This is a small essay I wrote about a year ago (don't remember exactly) for a certain forum. I've been thinking of having it sent to some christian magazines in Finland, possibly. It needs some editing though, since the metaphorical language I use at some places is a tad too obscure, and some of the events I refer to might need some specifications. Enjoy, and comment.

Confrontations and dialogues between judaism and christianity have almost always been on christian conditions. The medieval disputes were rigged by christian clergy, mere plays were the rabbi had to say his lines which of course ended him up losing. The notable exception, of course, got the victorious rabbi exiled.
Later, the reformation didn't change the basic idea, though some of the implementations were altered. It still was designed so the christians were in a win-win situation. Now, the idea was that jews should be shown compassion and friendship so they would embrace christianity. When they didn't, this was retracted. We see another example in the laws that forbade conversion to Judaism in most of Europe, up to the 19th century - christianity had a monopoly on conversions. The same goes for the 19th and early 20th century ministries to the jews in Europe, especially Germany, whose members - many of whom still lived during the mid of the 20th century - by and large looked the other way while the jews were exterminated, in case they weren't even directly supportive of the final solution. We see it in Sweden, where jews could not hold higher office until the 50's. The idea seems to be that the jew can be afforded human rights as long as he has not yet proven to be beyond grace, stubborn and faithful to his own religion; as long as there is a chance that he might become christian he is a human being. But the lesser the chance shrinks, the less human he is, an enemy of all men, having the Devil as his father, progenity of vipers.

When the jew doesn't accept christ, it is suddenly the christians' obligation to get angered, and somehow punish him. This is the christians setting the rules at its worst: the premise is that since they're right, they've got not only the divine approval of doing so, no, they are even divinely obliged to do so. A quote from one of the christians who frequented this forum might illustrate this opinion: "Is it anger or frustration? Let's say you have a stubborn mule, all the sweet talking you can do will just make him sleepy, and he lies down for a nap! Luther should have refreshed his mind about what scripture says about some hearts. But still, the frustration!". With this in mind, what will happen when the so called "evangelical embrace" wears off? Considering the acrobatics they involve themselves in redefining 'antisemitism' so that Luther is freed of that accusation, the leeway for hating jews and judaism without being antisemitic by christian measures is considerable. Disconcertingly.

Christianity can't stand it when it suddenly loses the initiative, the right to set the rules. Israel ruled in its law that no more evangelizers may enter than there were at the foundation of the state. This is a highly offensive fact to christians, and there are lots of them that travel there without permission to evangelize, but still do so. They get the visas for students, guest workers or journalists; they deceive the jewish state and the jewish people to plant their foreign dogmas on Israeli soil. They are offended when Israel creates odd conditions for evangelism on radio (limiting broadcasts either to the English language only, or Hebrew on a frequency that is only used by the Israeli Arabs otherwise...), but they don't understand it when jews are offended by the masses of misinformation about the jewish religion in christian schools, literature, media and sermons. Only the christians have the right to set the conditions, they won't play a game they haven't designed.

Whenever the christians have been playing by rules set by others, they've either cheated or used the military power of the christian nations so that the rules'd be changed - the Opium War, although not per se a crusade, got a few elements of it, when one of the demands during the negotiations for peace was that China accept way more missionaries. True Christians, of course, did not start that war, so they came away with their hands clean, but like a buzzard, they descended on the corpse and had a feast.

The fact that the rule is, "jews are entitled to human rights as long as they are potential christians", is the true reason why many jews, and rightly so, fear there is antisemitism in nearly all christian kindness.
I fear that the same treatment will be given the moslem communities in strongly christian areas, as well as gipsies and other non-christian minorities. When they settle down and retain their unbelief, they suddenly will no longer be welcome. As for christians setting the rules, the moslems in west have gotten a few experiences already, in the theological disputes between these two religions. A christian is entitled to tell the world that he worships the same God as the jews. The moslem, however, who says that the moslems worship the same deity that the christians do, will provoke hard feelings from the christians. Why is the christian allowed to express his opinion of another religions deity, when the moslem must not? Is it perchance, because christianity is superior? Islam, however, has an insurance policy which judaism lacks - sheer number of adherents.

The jews, however, have another problem coming. Christianity has never managed to have a balanced relation to the jewish religion-people. They are obsessed with jews. For some reason, an observant orthodox jew is worthy of an effort that the christian would not care to give a jew whose parents converted for working in higher office, and who is secular or fully assimilated. Obviously, it is better that a jew be insincerely christian, than sincerely jewish. Is being consciously jewish somehow offensive to the christian? Even in a way that being secular is not? Isn't this a kind of antisemitism - get rid of the culture and the people will get rid of itself? This is exactly what happened to most jewish immigrants to Norway after the holocaust, whereafter the local ministry to the jews, Norska Israelmissionen, decided there was no need to evangelize the new immigrants, since they were already converting in masses. I think they did realize that these jews mostly were converting only in order to assimilate, not because of any heart-felt belief in Christianity, and this is telling: as long as they cease from judaism the objective is achieved. Do they want rid of judaism? Yes. Can one hate a culture, such as judaism, without hating those whose lives are formed by it? No. However, they can love the 'body' of a jew - since in the future, it just might be the container of a christian mind. The jewish mind is by its very nature an offense to the christian.

Until Christianity can balance its view on judaism and the jews, one should not blame the jews for hesitating in accepting kindness from christians. They have learnt it the hard way, throughout history.

Still don't really know why I got myself a blog, but it's at least an easy way of getting oneself a homesite.

I'm more or less celebrating my first entire year on Linux sometime in this month. Not too sure exactly when though. I am planning to take my first steps into the *BSD world before September, and let Linux take over some of the space I've let Windows reside on. So, ~5 gb BSD, 40 gb Linux and 15 gb Windows.

As for the self-imposed deadline of posting the Bryatesle grammar with sample sentences before September, the growth on the vocabulary side is too slow for that to be realistic. Too bad about that. I'll release what I have though. Next release might be scheduled for October.

Recent things I've dealt with is:
- gapping in main clauses
- syntactic properties of quirky case subjects
- case inflection of indefinite pronouns
- adjectival morphology

I've also been thinking about what to do with coordination and nonsubjects, but I haven't come up with anything definite yet, except that either direct objects, or the object that ranks higher can be elided in coordinated constructions, but I am not sure. Also, that would force me to come up with an explicit transitivity marker, something I have preferred not to do, in order to leave the verbal morphology rather light.