My
war as a Buddhist against the Abrahamists
Today's
piece is more than a whimsical riff based on a pun, Judy-ism v.
Judaism. In my text, I hope to reveal certain rather large grains of
truth. I don't, however, want anyone concluding I'm anti-Semitic. My
objections are always based on faith, not on ethnicity. I am a
Buddhist who is at war with all of the Abrahamic
faiths.
And
“war” is not too strong a word. I firmly believe that most, if
not all, of the world's problems stem from the mind and actions of
the Patriarch Abraham, who was a profoundly mentally-disturbed man.
Any serious pondering on the source of most of our most terrible wars
– the Middle East, the so-called Holy Land – should be enough to
convince you of this much.
For
now, though, I focus on the differences between Judaism and Judy-ism.
But...I won't be able to resist going off-topic by critiquing Judge
Judy.
In
the Beginning
One
thing I want to make clear: The word “Judy-ism” is one I apply
only to the form of Judaism which is responsible for the
anti-Palestinian policies emanating from the government of Israel. I
am aware that not all Jews from all sects approve of those policies –
and more power to them. But it's Judy-ism that oppresses the Jews'
half-brother, the Palestinian (same father, Abraham; different
mothers, Hagar and Sarah). And by doing so, such Jews violate the
Lord's commandment to “love the stranger.” If they can't even
love their half-brother, how could they possibly love the stranger?
As
it turns out, they love only themselves and their kind. And for that
reason, Israel will never become a light unto all nations. At least,
not until enough Jews reject Judy-ism and start reconnecting to the
love that created this world.
All
things have origins. My use of the word “Judy-ism” started with
this fairly recent posting of mine on an internet site:
QUOTE:
Seeking
a brand of Nationalism is unbecoming for any religion. But Judaism
has degenerated so badly from its connection to Allah*...that
it should be called Judy-ism instead. As in Punch
and Judy*.
Meaning: Not a whole lot going on that's sophisticated, but good for
a laugh.
The
Jews will not become a light among the nations – they're too petty
and self-absorbed with their tribalism to rise so nobly. ...
Nationalism is the single greatest threat to world peace, bar none.
And the Zionists will do nothing about that.
:UNQUOTE.
I
posted this quote with the primary goal of trying to inspire the more
open-minded among the Jews to think of ways to move their more
knee-jerking fellow tribesmen onto the path of righteousness. And
that can only happen if these wayward fellow tribesmen do more than
just observe rituals and pass down from father to son the distorted
worldview they accept as gospel.
Briefly:
Punch and Judy are a married couple with a baby. Punch – as the
name indicates – is a very violent man. But his wife Judy can more
than capably wield the slapstick as the occasion demands. All of this
is played for laughs. As a metaphor, I admit deriving “Judy-ism”
from Punch and Judy is weak, since the overall theme seems to suggest
“Humorous Violence-ism.” But I had to start somewhere.
This
is where Judge Judy comes in
Israel's
most important sponsor is the USA. Therefore, I thought it better to
conjure up a more relevant (not to mention, accurate) icon than the
Judy of Punch and Judy, which isn't that well known
here. So I came up with Judge Judy as the face and behavior of
Judy-ism as I envision it.
It's
not enough to say Judge Judy is a TV icon who wears the robe of a
judge, calls herself a judge, has a bailiff who introduces each
“case” as “case number [e.g., 567]” as in a real courtroom,
and works 5 days per month in the capacity – not of a judge but of
an arbitrator. If you're unfamiliar with Judge Judy, this link will
help, although seeing is not only believing, it's crucial to the
image I'm trying to convey:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idcvCPN20Jo
There
are many such YouTube links, accessible by googling “YouTube Judge
Judy” - so take your pick. In any event, it will be easy to see,
especially with the background material I quote below, that Judge
Judy is a colossal fraud who is not about justice but is mostly about
money and self-glorification.
The
name Judith simply means “woman from Judea” in Hebrew. “Judith”
was later rendered informally/familiarly as “Judy.” And you know
what they say about familiarity breeding contempt. And that's true in
this case, the more you read about this very strange “judge.” To
me, she's the perfect personification of Judy-ism as I apply that
word to the religion as practiced by the Zionist forces that dominate
Israeli politics today.
QUOTE:
[SOURCE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Judy
]
[Joseph]
Wapner, who presided over The
People's Court
from 1981 to 1993, is a long-time critic of Sheindlin. ...stating
"She is not portraying a judge as I view a judge should act.
Judge Judy is discourteous, and she's abrasive. She's not slightly
insulting. She's insulting in capital letters."
Judge
Judy replied through her publicist, stating, "I refuse to engage
in similar mud slinging. I don't know where or by whom Judge Wapner
was raised. But my parents taught
me when you don't have something nice to say about someone, say
nothing. Clearly, Judge Wapner was absent on the day that
lesson was taught."
[Here
I interrupt this QUOTE. The sentence I highlighted above in yellow is
a laugher. Judy's parents might have taught her that lesson, but that
never stopped her from calling plaintiffs/defendants “stupid,”
etc.]
Since
then, Wapner has stated, "She is a disgrace to the profession.
She does things I don't think a judge should do. She tells people to
shut up. She's rude. She's arrogant. She demeans people. If she does
this on purpose, then that's even worse. Judges need to observe
certain standards of conduct. She just doesn't do it and I resent
that. The public is apt to gain the impression that this is how
actual judges conduct themselves. It says 'judge'
on the nameplate on the bench and she's wearing a robe."[111]
Sheindlin
has since stated, "As a young person, when I had watched The
People's Court . . . I said you know what, I could do that. And at
least as well because while Joe Wapner is a very good judge, he
didn't have much of a sense of humor. And I always knew from a very
practical perspective that you have to marry those two things in
order to be successful in entertainment."[26]
:UNQUOTE.
