In most Western countries with Christian orientation, the question itself is pretty obvious. ‘Belief in God’ for a typical American would usually be accompanied by some common Christian behaviors, and since many of these are optional, it could be translated into simple everyday habits. Nothing special that can be recognized by an outsider, unless they specifically ask.

Not so for an observant Jew. The amount of strict rules enforced by Orthodox Judaism is enormous, many of which are directly related to how one is dressed, how they talk, what they eat, you name it. Hence, asking a Jewish person ‘are you religious’ – seems unnecessary. If they are, you quickly see it without asking.

So far, the minority of Israeli citizens of Jewish origins would answer ‘yes’ and be classified that way. Yet, a recent survey revealed 80% of Israeli Jews ‘believe in God’… What is the meaning of this? How can one define him or herself as ’secular’ and believe in God at the same time?

I suppose the explanation has to do with both the way we are brought up and the way our mind has evolved, but whatever the reasons are, the road from ’secular but believe in God’ to ‘religious’ is pretty clear. It is that road that poses the real danger to the future of modern Israel.

Try to criticize religion, especially the Middle-Eastern ones. Soon you’ll find yourself as the target of various accusations, which may start with ‘hatred’ and end with ‘Anti-Semitism’ and ‘Islamofobia’. Religions are not very tolerant of criticism, and that is an understatement.

The issue has two different aspects. One of them pertains especially to Orthodox Judaism. While extreme Islam simply tells you to fight the heretics, there are several ancient Jewish rules that tell you to hate them. You are explicitly told to hate those of your own people who do not follow divine orders. You are supposed to hate those who do not ‘believe in God’, and so on. In fact, since the verb ‘to hate’ is so often mentioned, it gets a whole new interpretation, more associated with behavior than with feelings.

The other aspect even looks more important to me. I have many love ones with whom I sometimes argue. Show me one person who doesn’t. When we do argue, we often do so because of some occasional ‘hatred’, so to speak, to something someone just did or said. Some of my love ones also possess certain long-lasting qualities that I specifically hate. On the other hand, there are a few people I really hate, literally. For all that, I can put my finger on specific qualities associated with them that I actually like.

To sum it all up, there is a clear distinction between people and their specific behaviors. Between the actual persons and the contents. My criticism of religions is rarely of the people themselves, it is much more of the religious contents. I hereby declare I truly hate some of these contents. There are some I also love, I admit not too many.

But please do me a favor: Don’t blame me for things I don’t do!

Perhaps the most striking attribute of a legend is to assign human-like behaviors to other “things”. These can be animals, plants, and of course silent objects (where does Bugs Bunny fit in this classification?). Some call it ‘personification’, and others would use the term ‘anthropomorphism’ (look up Google for the difference).

The most interesting usage of personification stories involves fooling around with the personification issue itself. Take Pinocchio for example: He (it?) started his (its?) way as a wooden puppet being assembled by a skilled carpenter. In the end… well, we all know what happened. Want another example? How about The Sorcerer’s Apprentice? That is a fine example of splitting one conscious mind into several. Who Framed Roger Rabbit set the standard for a mixed human-cartoon plot. And the list grows on and on.

The ancient Greek mythology, and for that matter, many ancient mythologies, made use of their own Pinocchios, building, destroying, bringing to life, and shutting down each other. Some of these mythologies really made it to the top with Pinocchio making Geppetto, as in God making man in his workshop: First version from earth, second version from a rib.

Many legends have managed to remain under the ‘legend’ tag. Some have managed to escape.

The origins of this absurd rule are not necessarily the same as its current strict interpretation. It was probably aimed at some specific prayer (not that this meaning was somewhat more justified). Still, nowadays it has evolved to forbid any male Orthodox Jew to listen to a woman sings. It’s still ok to listen to a woman talks. Yay.

One wouldn’t really care that much about religious oddities, but it seems once you try to avoid them – they chase you wherever you are. The recent huge debate in the IDF (Israeli army) is not ‘how to tackle terror’ or ‘what to do with Iran’s nuclear effort’, but rather: Are male soldiers allowed to leave official ceremonies where and when women sing? The strongest and most modern army in the middle-east is developing high-tech anti-missile defense, but is afraid of songs. Perhaps this should be the new Hammas weapon at hand – it seems more effective in driving away soldiers, than the old fashioned ballistic pipes filled with explosives.

One should also research the unclear boundaries defined by modern technologies: Is a woman’s voice still forbidden if distorted by audio-processing software? Is a man’s voice ok if made higher in pitch by the same software? What about artificial text-to-speech results? Rest assured, there will be a good religious verdict for each. God’s taste in voices cannot be left to coincidence.

