Ecclesiastes and (Holy?) War

 

I'm not one to indulge in interpreting the Bible or any other sacred book or scripture.  But I've always thought Ecclesiastes 3:7-8, made memorable for those growing up in the 1960s by The Byrds, to be almost Stoic in its expression, recognition and acceptance of life in the world.  There's no question that there are times in life when there is love or hate, peace or war, and whether appropriate or inappropriate they take place and in the pursuit of virtue and tranquility we must deal with them according to Nature.

Until very recently I haven't thought to interpret this passage as a justification for war or the continuance of a war.  The Israeli Prime Minister has done so, however.  It seems a strange thing to do, and certainly would be unexpected coming from a leader of a modern state.  A modern state, though, is primarily a secular one, and it may be that Israel is not perceived as such by its current leadership, or others.  

If that's the case, there's reason to be extremely concerned.  Sadly, the Bible and God have been referred to as justifying war with some frequency by those nations and peoples who have followed the Abrahamic religious tradition.  The Crusades were launched by the cry "Deus Vult!" ("God wills it!").  Wars have been launched against heretics, heathens and infidels.  That Bible the Israeli Prime Minister mentioned, or at least a portion of it, is relatively replete with the conquest and even the massacre of non-believers who inhabited Palestine before it became a kingdom of the Jews.  The slaying of men, women, children, infants and livestock is described with seeming zest at times, because they are unbelievers and stand in the way.

It's nonetheless curious for the Bible to be used in this fashion and for this purpose.  Perhaps it seems disturbing because the claim the Bible says this is a time of war was made in response to a call for a ceasefire.  The deplorable nature of the attacks by Hamas were mentioned as calling for war, or perhaps more properly retribution, even though it may result in the death of civilians.  

Significantly, the Israeli Prime Minister seemed outraged that a ceasefire was proposed, let along championed.  It appeared as though he believes that the horrible nature of the attacks justifies a response as severe as possible, and that he feels all should accept that position.

From a purely political and practical standpoint, I doubt this rhetoric will serve to lessen the criticism being made against Israel for its military operations in Gaza.  I suspect that criticism to increase, in fact.  Over the years, for reasons not entirely clear to me, Israel has begun to be seen as an aggressor in the region, and by rejecting a ceasefire, especially in such terms, it adds to the perception that it believes it has a quasi-religious right to continue to punish Hamas.  That others may be harmed is unfortunate, but Israel's mission to crush Hamas is of greater importance, and we should know it--that's what it seems is being said.

Outrage and outrages permeate the media, professional and social.  Outrage generates outrage.  Outrage at the barbaric attacks is being replaced by outrage against the military response.  Outrage at the treatment of Palestinians is matched by outrage against a rising anti-semitism.  What other outrages await us?  Religious outrage is dangerous in the extreme.  The more religiously motivated this conflict becomes the more danger we face.

Ecclesiastes 1:9

Every now and then (in fact, more now than then) I think wistfully of what great journalists, essayists and satirists would write of our times. Specifically, I wonder what someone like Mencken, or Bierce or Juvenal would have to say, if only they were alive to bear witness to our folly. In that mood I revisit what I've read by them, and sometimes find what I haven't read before (to discover something I haven't read is particularly delightful).

I've been reading Mencken mostly. The Sage of Baltimore had an incisive mind, his writing is clear, erudite and witty, and he was more often right than wrong, though he had his prejudices and didn't hesitate to voice them. What struck me most as I read was that seemingly very little has changed since his death. Granted, he didn't die all that long ago, but it seems long ago and it seems we've come to think of most everything which happened more than a decade into the past as being ancient. Such are the expectations and inclinations of those of the age of Twitter.

The chapter (if I may call it such) of the Bible called "Ecclesiastes" makes several neat little observations about life which seem commonplace now, but perhaps were not so then. One might not think the members of a Bronze Age tribe would make them, but they were made nonetheless. Some have a Stoic tinge to them. What's referred to in the title to this post is the one which is paraphrased as "there is nothing new under the sun." Let's give the ancient author his due and quote him here: "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." (King James' version).


This saying came to mind while I was reading an article Mencken wrote in 1924 regarding immigration. The government was taking steps to stem the tide of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, then. That's more or less where my ancestors come from, as I'm largely of Italian and Polish descent My ancestors would not have been affected by the law, as they were in the first wave of immigration from those parts, so to speak; the late 19th century. That assumes the law wouldn't have retroactive application, of course, but I think that would be pushing anti-immigration sentiment too hard; making it too obviously contrary to the Constitution.

I think the rhetoric used to justify such a law at that time would have been similar to the rhetoric we hear now about Mexican immigrants. Mencken in his article doesn't dwell on the Italians, especially southern Italians and Sicilians, being undesirable in the many ways they were thought to be undesirable in 1924. Instead, the article sets forth an argument that if the immigration of such people is prohibited, then the Americans Mencken called "Anglo-Saxon" would be forced to do the manual or factory labor being done by the immigrants. This made no sense to Mencken, because the lower kind of Anglo-Saxon not only wanted to avoid such work, but were no longer capable of doing such work well or diligently. The higher kind of Anglo-Saxon, of course, would not even consider doing such work in any situation, according to Mencken. Mencken, as a devotee of Nietzsche, was inclined to speak of higher and lower kinds of people.

The claim that immigrants are needed to do the work we don't want to do, but which nevertheless should be done, is an argument we hear today as well. So it isn't new, and nor is the claim that immigrants from particular areas or nations are undesirable, which is to say unlike Americans who are descendants of northern Europe or England. It is only new to the extent it addresses new people.

Though we're often called a nation of immigrants, America has always been unkind to immigrants. Irish, Chinese, Italian throughout the 19th and even into the 20th century; now Mexican and Muslim. The Irish, Chinese and Italian have been accepted for the most part; perhaps more properly assimilated. The prejudice against them reduced over time. Perhaps that will happen as well with the newly undesirable, and they will have their turn at objecting to immigrants in the future. It seems to be the American way.

It's claimed by some that restricting the immigration of Muslims is a special case, as it impacts our national and personal security. The same was also said of others, though. Italians promoted crime and even organized it. Eastern Europeans were communists. Italians could be anarchists as well, of course, like Sacco and Vanzetti.

Mencken wrote, wisely I think, that people don't really want liberty. Instead, what they want is security. What was truly said is that which shall be truly said, to paraphrase Ecclesiastes. We seem most willing to sacrifice our liberty--and those of others, of course--in the hope that sacrifice will provide us with security. Immigrants like many other things make us feel insecure.

Mencken thought democracy to be a destructive form of government given his contempt for the masses who through it would run the show, and remarked that its result in America would be that someday the common people would achieve their dream of electing a complete moron to the presidency. It may be that dream has come true at last, and that it has come in part due to our desire for security.

I suspect Mencken and other great cynics and critics of the past would therefore be inclined to write much like they did in the past if they lived now. There seems indeed to be nothing new under the sun at least as far as human conduct and misconduct is concerned, and so those who comment on human conduct are fated to make comments already made. But they would make them in with much more skill and wit than can be found these days, as skill and wit in communication are actively discouraged, the act of communicating instantly being of greatest importance in these unhappy times when talk is quick and cheap.