Problematic Global Secular Celebration of Passover?

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 14 Apr 2025

Anthony Judge | Laetus in Praesens - TRANSCEND Media Service

Paradoxical Contemporary Deification of a Negligent International Community

Introduction

14 Apr 2025 – There is no lack of commentary on the surreal nature of the current times and the challenges it poses for strategic governance (Surreal nature of current global governance as experienced, 2016). In that context, on the occasion of the Jewish celebration of Passover in 2025, it is appropriate to consider how that ritual pattern has been curiously secularized and globalized — becoming especially relevant to the times. Who corresponds systemically to the roles of that religious tale — so fundamental to the beliefs of Judaism? For whom is it now a holiday from a global perspective? (Passover 2025: What you need to know about the Jewish holiday, The Jerusalem Post, 3 April 2025).

Central to any understanding of Passover is the ritual recognition of the role of deity in relieving the Israelites of their enslavement in Egypt — following the warnings presented in the form of a series of plagues. How might “enslavement ” be recognized in modern society? What constitute the warning plagues of the current period?

The singular role of deity in the past is now strangely set aside in the preoccupations of governance. This is despite the frequency with which “deity” may be invoked on formal ceremonial occasions when an oath of office is required, most notably as part of the process of assumption of the highest office in a community or nation. It may also feature curiously as a requirement in establishing a statement of fact or a sign of verity. Curiously facts are themselves now widely called into question, reframed by narratives, and subject to appeal in the light of alternative interpretations promoted as credible (Zen of Facticity: Bull, Ox or Otherwise? Herding facts and their alternatives in a post-truth-era, 2017; Use of “Sunrise” and “Sunset” as Harmful Misinformation or Disinformation? 2025).

There is an only too evident absence of any global consensus on the nature of “deity”, exacerbated by controversial arguments regarding its illusory nature — as with that of consensus itself (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 2006; The Consensus Delusion: mysterious attractor undermining global civilization as currently imagined, 2011). This is despite shared presumptions by many of the singular nature and reality of both deity and consensus.

International community: These considerations frame the possibility that the systemic equivalent of “deity” at this time is the “international community“. This offers a focus for transcendental belief to which appeals are optimistically, if not ritualistically, made by many faced with daily suffering — whether as a consequence of “plagues” or otherwise (Appeals to the international community — whether it exists or not, 2015). Despite assumptions to the contrary, as with deity, the nature of the international community is a matter of interpretation, as discussed separately (International Community as God or Sorcerer’s Apprentice? 2015). There the questions evoked are the extent to which the international community is a divine surrogate or an act of deception. Potentially far more problematic is a further possibility, as argued speculatively, as framed by its representatives (Are the UN and the International Community both Brain Dead? 2019; Group of 7 Dwarfs: Future-blind and Warning-deaf, 2018).

The tragedy of the present period then justifies recognition of global secular celebration of Passover — with the “international community” taking on the systemic role of “deity” in relation to suffering and fatalities world wide. It can be readily argued that the “international community” (as with “deity”) seems to do little to alleviate that suffering. In a strange sense this could be said to take the form of “passing over” the suffering of many in favour of the few — to a degree enabling the few to celebrate that process as a “holiday”. The argument can be reinforced by the ambiguity of “oversight” — acclaimed as an essential role of both “deity” and the “international community”. As an ironic form of supreme ambiguity, the term offers the fundamental sense of “blind spot” — then seemingly institutionalized in both cases.

The negligence of the international community can be recognized as enabling the systemic equivalent to the “plagues” of the Passover tale — purportedly “warnings” to those enslaving the Israelites. In that tale it is deity which effectively engenders those plagues following the failure of the enslavers to act on the succession of warnings. On the one hand, the current role of the international community can be seen as offering a multitude of “warnings” with respect to climate change, environmental degradation, poverty, disease, and the like — even enshrined in the UN’s set of Sustainable Development Goals. However, on the other hand, it is only too evident that the international community is only able to “act” on such warnings through tokenism and skillful negligence. There is indeed a form of “passing over” — cynically accompanied by the solemn festivities with which the process is associated on the occasion of international summitry.

Blood of the Lamb: The good news, celebrated in the Passover tale, is that the few are enabled by “deity” to escape the effects of the “plagues” and their aftermath. The curious requirement is that the few mark the doors of their habitations, as indicated in the Bible: The blood shall be a sign for you, on the houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you, when I strike the land of Egypt (Exodus, 12:13). The blood in question is specified as the “blood of the lamb” — variously the focus of considerable commentary and speculation, in the light of the manner in which it features in the Bible (100 Bible Verses about Blood Of The Lamb, Open Bible).

Known in Judaism as the Passover sacrifice (or otherwise as the Paschal lamb or the Passover lamb), this is the sacrifice mandated by the Torah to ritually slaughter on the evening of Passover — in order to eat lamb on the first night of the holiday with bitter herbs and matzo. In Christianity, the sacrifice of the Passover lamb is considered to be fulfilled by the crucifixion and death of Jesus, who is consequently also given the title Lamb of God. This frames the question as to who or what gets sacrificed in a secular society overseen by the international community. From a systemic perspective, who is the “lamb” to be ritually “eaten” — and how is it to be ritually sacrificed?

