Summary 14-18 and Solution

"The Israeli conquest was not a 'reunification' of the city, but its occupation by a hostile power." The conquest of the Western wall, like the previous conquerors only breed more hate and fear. It seems like an endless cycle. The actions of the Israeli's only stirred up more conflict. From these readings, I do understand the aims and goals of each side, but these reasons to me do not justify disregarding the others.

"One of the most inescapable messages of the history of Jerusalem is that, despite romantic myths to the contrary, suffering does not necessarily make us better, nobler people. All too often, quite the reverse" Pg. 435

What Armstrong said, really stuck out to me. One would think that living through times of affliction, one would be more sympathetic towards another. It is just amazing how humanity so easily turns against one another. Armstrong really seems to hit on how much religion has brought upon evil. For the sake of religion, violence is enacted and destroys peace. What an area is supposed to be, triumphs over rights of other human beings. I am an extremely emotional person, and the last chapter especially, made me rather sad. Armstrong does not leave on a completely pessimistic ending, however, and talk about the potential of hope for the city. The key is coexistence I shall now segue into the solution portion.

The only way to a solution is tolerance. Tolerance that one may not have the same beliefs as you. Tolerance for others to take part in what is "yours". How can this be possible? I think getting to know the other side is a step in the right direction, because there is no way that all side can be right at the same time. Both religious and political authority need to be on board that true compromise the the true solution. How is this possible? I really don't know.

There was a discussion in class that history is passed down from generation to generation. How can one forget the atrocities that was inflicted on their family? How can one move on and move past from it. Though the past is a part of us, we are not people from the past. I am certainly influenced by generations before me, but it does not mean that their choices are my choices. Human beings have monstrous capabilities of inflicting damage. We are also gifted with the ability to adapt to social changes. This includes accepting people that were not accepted in the past. Relationships, regardless of what they are, are always very fragile. It is so easy for people to snap back to their discriminatory thoughts. Even through the shakiness, people need to be willing to keep taking steps forward and fight through backward motions. Humans will always have thought of hatred. However, it needs to be taught that this kind of treatment towards others is unacceptable. Therefore one can acknowledge the need to constantly improve oneself.

Chapters 11-13

While I was reading these chapters, I became very frustrated with Christianity and how they represented their faith. Through out the chapters, I found myself comparing the ruling styles of the Muslim and Christian leaders. I was frustrated that "Christians" acted on behalf of Christ and did some pretty horrendous acts. Even though I am not of Muslim faith, I too was frustrated at the "Muslims" for not following the original teachings of Muhammad of living a pious, humble and non extravagant life that respects the other two religions. Through out these readings, it seems that people can never stick to the original teachings of the religious authorities (Jesus and Muhammad), regardless if they are legitimate or not. If you're a Christian, then follow the teachings of Jesus. If you're a Muslim, then follow the true teachings of the Qu'ran!

In chapter of the crusades, I kept thinking, did these "Christians" even read the bible at all? Now I know that not all people were literate, and most might have gotten their information from religious leaders, but I still can't believe how the cause of liberating the tomb of Christ from Islam and justifiable cause to wipe out an entire city. Even after the crusade, it seemed like these crusaders did not know what to do with the city. They massacred the whole city, and took the ruins for their personal wealth. They have reclaimed Jerusalem, but most soldiers went home.

I am glad that I was able to read these chapters though and get a better grasp and understanding of the Muslim faith. "The Qur'an therefore instructed Muslims to return to the original, pure religion of Abraham, who had lived before either the Torah or the gospel and had, therefore, been neither a Jew nor a Christian. He had simply been a Muslim, one who had made this total surrender of his life to God." Even though I do not agree, I can sympathize with the fact that Muhammad wanted to purely follow God. Though they did not treat the dhimmis as equals, Islamic rulers for the most part ruled with religious tolerance. There were internal conflicts within the faith, and a period where the Caliph AL-Hakim burned down crosses and segregated the dhimmis and forced them to convert to Islam. But for the most part, I found it rather appealing that out of all the religions, the Islamic religion has brought the most peace less blood shed up to this point.

In conclusion, people completely misinterpret their own faith. I wonder if they do the same now. I must admit that I am in no place to judge what is the real truth in these teachings. Everyone has their own interpretations of the same thing, and that's a problem. Also, I am very glad to start seeing the Islamic side to the story.

Questions:
1)I know that the experience has opened dialogue and enabled students to work together and have a common understanding in their love for music. How have students brought back what they've learned to their respective homes?

2) Have there been other efforts to bridge gaps between the Israeli and Palestinian people?