Of course there are things I strive to change, like the separation of “church and state” and of course the history of this place has been very chaotic. Yet, looking forward into the future, I will generally look for political solutions along the above-described lines. That doesn’t mean I’m not ready to compromise on things, but as long as the main theme is preserved, and as long as the so-called “other side” is ready to compromise as well.

Many Israelis regard the Arab-Israeli conflict (and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in particular) as “the” most important issue to be solved, this way or the other. I have two important observations about this:

1. I think the internal problems of Israel, especially its gradual falling into religion, are much more dangerous to its existence. Not only an ever decreasing portion of the population actually contributes to progress, but soon the main issue will be not “who will defend the country” but rather “will there be anything worth defending”.

2. Very naively, if “both” sides somehow become convinced to shift from fanatic religious world-views into more rational and educated opinions, it looks as if the conflict is going to dissolve naturally. Instead of fighting over whose god is stronger, people may, just may, talk some sense into things.

With that in mind I wish everyone a happy Jewish new year and Shana Tova!

The protest is generally based on economy issues. The middle class finds it harder than ever to survive these times, let alone acquire a decent place to live. Thoughts about modest prosperity have become more like dreams. One can often hear arguments about overblown taxes, wrong priorities, etc.

These claims are typically right. About one third of the country population has gradually become the actual tax-payers and those that serve their country… in more than one meaning (referring also to spending precious years in the defense forces).

Alas, something is missing. The essence of “social justice” is equality. The criteria for taking and giving money should be relevant and objective. Easing the tax burden of sick people is an example of a good criterion. Ignoring certain civil duties of people who study religion in “Yeshiva” is not, and the list is long.

The problem is: You hardly hear any talks of equal rights and equal duties. Sometimes it looks like the protesters are ready to settle on some financial solutions. How come there is a demand for “social justice” but hardly any mention of equality? Could it be because people have been trained for years to take such unequal attitude for granted?

Read my lips: Solving social differences with a simple movement of resources from one place to another, is a short term solution. It’s a temporary pain relieving treatment for a patient that suffers from cancer. The pain is due to return, and perhaps even in a bigger form. Establishing relevant, objective and equal criteria, is the real cure for the disease.

Let’s take Belgium for instance: You can be a Belgian citizen, while from the ethnic point of view you may be Flemish or Walloon, or perhaps an African immigrant. From the religious point of view, you may be a Christian, or perhaps you are a Muslim. Of course you may be an atheist and enjoy a healthy set of values. All these words are different, each set reside on different axis.

The same goes for other lucky groups of people. If you’re an Arab, statistics show you are most likely to be a Muslim, but there are many Christian Arabs and those with other religions. Again there are also some lucky atheists.

However, things come to a total confusion when talking about Jews. Many people call themselves ‘Jews’ while declaring they are not religious at all. Some insist there’s no way of being Jewish unless you believe in the Jewish god, obeying his alleged commands. I’ve found out at least five very different definitions for the term:

1. The Orthodox Jewish definition is trying to be very clear: You are a Jew if your mother was a Jew, or if you so-called “converted” to Judaism in the Orthodox way. This of course is a recursive definition, because now we have to examine your mother’s Jewishness, which is essentially the same task. Not to mention some awkward situations that arise when the two parents hold different religions, which have different rules for this topic.

2. The linguistic definition determines you are “Jew” if you are a descendant of the old tribe of Judea. Hence, perhaps many of the “Cohen’s” and “Levi’s” are not Jews, as they’re known to be descendant of the old Hebrew tribe of Levi. Yet this is from their father’s side… How confusing…

3. The Nazis had another clear-but-recursive definition of what a ‘Jew’ is. It was more-or-less someone with Jewish ancestors 2 generation before. Thus someone could be a ‘Jew’ according to Hitler, but not according to the Rabbi.

4. And there is the common definition: The Jewish “people”, from the ethnic point of view. Not clearly defined, certainly has nothing to do with “religion”, but very practical. The problem? Someone can be a Jew according to this definition, while know nothing of Jewishness, have no Jewish friends whatsoever, and be a total stranger.

Personally I think the best definition is the cultural one. The Jewish culture is many things: It contains the various branches of the Jewish religion, the Hebrew language, the geographical linkage with Israel, the Jewish holidays and literature, etc. I would easily define someone as a ‘Jew’ even if he/she has Christian parents, he/she has never “converted” and not religious at all, but truly shares the same culture with me. I would not define a total stranger as a ‘Jew’ just for having a Jewish mother by some chance.

This may be a symptom of the steep slope on which the State of Israel is quickly going down with its cultrure (and subsequently with its very existence).

However, one major point remains un-asked: If the Almighty wanted to, he would have prevented those sons and daughters from becoming a “memory” altogether, saving them from being killed in action.

