Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Intellectual Warriors - an essay by David Frawley

On the Bauddhika Kshatriya (Intellectual Warrior)
by DAVID FRAWLEY
[from the Voice of Dharma website]
The Hindu Kshatriya tradition is not one of aggression but of protection, not of forcing conversion to a religion but upholding the Dharma. It is a tradition of holding to truth and creating a culture in which freedom to pursue truth, not only in the outer world, but in the religious realm, is preserved. Is this not what the global age really requires? It is time for that Kshatriya to arise again.
We live in the age of the information revolution, which has taken a quantum leap since the introduction of computers. The information flood is changing the nature of the society in which we live, in ways that we do not yet know and for which there is no precedent. This information revolution is in many respects an information war, with different groups struggling to put their views out to the general public as the truth. It is often a disinformation war as well, with groups trying to discredit those who have different views, using the media as their weapon.

In this contest whoever puts out information first usually gains credibility by defining the field. Whoever puts out information in the most sophisticated and high tech manner has the best audience and generally the best success in promoting their agenda. In the media realm packaging is more important than content and strong assertion often takes the role of real proof. People tend to believe what has been well presented in the media, even if it is otherwise biased or limited. Billions of dollars are being poured by various vested interest groups into this information war, with religious and political groups making great efforts to represent themselves in this new global arena. Advertisement, public relations, and lobbyists are hard at work, often to the highest bidder, to give a good image and strong media presence to their clients, if the price is right.

We live in a mass media dominated society, with daily exposure to some sort of radio, television, computer, newspaper or magazine. It has been said that the media is the message, that the media itself has made itself into the focus of our lives. The media has become our mind. Many of us spend more time taking in media information than interacting with other people or with the world of nature. These media images serve to build up our minds down to a subconscious level. They program our behavior, a fact that advertising has long known and sought to benefit from.

Now the Western information and media culture is spreading throughout the entire world, including what is called the third world, with the globalization of the world economy. Even villages are now getting television and the other trappings of Western modernity. India, China, and Asia in general are being brought under the influence of the media world.

Unfortunately, this Western media and commercial culture continues the same goals and influences as previous colonial forces, which only fifty years ago lost hold in Asia. This commercial culture seeks to supplant native and traditional cultures with a Western model, not only in terms of practical conveniences but in terms of thought and belief. It attempts to Americanize or Europeanize the world. Western religious groups, particularly Christian Evangelical groups, are learning to use the media for their advantage as well, doing preaching and proselytizing, and broadcasting their mass rallies through the media. Yet Christians as a whole use the media in Asia to promote their agenda over native Asian religions, which the media often stereotypes as primitive.

Islamic groups are also realizing the power of the media and spending large sums to influence public opinion in the Western world, stressing the humanistic side of Islam. The Islamic lobby in the United States is one of the largest lobby groups in the country. In Islamic countries the power of the media is recognized both for good and ill. The media is strictly controlled by the state to project an Islamic image, and portray Islam only in a positive light, while striving to keep the Western media and its views out.

In the context of India the question arises where are Hindus in this information war and media presentation? The answer is that, with a few notable exceptions, Hindus generally are not present or only feebly present, apologetic or half-hearted in their self-presentation in the information field. The image of Hindus and of Hinduism that prevails in the information age is created by non-Hindus and by anti-Hindu forces, not only by intention but also by default because Hindus themselves seldom challenge wrong views or provide an alternative. In this way Hinduism is being eroded, particularly in the minds of young Hindus, who seldom find their religion represented, or who find it denigrated in the media world around them that is rapidly becoming their reality.

Since independence India has been dominated by Marxist and socialist thinking that has viewed Hinduism, with its spiritual and religious values, as its main enemy. Now gradually a more commercial influence is arising with economic liberalization, but it similarly is trying to undermine and replace Hindu culture, which, with its self-sufficiency and spirituality, does not make for an easy commercial target. Hindu culture, which managed to survive as the predominant model in India even through a thousand years of domination by first Islamic and then European Christian influences, finds itself under a new threat, less overt but perhaps for that very reason more dangerous.

The intelligentsia of India since independence has been often self-righteously anti-Hindu and naively accepting of Western ideologies, often merely echoing or imitating the old colonial and missionary propaganda against their own venerable complex religion that appears alien to these disenfranchised souls. The result is that the ruling political parties of India have done little to protect the dominant culture of the country from media distortions but have in fact often encouraged these. They have used anti-Hindu propaganda projected through the media both in the West and in India to try to keep Hindus suppressed and afraid of asserting themselves, so that there is no Hindu challenge to their power. The result is that Hinduism continues under siege and often with little defence, particularly in this new battleground. Even Hindu religious groups and leaders are often more concerned about their own particular faction and seldom willing to come to the defense of the culture as a whole.