Well,
at least she's being honest in that last sentence, “...in order to
be successful in entertainment,” although one is left wondering how
much justice gets served. Her gravest injustice is conveying her
set-up as a real courtroom. Isn't there some commission on judicial
ethics that could be persuaded to force a voiceover disclaimer on
this show, saying, “This is not in any way a real courtroom. What
you are about to see is an arbitration in which both parties as well
as the courtroom's spectators are paid as are, in most cases, the
judgments by the producers of this show.” I would call that “truth
in packaging” - as if anyone cares about the truth any more.
Then
we have this from an interview in the New York Times:
QUOTE*:
I
don’t know if people understand how successful you are. You make
$45 million a year, which almost equals the salaries of Jay Leno and
David Letterman combined.
Without
divulging fiscal information, I will tell you that it’s very
gratifying to be rewarded for the work that you do, and syndicated
television is a rich genre.
You
also have a great schedule — you work only five days a month.
That’s about $865,000 a day. Does hearing it put that way embarrass
you, or does it make you proud?
[I
interrrupt this QUOTE to offer what should have been Judge Judy's
response: “That's how much the system is willing to pay me and if
you don't like it – fuck you very much!”]
I don’t know how to answer. It’s not a question of how much I make. It’s how much income my program generates. It’s just like tuna fish on toast — if I owned a luncheonette and somebody who worked really hard for me saw at the end of the day my profit from making a tuna fish on toast was $1.50, they would want half the profits from that tuna fish sandwich.
:UNQUOTE.
As
for that last sentence, they should not really expect “half the
profits,” since they didn't vest any risk in this enterprise.
Besides, I'm sure that such an employee could be easily replaced by
someone else who is equally as hard working. Sure, Judge Judy has a
following but I would hardly call her hard-working or even just.
The
only way Judy-ism can work (in “Judge” Sheindlin's “courtroom”
as well as in the State of Israel) is for the larger law to be
excluded and for those practitioners to become a law unto themselves.
Judge Judy does this by allowing contestants to appear on her show
only by accepting her verdicts as final – no appeals. Israel does
this by attrition – slowly, surely, step-by-step, with no regard
for international law, except when convenient.
Judge
Judy-ism
So,
there we have it: Someone gets paid $45 million per year to trash one
of our bedrock institutions – the court system – and gets us to
laugh about that. I'm sure there must be multitudes of terrorists out
there who would be more than willing to blow themselves up to
accomplish what she so easily manages to get paid for doing.
It
takes a certain amount of cynicism to do what Judge Judy does in a
“courtroom.” It takes a certain amount of cynicism to do what the
Jews who practice Judy-ism are doing in Israel.
Are
they doing this for laughs, like Judge Judy? Of course – people who
think they're better than anybody else – for God knows what reason
– like to toy with lesser beings for amusement.
Do
they do it for money? Certainly, for if the Final Solution to the
Palestinian Problem can be arranged, then Jews from other parts of
the world who were too afraid to settle in Israel would come flocking
in with tons of money available for investment.
Do
they do it for glory? That too – nothing feels better than to be a
David who overcomes a Goliath. After the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and
Jerusalem are annexed, the glory seekers will be emboldened to go
after the rest of the land Israel feels God bestowed upon them. That
includes parts of Syria, Iraq, and Egypt – up to the Nile River.
Sound far-fetched? Not if you feel you're on a winning streak, that
God is on your side (again), and you've got nuclear weapons. Those
kinds of advantages are enough to lead many people astray, to do
things which their compassionate hearts wouldn't normally consider.
Two
ironies worthy of note
Traditional
Judaism maintains that a boy becomes a man at the age of 13. That, of
course, is nonsense. That really serves as an excuse for the
newly-minted young men to be dominated more fiercely by the menfolk
of the community. After being declared “men,” they are weaned
away from the influence of their mothers. Which I find to be ironic
since the very source that defines Jewishness (aside from those few
who seek conversion) is being born of a Jewish mother. But it seems
to me to be the epitome of cynicism to take that young “man” away
from his mother so he can be forged into an image that would meet the
approval of the patriarchs.
And
make no mistake about intentions here: Being forced to serve in the
military further amplifies this macho ethic, which despises the
softer, gentler, more compassionate possibilities that women often
bring to the table. And I'm sure, deep down inside, such cynical
patriarchs wouldn't mind – at least privately – being called
practitioners of Judy-ism. That is, they can do as they please and
have the world blame it on the woman, as implied by the word
“Judy-ism” itself.
The
second irony is this: If the roles were reversed – with Jews living
under oppression in the Occupied Territories and Palestinians living
in power in Israel, I'm sure there would be Jews radical enough to
become suicide bombers themselves. When a people feel they have no
other weapons, they find it too easy to set aside religious scruples
by blowing up themselves and others. That instinct seems
all-too-universal to me.
Conclusion
This
is probably one of the most provocative pieces I've posted on this
blog. Yes, it is extreme. So I encourage this attitude among my
readers who might take offense: Whenever you encounter something new,
take from it what is good and leave the rest behind. I'm sure, if you
have an open enough mind, there will be at least something that is
good and worthy of being prayed upon. And acted upon.
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven
Searle, just another member of the
Virtual
Sangha of the Lotus and
former
candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact
me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Footnotes:
Allah*
- since the Jews and the Muslims both purport to worship the same
monotheistic God, the Jews couldn't possibly object to the idea of a
Jew worshiping Allah. Nor could Muslims possibly object to a Muslim
worshiping Yahweh.
Punch
and Judy* - If you don't
know what a Punch and Judy show is, this link will help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punch_and_Judy
No comments:
Post a Comment