Sarah Palin: "Known as the Festival of Lights, Hanukkah commemorates the eight-day miracle that took place when the Temple in Jerusalem was rededicated. Though there was only enough consecrated oil for one day, the flame miraculously burned for eight – just long enough to prepare more. This beautiful story is rich with life lessons for members of all faiths. With hope and dedication nothing is impossible, and the Almighty never abandons those who seek the light."
David Brooks: "They retook Jerusalem in 164 B.C. and rededicated the temple. Their regime quickly became corrupt, brutal and reactionary. The concept of reform had been discredited by the Hellenizing extremists. Practice stagnated. Scholarship withered. The Maccabees became religious oppressors themselves, fatefully inviting the Romans into Jerusalem.... The lesson of Hanukkah is that even the struggles that saved a people are dappled with tragic irony, complexity and unattractive choices."
Don't get them started on Kwanzaa...
I'm guessing they're both opposed to illegal filesharing.
Some believe in the Light, and some believe in Bubble Lights.
Oh man, Bubble Lights. My mom loves the hell out of those. And you have to figure, if you're old enough to love Bubble Lights, you're loving the original ones, the ones before UL labels and grounded electrical cords and, heck, Christmas Decorations That Wouldn't Burn Your House. I mean, those things were filled with hot oil (or, apparently, something called methylated chloride which I'm guessing is just scientist code for "face scarring").
Funny. She doesn't look Druish.
I find this exceptional because it has to make Jews (or any believers) VERY uncomfortable to hear Palin speaking about their religion in her (modern Christian) terms. And yet, it is very difficult to get past the uncomfortable truth that her investment, her faith in "the Almighty" and God despite a lack of evidence, (kind of like global warming!), while often expressed very differently, is not all that far removed, fundamentally, from any other faith's.
Her brand of Christianity loves Jews as the ones who ignite the end times, is what I understand. Which they are rushing because they want the 2nd Coming to come faster.
File under "Run, Jesus. Run!"
The rhetoric of the church I was made to attend as a kid had quite the essential pawn feel, with regards to the Jews and the rapture, and even the death of Christ. They liked to throw the "God's chosen people" bit around. I remember wondering in Sunday school if Jews were all going to hell, and getting a sufficient/necessary Jesus/heaven unspoken (and slightly smug) Yes.
They're all "We love the Jewish people! Israel is the greatest!" unless they accept Jesus at the Rapture and, you know, not be Jews anymore, then they can all burn in hell.
Sarah Palin = RAM.
On the other hand, her lipstick is so much more natural-looking than his.
I think she's winking at me.
So we can blame the Jews for our dependence on fossil fuels?
Why not, just throw it on the pile.
This makes my brain parts feel weird.
On the one hand, here's Sarah Palin with an vanilla summary of a tradition; on the other, a historical account--from whom, based on what?
It is to be hoped that Brooks's account proceeds from scholarship he's read based on primary sources, such as ancient texts and archaeological evidence. Since he is, presumably, unable to evaluate the original source material without the medium of translations and modern scholarship, I find it strange to read a summary like his without at least one reference to a scholarly authority. (It doesn't do to cite Jeffrey Goldberg, a contributor to the Atlantic whose main beat appears to be all things Jewish, for he is not a scholar, not by any stretch of the imagination.)
It is not uncommon to criticize Sarah Palin for her lack of qualifications, but why should New York Times readers accept an account of ancient history from a David Brooks? Just because it reads like a sober and disinterested summary? Ancient history is not his area of expertise, and he doesn't cite his sources.
If Brooks made any mistakes in his piece, you're welcome to point them out, I think?
if nothing else, at least brooks himself is jewish. obviously, that doesn't necessarily make him an expert, but on the other hand, i feel pretty comfortable in expecting him to be more informed than sarah palin on judaism.
also, can we just get this out there as an accepted fact: david brooks has his share of bullshit columns, but generally he's still one of the better, more thoughtful op/ed writers out there (which, granted, isn't saying much since so many op/ed writers suck). disagreements? y/n?
also, my instinct to stand up for him may or may not stem from a totally embarrassing, totally inexplicable crush on him (a SLIGHT crush, but still). maybe because he's an ersatz rahm or something. why did i have to be born catholic and twenty years too late, again?
They're both wrong. Hanukkah is about make it up to Jewish kids that Santa never comes to their house.
s/b "MAKING" it up. doh.
The problem with David Brooks account is that he opines in the New York Times - which is run by East Coast elitist intellectual Jews.
"The lesson of Hanukkah is that even the struggles that saved a people are dappled with tragic irony"
"The Jews are God's chosen people and yet the ones I know are so secular--oh,the irony!"
Don't make me pick between Mommy and Daddy.
"the Almighty never abandons those who seek the light"
Except for the millions of indigenous who populated the western hemisphere prior to the arrival of good Christian, God-fearing Europeans. God saw fit to smite their fucking asses in ways the Bible never imagined. The systematic enslavement and eventual elimination of nearly the entire population of half the world is a byproduct of Christian "hope and dedication." Until humanity learns to see all organized religion as backwards and offers it no place in political discourse, we are doomed to our murderous ways. It is a basic human right to be free from religion. Your religious rights ought only extend to the point just before you make me aware of them. Chappy Chanukah.
Blah blah blah, organized religion is not only idiotic but reponsible for all the disease/murder/ oppression in the world, blah blah blah...
Organized atheism doesn't have much of a track record, either.
If there's one thing I learned from The Wire, it's that all organizations are effectively evil.
I've never seen a more delightful shade of peach lipstick on a man.