...

Troll, troll, troll your post
Gently down the screen...

Personally, I prefer the expression "Rebel scum", spoken with a hard-edged, patrician British accent.

Frankly, I find it baffling that someone like yourself would ascribe more merit to the teachings of Marx than of Moses. But then again, the average IQ is 100...

[Cachelot]

THE DEAFENING SILENCE

On May 13, 1939, a ship sailed out of the German city of Hamburg. On board were 930 Jews sailing from their native land, leaving behind all that they owned, turning their backs on a lifetime and a Fatherland gladly. It was the worst of times in the Third Reich as the madness of Adolph Hitler gained irrational momentum. Six years of Nazi rule had escalated into terror, concentration camps, beatings, and degradation, and nine hundred and thirty }ews were leaving the nightmare that had once been their home. They were among the last Jews who were given the opportunity to leave the land of the Aryans alive before the night of the Panzers descended upon Europe.

In all this world, of all the many ports, of all the nations that existed, only one decided to grant refuge to desperate refugees. In their pockets, the German Jews held entry visas to Cuba and in their hearts grateful thanks to the Havana government that, alone of all the countries in the world, had agreed to accept them. But Jews are, usually, too hasty in their gratitude to the nations of the world, and before they even reached Havana they were informed that the Cuban government would not allow them to enter. The visas, it was ruled, were illegal.

The ship reached Havana and docked, a figurative stone's throw from Miami Beach where other Jews played in the surf and watched the dogs race in the evenings; in the very backyard of Collins Avenue where other Jews tanned themselves and ate from the legendary Jewish menus and enjoyed the good life. How close to the American Nirvana stood the 930 and how far from salvation they really were.

The drama unfolded as millions of Americans watched. Cuba remained adamant. Under a wave of anti-Semitism that appeared in Cuban newspapers and among its politicians, Havana insisted that the visas were illegal, that she had already taken in Jews, and—the unkindest cut of them all—what about the great colossus of democracy to the north, the United States?

The question was a good one and grew more cogent as it became clear that neither Cuba nor any other country was prepared to accept the unwelcome refugees. It became pressing as the days passed and the German ship lifted anchor, setting sail for the grim mockery that was called home. Home to Hitler went the 930.

 

-- Rabbi Meir Kahane of Blessed Memory

[knighthawk]

The article is very good. It makes me feel ashamed of my fellow people. Those Europeans, who blame Israel, and support Palestinian terrorism. They who say the same things the nazis said, but now under the name 'anti-Zionism'.

"And you would stand by tomorrow if Israel were facing extinction"

Yet, I know, that many people will stand up for Israel. I know I will. I know we will.

Who needs the rest of world anyway?

[Nix 2]

You used The Book of Job to illustrate points that you seem to believe were the whole of the lesson. You are wrong. Job is older than the Old Testament by thousands of years. Biblical prose was added to it which morphed it into a parable. It isn't. You WANT to believe in a satan, and I tell you that there is no such thing. There is only you. YOU decide for yourself what is good and what is evil, and if you allow evil to have dominion over the divine soul, your SELF is lost to it.
Job is a rulebook. A guide. It tells us to learn all we are capable of learning and about what. This is somehow not seen as the true message of Job as it was meant to be. Consequently, people have allowed too many OTHER people to do their thinking for them and stupidity ravages the earth.

Likutei Amarim
Chapter Thirteen

---

[In the previous chapter the Alter Rebbe described the spiritual
profile of the Beinoni.

In the Beinoni's heart, said the Alter Rebbe, evil desires may often
arise, but his divine soul constantly prevents such desires from
finding expression in actual thought, speech or action.

On the contrary, these three soul-garments are the exclusive domain of
the divine soul and are utilized by the Beinoni only for thought,
speech and action of Torah study and the fulfillment of the mitzvot].

Accordingly, we may understand the comment of our Sages (1) that
"Beinonim are judged by both [their good and evil inclinations]" -
[both "judge" him and dictate his conduct. As Scriptural support for
this contention, the Talmud cites]:

For it is written:(2) "He - [the Almighty] - stands at the right hand
of the poor man, to save him from them that judge his soul." [The
plural "them that judge" indicates the presence of two judges within
the person, the evil inclination and the good.

We thus find that the Beinoni's inclinations are described as his
"judges."

Now, were the term Beinoni to be understood in its simple, literal
sense of one who has an equal history of good deeds and bad, it should
more properly be said that "the Beinoni is *ruled* by both
[inclinations]". For one to sin, his evil inclination must rule him;
for him to do good his good inclination must rule. The Beinoni who
supposedly does both, must be ruled (and not merely "judged") by both.

However, according to the explanation of the term Beinoni given in the
previous chapter, it is clear that, indeed, the Beinoni is merely
judged by both inclinations, not ruled by both, as shall be explained
presently].

Note that [our Sages] did not say, "He is RULED by both [the good
inclination and the evil]," G-d forbid, because where the evil nature
gains any rule and dominion, albeit momentarily, over the "small city,"
[i.e., whenever the evil rules one's body - likened to a city which
both the good inclination and the evil seek to conquer], one is deemed
"wicked" [rasha] at such times.

Rather, the evil inclination [in the Beinoni] is no more than, for
example, a magistrate or judge who expresses his opinion on a point of
law, yet in fact his decision is not necessarily final, for there is
another magistrate or judge who disagrees with him.

It then becomes necessary, in order to formulate a binding decision, to
arbitrate between the two, and the final verdict will rest with the
arbitrator.

