Life’s shifting pageant
Listening to the World Service on the gay pride rally in Jerusalem very early this morning, I heard one peculiarly silly remark, to the effect that the conservative religious ‘communities’ that were making such a fuss about the rally are part of the ‘richness and diversity’ of Jerusalem. That was immediately followed by a ‘but,’ because the person who said it was defending gay rights against religious opposition, and yet – the starting point was richness and diversity. Well – you can call it richness and diversity, of course; you can call it jelly beans and dancing and flowers and anything you like. It’s always possible to dress things up in pretty language to make everyone feel cheerful. But all the same it can seem fairly contrariwise to call angry irrational narrow religious bigotry that wants to stop things and ban things ‘richness and diversity.’ You can call anything anything, but if you do it by backwards pretty soon everyone will forget how to say things the right way up. If religious tyrants are richness and diversity, then what would fit the description of poverty and narrowness?
In other words, no, in the normal understanding of the words, religious bigotry that wants to ban things for no real reason it can point to other than a Holy Book is not richness and diversity, it’s the opposite. It’s not just off at an angle, it’s the opposite: it’s a force for smallness and sameness and uniformity and obedience, and there’s nothing rich or diverse about it. (Except maybe the embroidery.) Yet people think there is – that’s the odd thing. Well – in a mostly or partly secular society, it may be unfamiliar, it may seem to have a whiff of the exotic (which would dissipate in about fifteen minutes if you had to live with it), it may look quaint and eccentric and exciting; but it’s not rich and diverse in itself. There’s a difference. Novelty is one thing, and richness is another. It might be as well if more people had a firmer grasp of that distinction, lest they get too infatuated with this idea that fundamentalist patriarchal bullies are attractive merely because they’re different from the crowd at Starbucks.
One reason the Vatican and the mufti of Jerusalem and ultra-orthodox Jews (all of whom opposed the gay pride rally) are not about richness and diversity is because they don’t want richness and diversity themselves, and if they could, they would eliminate them. They’re not fans of cosmopolitanism and patchwork and hodge podge and salad bowls. That’s not their schtick. They’re fans of monochrome – black, usually. They’re not shining ambassadors for richness and diversity for the same sort of reason that Nazis weren’t. Nazis had a pretty clear idea of what kind of thing was okay and what wasn’t; the first category was quite small, and the second was a candidate for steady methodical culling. That’s what zealots want for all of us: not richness and diversity but obedience and uniformity. Call them strawberries or butterflies or rainbows all you like, it won’t change that.
Of course the title “Mufti of Jerusalem” remids one of a previous holder of the post, who was a very nasty piece of work – finally left Berlin in (I think) February 1945.
The Brits had a chance to shoot him, and didn’t – stupid, as he was (is) the direct link from the NSDAP to today’s Hamas/Hezbollah.
Ugrrrr ….
I would agree with G.T.re the mufti of Jerusalem,but I would say that however narrow minded and bigoted these bufoons seem it is a bit of a stretch to compare them to nazis!the absence of death camps come to mind.
“Oh there you are again you rascal, you little scamp” [he tut-tutted limp-wristedly].
Six of the best on your bottom if you come up with the argumentum ad muftiam again.
Don’t forget to say your prayers.
Richard,
You got in there before me (my comment was of course aimed at Gustav von und zu Tingey).
I mean isn’t this “they’re just like the Nazis” stuff meant to end a thread rather than to set it going?
P.S. (before I head off for ‘Children of Men’): why ‘ultra-orthodox’? I mean why not just ‘orthodox’? What do the ultra-orthodox believe in that the orthodox do not believe in? Actually I’m asking myself the question rather than asking anybody else to think over it, because I’ve often used the term myself.
I got ultra-orthodox from the Beeb – wondered the same thing, also how official (as it were) the term is – is it peculiar to the Beeb? Or general? Is it technical, or purely descriptive? I dunno – but my guess is that it describes (or refers to) some but not all Orthodox Jews. Orthodox is of course official and specific, and it may be that not all Orthodox Jews fuss about gay pride, hence need to delineate further.
Cathal – just before you post – hit the back button until you get up to the last character you type. Prevent these unsightly white spaces. Thenk yew.
I reckon that the Chief Rabbi of the UK is an “orthodox” Jew, in contrast to “reform” Jews, who are less strict in obeying dietary laws and Sabbath observance. That means that Hassidic Jews (the men wear dark suits and Homberg hats) must be “ultra orthodox”.
Anyone got a better suggestion?
We Jews use “ultra-orthodox” to describe the various Hasidic sects, yes. Then there are Modern Orthodox, Conservative, Progressive/Reform , Reconstructionists…
I am no expert on this subject,but I doubt the beeb was refering to hasidic jews (they tend to be very insular and non political)the beeb usualy uses the term to describe the orthodox jewish parties that form coalitions with licud,I always take the term to mean right wing.
I’ve been checking the BBC use of “ultra-Orthodox” applied to Israel, and it almost invariably means the heavily-clothed ones, e.g.,
“More than 200,000 ultra-orthodox Jews have taken part in a demonstration in Jerusalem against rulings by the Israeli Supreme Court which they describe as anti-religious. The protesters, wearing their traditional black coats, blocked the main road into the city.”
Plus picture:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/777075.stm
And a change of head-gear – for some (two pictures):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1851515.stm
And here’s a picture to offend the Ultra-orthodox:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3805853.stm
The UK Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, wrote a book, The Dignity Of Difference, in which he espoused religious diversity as being divinely sanctioned due to God’s creation of different mindsets at the Tower Of Babel. However, passages in his book which suggested the equal validity of other religions with that of Judaism were removed in a later edition due to criticism from Orthodox Jews. It’s a pity this sort of intellectual generosity was undermined by chauvinism.
“…there’s nothing rich or diverse about it (except maybe the embroidery).”
That’s good!
The orthodox/fundamentalist/literalist worldviews seem to be all of a piece – sort of the ground state of religion. Not much diversity there.
Thanks, Allen – some remarkable stuff in those.
“Last week the Israeli parliament passed a preliminary reading of a draft law proposed by ultra-orthodox MPs that would punish women with seven-year prison sentences if they attempted to worship at the Wall in the male tradition.”
Thanks also Miriam.
Anne Roiphe has a rather interesting novel about a secular New York feminist woman whose self-destructive druggy daughter goes to Israel and becomes ultra-Orthodox, complete with arranged marriage.
“However, passages in his book which suggested the equal validity of other religions with that of Judaism were removed in a later edition due to criticism from Orthodox Jews.”
So – that must have mangled the book and its argument quite severely. How very interesting.