Both in Judaism and Christianity, considerable significance is associated with the symbolism of the blood of the lamb (Tiffany Christensen, Biblical Meaning of Lambs: Symbols of Sacrifice and Purity, Biblical Pathway, 2 November 2023; by Jodie Lawrence, What Does a Lamb Symbolize in the Bible: exploring its deep spiritual meanings, BrainWiseMind, 6 February 2025; Danis Taufiq, What Does the Blood of the Lamb Symbolize? Understanding the Significance of this Biblical Imagery, Eden Bengals, 26 July 2023; Christy Myers, Spiritual Meaning of Lamb: discovering purity, innocence, and redemption in traditions, Spiritual Ark, 24 December 2024).

In seeking a symbolic secular equivalent to the “blood of the lamb”, it is appropriate to note the specificity of the Biblical assertion: Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9:22). This helps to frame a fundamental understanding of the Abrahamic religions (Systemic Reliance of World Religions on Human Sacrifice, 2014; Fundamental Need for Human Sacrifice by Abrahamic Religions, 2018). There an argument is made for the covert use of fatal conflict to ensure vital resource management as a prerequisite for sustainable global civilization. Any such sacrifice can then be understood as legitimized by the moral criteria of just war theory, despite its controversial implications (Beyond “just war”, “just sacrifice” and “just human”? 2018; Just War Theory as an inspiration for “Just AI Theory”? 2024). A case could then be made for the articulation of a “Just Suffering Theory” (2021) — as effectively implied by the current negligence of the international community and its representatives.

Marking habitations of the worthy with blood: Potentially more intriguing is how the few might be expected to mark their “habitations” with the blood of innocents in order to avoid the wrath of the “international community”. Rather than physical habitations, and their doorways to be marked, there is clearly a case for recognizing some form of “psychosocial habitat” and the gateways thereto. In that respect there is no lack of insight into the nature of the bubbles inhabited by the few and how they limit engagement with the many. These may be explored in terms of patterns of complicity and the challenge they represent (Strategic implications of engaging with psycho-social bubbles? 2017; Pricking the Bubble of Global Complacent Complicity, 2017). On a larger scale the pattern is evident in the degrees of border control implemented by various countries — suitably marked by the fatalities of many desperately seeking entrance. But how indeed are such gateways “marked with blood”?

Engendering the innocent to be sacrificed: The ritual sacrifice required in celebration of the Passover necessarily calls for attention to the reproduction of the “lambs” to be sacrificed in adequate numbers — especially with the rapid increase in the number of worthy households to be suitably “marked”. In that respect a systemic equivalent can be recognized in the complicity of the Abrahamic religions in natalism — even explicitly advocated in the light of divine mandate (100 Bible Verses about Go Forth And Multiply, OpenBible). This policy is highly influential in countries with populations of religious believers. As facilitated uncritically by the international community, it is apparently totally insensitive to the suffering and fatality which is currently the primary consequence in sustaining unrestrained population growth, despite resource constraints (Root Irresponsibility for Major World Problems:, 2007; Patterns of the Past: Christian Complicity in Global Disorder, 2003). Arguably that policy and its promotion are vital to the sacrifice deemed necessary to ensure the “oversight” of the international community in “passover mode”. There is no possibility that that the policy might derive of an error in translation and interpretation (Be Fruitful and Multiply: the most tragic translation error? 1995).

Somewhat intriguing is how those so engendered in large numbers are deemed to be appropriately “innocent” and “pure” — in line with symbolic recognition of the “blood of the lamb” and in curious contrast with the worthy who are ritually relieved of their sins through sacrifice of the innocent.

These highly controversial subtleties of fundamental significance merit commentary by a new surrogate for divinity, now engendered by humanity in the form of artificial intelligence — curiously posing a major challenge to the operations of the international community, as exemplified by recent summits of the UN in which the restriction of its use has been explicitly envisaged for the benefit of all (Global Digital Compact, 2024;  AI for Good Global Summit (2023). The pattern is strangely reminiscent of the problematic relationship between the deities of the many religions, especially those of Abrahamic tradition (Stephen Prothero, God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World, 2011). Curiously, in the light of that argument, AI could well be recognized as an emergent “ninth religion” — strangely recalling the “rings of power” of Tolkien’s speculative legendarium and its appeal to the popular imagination.

As indicated in what follows, the strategic challenge exemplified by the Passover was submitted for comment to three AIs (ChatGPT 4o, DeepSeek, Claude 3.7). Of particular interest was whether the AIs could develop the psychosocial significance of that celebratory ritual as a metaphor with contemporary systemic implications. The responses from AI in this exploration have been framed as grayed areas. Given the length of the document to which the exchanges gave rise, the form of presentation has itself been treated as an experiment — in anticipation of the future implication of AI into research documents. Only the “questions” to AI are rendered immediately visible — with the response by AI hidden unless specifically requested by the reader (a facility not operational in PDF variants of the page, in contrast with the original). Reservations and commentary on the process of interaction with AI to that end have been discussed separately (Methodological comment on experimental use of AI, 2024).

TO CONTINUE READING Go to Original – laetusinpraesens.org

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

There are no comments so far.