Similarly, [in the battle between the evil inclination and the good]:
The evil inclination states its opinion in the left part of the
[Beinoni's] heart, [i.e., it creates an evil desire in his heart and
demands that he act accordingly, thus rendering "judgment" as to his
future conduct].

From the heart [the desire] ascends to the mind for contemplation.
[This ascent is automatic; whenever a desire is awakened in the heart,
the brain will contemplate it].

Immediately upon its ascent to the brain it is challenged by the second
"judge", the divine soul [residing] in the brain, which extends into
the right part of the heart where the good inclination abides [i.e.,
reveals itself.

The good inclination is actually the voice of the divine soul's
emotional attributes, and is hence active in the right part of the
heart; see chapter 9. The good inclination thus battles the evil,
ensuring that the latter's passion not be realized, for the "opinion"
of the good inclination is that all of the body's faculties and organs
be utilized only for matters of holiness].

The final verdict rests with the arbitrator - the Holy One, blessed be
He, who comes to the aid of the good inclination, [enabling it to
prevail over the evil inclination].

As our Sages say, (3) "[Man's evil inclination gathers strength daily,
.... and] if the Almighty did not help him [i.e., help his good
inclination] he could not overcome it [his evil inclination]."

The help [that G-d grants him] is the glow of divine light that
illuminates his divine soul, that it may gain superiority and mastery
over the folly of the "fool", the evil inclination, [a dominion]
paralleling the superiority of light over darkness, as stated above,
[in chapter 12.

Just as a little light banishes much darkness, so is the abounding
folly and darkness of one's evil inclination driven away by dint of the
little light of holiness emanating from his divine soul. It is this ray
of divine illumination that constitutes G-d's assistance to the divine
soul. (4)

The Alter Rebbe now goes on to resolve the contradiction and answer the
question noted in the opening words of the Tanya:

The Talmud states that a Jew is charged with an oath to regard himself
as wicked, whereas elsewhere, the Mishnah declares: "Be not wicked in
your own estimation." Also: "If a person considers himself wicked, he
will be grieved at heart and depressed, and will not be able to serve G-
d joyfully and with a contented heart."

He now explains that the meaning of the oath - which literally reads,
"Be in your own eyes like a rasha" - is that one regard himself not as
an actual rasha, but as like one, having traits similar to those of a
rasha. This means that he must consider himself a Beinoni, who
possesses the same evil in his soul as does a rasha and can desire evil
just as a rasha does.

Footnotes:

1. Berachot 61b.
2. Tehillim 109:31.
3. Kiddushin 30b.
4. It was stated in the previous chapter that man's mind innately
rules his heart. Why, then, should he need special divine
assistance in curbing his appetites?
The Rebbe answers:
This divine assistance is necessary whenever the conflict between
the two souls does not involve a struggle of mind vs. heart; e.g.,
(1) when the divine soul wishes to prevent sinful thoughts from
arising in the mind, or
(2) when the emotive faculties of the divine soul seek to overpower
those of the animal soul (without recourse to contemplation and
meditation).
But now the question may be reversed: Why in chapter 12 does the
Alter Rebbe use the argument of the mind's natural supremacy over
the heart to point out the divine soul's supremacy over the animal
soul?
To this the Rebbe answers:
In chapter 12, the Alter Rebbe speaks of the state of the Beinoni
after prayer, when the effect of his meditation on G-dliness during
prayer still lingers in his mind. At such time his mind is
suffused with G-dliness to the point where the animal soul cannot
so much as voice an opinion there. Thus, any struggle between
the souls at that time would be a case of mind vs. heart, where
the natural supremacy of the mind could confer victory on the
divine soul.
____________________________________________
In the first part of your essay, change Iago to Paul and you have exactly what happened to the NT after Paul. Iago is Paul personified.
As for missing your friend, Irv. I don't believe you.

[Nix 2]

Bravo. This nitwit, (Elisha,) is a died in the wool Socialist and Peace Now activist. It would seem we have had the dubious honor of a post from an Adam-Shapiro fan. He would be the last to ask for the daggers to be removed from our busom.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

You WANT to believe in a satan, and I tell you that there is no such thing.

I am an atheist.

But, I will bet Simcha7 or arielb would not agree with you.

Here is a post in response to me from arielb...

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

"Often it is claimed by the Neo-Pagans that Satan is only found in Christianity. How can this be if Satan is undeniably a Hebrew word adapted from the name of the pagan Egyptian god Set? The Jewish synod of rabbinical authority will deny that Satan even exists. This cannot be reconciled with the fact that it is a Hebrew word..."

I'm sorry Sir but that is incorrect. Please see http://www.beingjewish.com/basics/satan.html
Does Judaism believe in Satan?

83 posted on 11/17/2002 4:32 AM PST by arielb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/790001/posts?page=83#83

I would be interested in your opinion and any other research sources you can point me to.

I view "Satan" as a literary figure and a Hebrew word derived from the name of the pagan Egyptian god "Set." If you also noted Hobbes, he states:

"Which significant names (Satan, Devil, Abaddon) set not forth to us any individual person, as proper names do, but only an office or quality..."

If you did notice, I was making reference to the conflict facing Jews from the ancient times into the modern day. The story you presented further proves this.

As for the Book of Job, here is a link about the controversy surrounding it's origins: www.sacred-texts.com. Some claim it was Moses, others claim it is older. I find the topic of this thread to be fascinating and would be interested in hearing more from you along with both arielb and Simcha7 on these topics...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

See #59... for links and other ideas.