This is a response to a comment left by Sarah to my "Jewish antisemite" blog entry.

"the jewish religion sprouted to keep the people together": you are confusing the raison d'etre for Judaism and its ancillary features. Anyone who studies history knows that Judaism --no different from other cultures, religions and nationalities-- originally was steeped in the overarching culture of the Ancient Near East and that's how it evolved as a religion. Biblical laws are mere modifications of centuries-old legal codes --such as the code of Hammurabi. Jewish sense of a unique identity evolved later, as a result of Seleucid persecution in the early second century BCE. Ever since then, Jews have --to some extent-- felt persecuted and subordinate to greater powers and hence the strong "huddling together" aspect of Judaism.

You should note, however, that during the first three centuries of the first Millenium, it was Christianity that was the officially persecuted religion and that exhibited as much of this huddling-together practice as the Jews later exhibited. The Jews back then actually were a "protected religion" under the Romans. The Romans only suppressed Judaea's political ambitions; they never had any agenda against its religious aspects; on the contrary, they were very friendly and receptive to Jewish religious and philosophical ideas (note the famous friendship, for example, between antoninus and R. Judah ha-nasi).

Bottom line is that huddling together does not justify the religion as a way of life. As modern humans we can find common ground on a much more rational basis and form a community around such principles. It doesn't make sense to go to synagogue and pray three times per day year after year --wasting two hours every day-- in order to gain the social comfort of meeting like-minded (???) individuals and getting to identify with them "against" the rest of the world (which is assumed, without proper basis, to be evil and diabolic).

Question: Why introduce race, if it's religion I object to?

Answer: I object to both! I'm saying that Jews as a racial or ethnic group (depending on how one characterizes them) are inferior to Christians! It's self-deprecating and it takes a great deal of courage to admit it but I'm being honest with myself and honesty ultimately leads to greater happiness than the immediate but facile comfort of self-pleasing defensive constructs. However, I don't object to Jews racially in the sense that I advocate Nazi-like discrimination or persecution against them! I believe in the American solution to "inferior-race" problems, namely: assimilation. In our case, I am advocating disavowing the Jewish religion as long-term goal to be espoused by all rational Jews. It's a process, not an act. It cannot be completed in one generation but we know empirically that it could be achieved through multiple generations. A step in the right direction is what I am advocating.

Question: What's there to admire about the colonialism and racism of Victorian Europe?

Answer: Did I hear "colonialism"? What's wrong with that? It may seem to artificial students of history and observers of current events that colonialism is not being practiced anymore but it actually is. The American war in Iraq is a very good example. All intelligent analysts know that it's not being fought for our security. It's being fought for oil. In that regard it's no different from colonialism which was the domination of foreign lands and its peoples for the purpose of cheap and easy access to its natural resources. Furthermore, even though Bush would never admit that that's the real purpose of the war, such denial is simply prudent from a PR standpoint. It's one of those things that we know but don't discuss. In more subtle ways, through the UN, foreign monetary aid and political angling, the US is exerting colonial-like pressure over friend and foe alike, to ensure that it has continual access to the resources it needs in order to maintain the high standard of living and wealth in this country. Hence, I have nothing but thumbs-up approval of the American bully posture. I'm a bully also when it comes to satisfying my needs and desires for survival and pleasure.

Statement: Cultural continuity is good for people; cultural continuity does not preclude change.

My response: For once, I agree with you. Cultural continuity does indeed not preclude change, although I would have worded it inversely (with the addition of a modifier): Change does not preclude some cultural continuity! I'm not advocating revolutionary changes in lifestyle or identity. It's a slow, gradual journey. But we need to hustle up, pack up and get on the way!