Ramblings and Readings #2

You know how in grade school everyone has their "seat" in class, even if the "seat" isn't assigned by the teacher. If you have been sitting there everyday for a while, and then one day you walk in and another girl is sitting in your seat, your probably got pretty angry. A sense of ownership was connected with that seat, your friends sat around you that you had things in common with, you felt comfortable engaging from there, it was your comfort zone and someone else had the nerve to take it? But, what if thier old seat had also been taken? Or they too felt a connection and more engaged while sitting in that seat, it should only be fair that they get a turn too. Customs and traditions are important to people, for comfort, morality, and a slew of other important reasons. The fight for the sacred city of Jerusalem as described by Mick Dumper seems to be in the same realm as the chair. All three religions; Islam, Judaism, and Christianity have history in the city, religious and cultural history. Because of the history and connection they each feel with the city, they feel a sense of ownership without making room to share the seat or switch up the seat occasionally. This change can interupt your whole life, or it seems like it would. As Mick describes the tensions that have erupted from East and West Jerusalem and the ownership that each religion has to each part of the city, seems to have a valid reason. Yet, that's the problem and that's why it has been a problem for so long. It's easy to see that all three religions have valid connection to the city, and it's nearly impossible to fight against one of the validations.

And then we go on to read Rashid's view of Jerusalem territory and in the first section he strikes a bell with me, "When dealing with Jerusalem, however, much of what is considered to be "history" is simply not historically verifiable. This is true about most sources, whether in the Bible, the Gospels, the Quran, or most other traditions." This statement is kind of what I was just trying to explain. While each of the traditions relies heavily on their religious book for clarification and validity, each to his own has as much merit, but the others have none. So which one can we believe? However when we hear of the crusades destroying previous rule and area, it only seems logical that the fighting has continued to repeat itself in history. The more Jerusalem was taken away from each group, the more they seemed to covet it, and the harsher the dispute grew. And through these disputes and takeovers, are when things were built or brought to make the city what it is today. Whether it was the Ottomans architectural tiles or the Jewish quarters in the old city, they all define a part of what Jerusalem is, despite being from different backgrounds.

Roman rule, Bible Rule, Mohammad rule, Solomon rule, rule, rule, rule. All this ruling is making me confused and I'm wondering why I gotta do all this math.... (haha) The power devoted by each group trying to dominate the city is eventually over powered by someone else. Someone is always bigger and stronger, and ready to destroy those different from them. That's what I learned especially in the last two articles. There is a lot of names and a lot of people that cared a lot about getting what was best for their own interest.