Reading Response #3

As I was reading Armstrong, I was struck within the first chapter by the idea of "sacred" spaces and Armstrong's explanation of their significance to the ancients. Armstrong explains that men and women were "drawn irresistibly to some localities which they experienced as radically different from all others" and that this was not based on "intellectual investigation" but rather a "primordial religious conviction". She also explained that even today we have the similar tendency to place high value on ordinary objects or places related to the occurrence of some deeply personal event. And so I began to wonder if all three faiths hold Jerusalem as sacred in some way, is the violence and political tension that occurs there not degrading to the sacredness of the city? It would appear not. The Christians burned a scar of destruction through the Holy Land during the Crusades, and the war between the Israelis and Palestinians has had a similar effect. I suppose the idea of fighting for what is sacred is something that humans have always idealized, but it seems that there should be some realization that the conflicts that are and have occurred are destroying the very thing that they seek to protect. I know the situation is much more complex than I am making it sound, but to me, the idea of peacefully sharing a sacred place with others seems much better than tearing apart said sacred place with a war of intolerance and hate.