When I was reading Parallels and Paradoxes, I kept thinking of the movie Remember the Titans. The movie takes place in a time in the U.S. history after segregation had been made illegal. A black football coach becomes head coach of a football team, and conflicts emerge between the black and white football players. After weeks of conflict, they finally grew to respect and then love one another as family after living and working together during training camp. Their experience on the high school football team changed how they saw each other and how they saw life. They worked together, because in the sport of football, they needed to be willing to defend each other on the field. The discussing of the Wiemar workshop stirred up feel good feelings, and made me believe that people can come together for their love of a common goal, such as music. It seems too good to be true. I wonder if there is truly peace within the orchestra, but then again, I should not belittle the power of open dialogue and respect. In the video, the woman talks about how everyone is friends, and whether or not they like the person is based on their personality and not on where they're from.

At first, I was very optimistic of the situation because people who had come from different parts of the middle east, with different religions can come together to play music. They have an understanding because they have this one commonality of playing music. What happens if that is taken away? I'm not saying that these students are going to be hostile with one another after their tour is over, but for how can we find dialogue and common ground for the people of Israel and Palestine? I do commend the efforts Barenboim and Said who have used their talents in a meaningful way to bring people together, but it is just a start.

Reading:8-9

It is amazing me to read on how much one city changes throughout the years, especially in the religion. Especially for the Judaism, Armstrong describes changes after the destruction of the temple, where some Jews shifted some of the characteristics of the temple onto other landmarks. Chapter 8 describes Christianity as the main religion in Constantine's Roman empire. Though Christians have no attachments to any temple nor believe that God is confined to a sacred space, it was curious to see the importance of the New Jerusalem.

"[Christians] had proudly proclaimed that their was a purely spiritual faith that was not dependent upon shines and holy places. Their startling response to the discovery of the tomb shows that the myths of sacred geography are deeply rooted in the human psyche. A sudden shock or an unexpected reunion with one of the physical symbols of our faith and culture can reawaken this enthusiasm for sacred space, particularly after a period of persecution when people have experienced the threat of annihilation inn an especially acute manner. It is never safe to assume that we have outgrown these primal myths: even in the secular, scientific world of the twentieth century, we are not immune to their appeal, as we can see in Jerusalem today."

I think this quote above is very interesting because it shows how a remainder or symbol of a holy place or significant event can resonate so deeply into one's mind. Armstrong writes that Christians do not rely on symbols and shrines. For Christians, the building of the new christian holy place on Golgotha, is more than just a reminder of a fond memory. This is the place that Jesus died and resurrected. Though this is not the only place that Christians can worship, attachments are formed towards the area. Eusebius who was opposed to this area as a sacred space, was so touched by the discovery of the tomb, that he changed his mind and even renamed the site New Jerusalem. This is the place where Christianity had uprooted pagan religions and Judaism. This is the part that I find unsettling. Armstrong talks about how since Christians have come to power, they have had the tendency to practice exclusion and out casting those that do not have the same beliefs. At the end of chapter 8 Armstrong hints of a new power that will over rule the Christian religion. I am curious to see whether Christians will be persecuted and whether their New Jerusalem will be destroyed and whether they will react the same way as the Jews have to the destruction of their temple.

Chapters 5-7

Armstrong notes numerous times the changing views on the presence of God. From the beginning Gods presence was felt through the land and in the temple, then it started to change to where Yahweh was omnipresent and not bound land domains. The latter view was not fully expressed until Jesus' birth. Even though Armstrong mentions these new and changing views, the Jews always place the first as a major importance. After the destruction of the first temple, there was a sense that Yahweh had left the city and a sense of hopelessness had emerged. In chapter 5, Armstrong expresses the yearnings of the Jewish exiles; to return to Jerusalem where the presence of Yahweh resided. Throughout chapters 5-7, the Jewish people continue to passionately fight for their temple and protect it from those who change and deface the temple; challenging those who do so. An example of this is the contrast between Herold's rule and the destruction of the temple by the Romans. People did not revolt against Herold because he made no attempts to corrupt the temple. This contrasts with the end of chapter 7 where the Romans trespassed into the temple, entering into the forbidden regions. The chapter ends with a depiction of the brutal overtaking of the temple. The Jew defended all they could. In the midst of fighting, they still kept to the laws of sacred spaces and stayed out. This goes to show how much the Jews stayed with their beliefs and constantly align their lives to these beliefs. Not everyone has the same beliefs and Armstrong tells very well that there are internal disagreements within the Jews. Even so, we see the strength of one's own beliefs through their passionate actions.