Don’t you think it’s ironic to ask the killer to remember his victims?

“In India, as elsewhere in our darkening world, religion is the poison in the blood. Where religion intervenes, mere innocence is no excuse. Yet we go on skating around this issue, speaking of religion in the fashionable language of ‘respect’.”

– Salman Rushdie

In took the Unites States ten years or more to settle the score with Osama bin Laden, the number one terrorist of the new era. In the US, just like other places around the world, people went out celebrating in the streets. Still, every commentator bothered to explain the already-known: The fight against terror is not over, and a new spiritual leader will probably pop up to fill the gap.

– * — * –

Whoever experienced talking to people who had undergone some kind of brainwashing, knows the feeling of talking to a brick wall. A sort of infertile discussion that reminds the attempt of selling a used car to someone you’ve just murdered his family in front of him. A hopeless effort to conduct a rational argument with a brain that is apparently open for emotional considerations only.

During the first Israeli-Lebanon war, IDF soldiers became aware of the phenomenon of Shiite Muslim suicide bombers. Later on, many Israeli civilians learned first-hand about the horrors of suicide bombers, who are about to embark – from their point a view – a journey to a Heaven swarming with virgins made to serve martyrs, a.k.a ’shaheeds’. In days to come, the whole world witnessed some apparently educated people – language-speaking pilots – fervently navigating their airplanes into towers and buildings, equipped with similar motivation and goals.

And here is tactics vs. strategy for you: During the first Israeli-Lebanon war, the Israeli Chief of Staff – the late Rafael ‘Raful’ Eitan – expressed himself in the media: “We shall help them reach Heaven”. The State of Israel within its private struggle, like other countries of the Western World in their similar struggles, did help some potential suiciders to reach Heaven earlier. The problem is similar to a known Hebrew phrase discussing the issue of threatening a whore with rape: It is not really clear how effective it is to threaten a suicidal person with death.

– * — * –

In the end of the Nineties, a small Israeli organization named ‘Daat Emet’ (’Knowing the Truth’) was established. In its beginning, Daat Emet approached ultra-Orthodox ‘Haredi’ Jewish population, using some pretty good knowledge of their target audience. One may say they succeeded in doing the allegedly impossible, managing a rational discussion with irrational negotiators. The reason for their partial success is a fascinating topic by itself. In some way, Daat Emet’s contents approached the believers using their own language and mindset.

And here is a very long sentence: If such a small organization succeeded in transforming itself into a well-known brand, and even demonstrated considerable achievements in changing people’s mindset, up to the point of re-educating them into more skeptic and productive thinking… then one can only assume that a similar effort based on more serious resources (like the opposite effort using much of our tax money to educate little children into irrational religious thinking), would achieve a much more significant success.

Hence the question: Why not taking the same measures to encourage skeptical-rational thinking among religious fanatic audience, but not necessarily an Orthodox Jewish audience? The Orthodox Jewish nonsense does not have exclusivity in controlling human minds, and even the greatest deniers of evolution tend to define many of the Muslims as cousins of the Jews.

Yes, it takes considerable knowledge in Islam and its rituals. It also requires time and money resources. C’mon… for the price of four ‘Iron Dome’ missiles one may finance a significant and focused educational effort, targeting both Islamic knowledge and emotions, encouraging healthy skepticism and rational thinking.

– * — * –

Bin Laden’s extermination is a pain relieving medication while fighting cancer. A touch of good feeling for a couple of hours, not very much beyond it. The right way to tackle the “Islamic threat” is, if you will, an “Islamic Daat Emet” — Curing the roots of the problems rather than its occasional symptoms. Yet what is known as ‘The West’ (Israel included) will not select the right medication, for the simple reason it suffers from the very same disease: The Western countries have not yet been able to distinguish ‘religion’ from the alleged need to ‘respect’ it. Culturally and politically they largely believe in parallel nonsense. It is possible, perhaps even probable, that if and when they are released from this complex, it will be too late for them.

Can simple processes of replication and survival really create more complex forms by themselves? I recalled the Life Game we liked so much during basic programming training. And it goes more or less like this: Let’s imagine a colony of, say, imaginary living cells, which reproduce and die generation by generation according to the following rules:

• A cell surrounded by too few other cells (one or zero) – will die of loneliness in the next generation.
• An empty slot surrounded by exactly two cells – will give birth to a new cell in the next generation.
• A slot surrounded by exactly three cells – will retain its status (living cell or no cell) in the next generation.
• A cell surrounded by four or more other cells – will die of crowdedness in the next generation.

And now let’s see what evolution does to our imaginary cells (tip for beginners – try starting from simple symmetric shapes):

Click here to try