It's cliché already to say that one shouldn't discuss religion or politics at dinner parties. Increasingly, however, religion and politics are the same thing. That's partly because liberal religious denominations have been adopting the left's political platforms to substitute for dead articles of faith. And it's also because people seem to make political choices less based on rational calculations of self-interest, and more on millenarian visions of the ideal life, however fanciful.
That's bad, because it means it is increasingly hard to persuade leftists to break away from what is clearly not working in any practical sense. And it also means electing the left means committing society to increasingly extreme policies.
But there is a silver lining: we know how to deal with religious difference, and Western Civilization has known how to do so since the end of the Thirty Years' War in 1648. We just agree to disagree; we live and let live; we move on.
I have found that in recent discussions with serious, hard-core Democrats and leftists, there is an increasing ease of conversation, partly because both sides seem prepared to use the religious model -- you believe what you believe, I believe what I believe, and neither of us tries too hard to dissuade the other.
That does not mean every set of beliefs is equally valid or useful. But it does mean we might yet salvage social cohesion from the divisive morass of politics.
This week’s portion launches the great story of Abraham, who is told to leave everything of his life behind — except his immediate family — and to leave for “the Land that I shall show you.”
There’s something interesting in the fact that Abraham is told to leave his father’s house, as if breaking away from his father’s life — but his father, in fact, began the journey, moving from Ur to Haran (in last week’s portion). His father set a positive example — why should Abraham leave him?
Some obvious answers suggest themselves — adulthood, needing to make one’s own choices, his father not going far enough, etc.
But I think there is another answer. Abraham (known for the moment as Abram) needs to establish his own household. This is not just about making one’s own choice, but really about choosing one’s own starting point. It’s starting over.
Sometimes we start over in fundamental ways even if much that surrounds us remains the same. Sometimes the journey we have to ...
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
