Reading Response #3

The first readings from Armstrong's book were fairly expected. I read of unrest, power struggle, and change in ownership of the city of Jerusalem, and began to pick up on some trends.

Without belittling the complex narrative of Jerusalem, what I see in the early history of the city is actually quite similar to today. In Ch. 3, "City of David", Armstrong mentions that there are three words in the Jerusalem psalms that recur quite often. Mishpat (judgement, verdict), tzedek (justice), and shalom (peace). As I thought about this recurrence, I couldn't help but think that these three words perfectly outline the cyclical nature of Jerusalem's history. Somebody makes a decree, attempts to bring justice, and hopes for peace.

It seems that everyone wishes the best for the holy city, but the disagreement and fighting over the matter never cease. So I had an idea. In the end of Ch. 3, Armstrong projects the idea of political ties, and that "Kingdoms had fallen because of social unrest." Throughout the ages, Jerusalem has changed hands from one leader to another and across political, religious, and economic lines. The one constant throughout all of this is the dissatisfaction of it's citizens. No matter who is in control, there is always dissent from those who try to live a successful, pious, and happy life in the city.

I always like to use history to try to formulate ideas about the present or the future. Considering the aforementioned idea, I believe that Jerusalem is a platform for a very different type of city. (And now the idealist inside of me will expand) What if Jerusalem wasn't ruled by a religious doctrine? Members of three of the largest monotheistic religions pray to Jerusalem. What if instead of discussing ownership, land divisions, political entities, and the like, we focused on religious importance. There are sites that are of enormous importance to many, so why are they so controversial? If people really care about these places because their religious texts tell them too, then it is time they actually respect them. What if we just let the people pray?

Now I know this is 2013 and there are other factors to consider. Do we set taxes? Is there a police force? Who runs the non-religious side of matters? My answer to this is anybody. But let these "matters" remain non-religious. From early on, Jerusalem was governed via religious decree, such as in the City of David. What if this was put to an end? It is possible that if Jerusalem were governed by an outside entity, and the only religious influence was in the temples, churches, mosques, and other holy sites, things may just be a little less conflicted. Maybe then, we could learn about politics, and we could learn about religion. Because after all, should religious politics really exist in 2013?

Of course, this is just a thought, and possibly a totally confused one. But hey, it's okay to have complex, confused thoughts when learning about something complex and confusing, right? I'd love to hear reactions to this. Would it work? Am I just crazy? What problems would still exist?