I have heard these stories before through the Old testament, but I've always read bits and pieces of it over time and never really put events together. I appreciate that Armstrong treats it as "history" but at the same time, states her speculations. Since I am a Christian, I hold everything in the Old Testament to be true, but I have never really considered it on historical terms. So this reading has giving me huge exposure to a different perspective.
Karen Armstrong raises some very good questions in the beginnings of her book. The city of Jerusalem I claimed by the three monotheistic faiths. When looking back at history, the question of who has claims to the city first might seem like a good solution to who gets what. However after reading the chapters, I realized that it so much more complicated because the holiness of the land is of huge importance. Jerusalem is a place where all the faiths have experienced God.
Also this reading gave me a better understanding of why holy land is viewed as important. I didn’t understand it because even though I believe in Jesus’ crucifixion, I place no attachments in the land, but on the act itself. I like how Armstrong puts into detail the importance of the sacred from its very beginnings and its evolution through time. Armstrong speaks generally that people are constantly seeking meaning in their lives. They seek a world that is just and that their futile ways will end in a positive outcome. The way that people come to terms with their meaningless existence is with the encounter of the divine. The encounters with the divine are marked by the symbols and where these encounters were taken place. It was interesting to see Jerusalem’s change before and after King David. I was interesting to read about how Yahweh was an unknown god and was integrated into the city to become the ruling God of Jerusalem. The building of the temple signified a place for the Israelites.
As a Christian, one of the major themes that I see in new believers is that they all ache for a better world and yearn to return to that state that God had originally created. It really surprised me that people in ancient times (through Armstrong’s interpretation) were feeling this way and it was solved by placing their realities in a sacred being, whoever it may be. When I think of ancient and pagan gods, I see them as destructive forces that demand worship or it’ll be the end of them. But it seems that Baal was seen as god that restored order and confronted chaos. So when Armstrong began to talk about the integration of different Canaanite gods, I became rather confused.
"Then, as now, there would always be people devoted who preferred the option of devoting their religious energies to sacred space over the more difficult duty of compassion." I really appreciated this quote because in my own religion, many of us believers tend to focus on the wrong things and this quote reminded me of that. We are called to love others, but choose to nit pick on unimportant details that make us become the opposite of what we claim to be. I cannot speak for Muslims or Jews, but for myself it’s rather important to think of the real worth in situation. Is it better to be right and oppress others along the way or simply love regardless? I know this is too idealistic and impossible to implement as a solution, but it sounds nice.

Week 2

Reading Response

"Jerusalem Then and Now" - The importance of Jerusalem as a sacred site overshadows the geographical significance of the area. Mick Dumper mainly follows the power struggle for the three faiths and how the flourishing of each religion depended on political dominance of ruling powers. By 1967 the Israel army controlled both West and East Jerusalem, intensifying the tension between groups. There has been little effort to integrate the Palestinian population into Israeli society, instead efforts from the Israeli government tried to expand the Israeli culture into Palestinian areas. The current arrangement of Israeli occupation is unacceptable to the Palestinian people, who see Jerusalem as a crucial center for their capital. The author states that unless there is a change in those non negotiable, further negotiations will not happen.

"The History of Jerusalem: An Arab Perspective" - The author of this article first starts off by stating the difficulty of differentiating true history from legends and myths. However, he does not discount the significance of native beliefs as an important factor in the history of Jerusalem. Palestinians believed that the current Arab population is descended from the original inhabitants of Jerusalem and have been Arabized over time. I found this piece of information interesting because it gives a share of legitimacy of Jerusalem to the Palestinian and Arab population. That aside, each religion has its own reason and beliefs for the importance of Jerusalem. According to the article, during the rule of the Ottoman, Jerusalem was under Islamic rule, but it was time a time of religious toleration. However, after the British occupation in 1917, the Zionist movement gained support by the British government that pushed for a separate and exclusive Jewish state. The author ends in hopes for a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem that gives religious freedom to the three faiths.

"Jerusalem: The Holy City Though the Ages" - Reba Rubin follows the historical rulers and conquerers of Jerusalem and narrates the religious significance that each ruling power brings in either destructing or restoring the three faiths.

"A Brief History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict" - This article gave me a brief understanding to the modern Arab-Israeli conflict. In 1949 Israel declared its independence and pushed thousands of Palestinians to leave the area and live as refugees. Since, there has been strong conflicts between Israel and the Arab nations. Over the years, the has been much blood shed on the Palestinian side in hopes of regaining their state and by the Israeli side who are committed in keeping control. Though there has been talks about peace and talks of creating a two states, to this day there has been no real peace in negotiation talks.