Clearly unless this situation is corrected the future of Hinduism is threatened or at least diminished. While several Hindu groups have noticed this problem, it still has yet to be faced and addressed in a complete manner. Hindu society is becoming aware of their difficulty but it has yet to really awaken and deal with it in the real world.

The front line of the battle in the world today is no longer on any particular battlefield with the exchange of bullets or bombs. It lies now in the media and in the information field, which can be quite as deadly and poisoning in its results as any battlefield. Even the battles that are fought with weapons gain much more importance if the media is there. A few people killed in Israel can become world news and shape global strategies because of the media. Dozens of people killed in Sudan or China, where there is no media, will have no effect.

In this information war a different kind of warrior is necessary and a different strategy is required. This is not an entirely new issue because there has always been something of an information war in the clash of cultures, nations and religions that has occurred throughout history. But today it has much more importance in the information age and has become the central issue.

Each culture has its intellectual defenders. These are its great thinkers who articulate its cultural values. These intellectual defenders serve to challenge negative views of the culture. They also serve to present a more favorable image of the culture and define its future. Hindus traditionally had their Kshatriya or warrior class to defend them. There has always been an intellectual Kshatriya as well, those who defend the culture from attack in the realm of ideas, which usually precedes or accompanies physical attack.

However Hindus today have failed perhaps more than any other group to create a defense for their culture in the media world. Hindus are routinely portrayed through stereotypes of caste, dowry deaths, widow burning, strange cults, poverty and superstition. The worship of Shiva appears in The New York Times as the phallic cult of the God of destruction. Krishna is portrayed in Western universities as an erotic God with questionable morals. Brahmins appear in the Western media as rich landowners oppressing their poor slave Shudras, right out of communist propaganda stories.

The world mass media seldom considers any Hindu point of view. Though Hindus are the third largest religion in the world, and the largest non-biblical tradition, in many presentations of world religions Hindus are left out or denigrated as polytheists, idolaters and animists. Some universities in the West teach that Hinduism is not a religion at all but a collection of cults mainly of a primitive nature. Such schools also teach that India as a nation was created by the British and was otherwise just a collection of warring states with little in common.

Though India is the largest democracy in the world and the second most populated country, it has no permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council. In events of global importance neither an Indian or a Hindu point of view is given much consideration. In Bangladesh Hindus are under siege and frequently have their property taken from them. In Pakistan Hindus have been almost entirely eliminated. In neither country has there ever been any prominent Hindu leaders or government officials. In Fiji Hindus are routinely oppressed. In Malaysia they have to accept an inferior position, where Hindus can be converted to Islam but no Muslims can become Hindus. When Hindus work in Islamic Gulf countries Hindus have to hide their religion. Saudi Arabia requires that India send only a Muslim ambassador and India has always meekly complied, bowing down to a nation with 1/20 its population!

In India itself foreign missionary activity is perhaps at its highest point in history, particularly targeting tribal groups, even to the extent of encouraging them to secede from the nation and form Christian states. In South India Catholic priests routinely dress up like Hindu Swamis and go to the villages speaking of Yoga and Vedanta in order to convert Hindus to Christianity. Yet Hindus seldom raise a voice and the world hardly knows of these facts. And, most strangely, it is the media of India that works probably the hardest to suppress knowledge of these goings on.

In America the large Islamic lobbyist money works to promote a positive image of Islam and does not hesitate to denigrate Hindus or India. In England Pakistanis organize to create a political influence and bend their politicians to criticize India on Kashmir, while Hindus in the same country, in perhaps larger numbers and affluence, do little to counter this. There are many other examples of the same phenomenon, a Hindu indifference to the media that puts them at a disadvantage even in their own country.

What Hindus need today, in fact what the whole world needs is an intellectual Kshatriya or intellectual warrior class. It needs a group of dedicated workers and activists who uphold the Dharma against this media and information onslaught. Such individuals must be above commercial manipulation and self-promotion, working tirelessly to counter this disinformation flood.

Yet this movement must start in India and in the Hindu community itself to be really credible. For example, when Hindus in America complained against media distortions of Hindu groups in India to The New York Times they were told that the information came from Delhi itself. Clearly the change must start in India to have any real effect.

In India the English language media is generally anti-Hindu and often pro-Marxist. The universities in India are frequently dominated by professors whose heart is not in the Dharma of their country but in Western materialism. Kerala and Bengal today remain under the yoke of communist governments. In Kerala Hindu workers are being killed. In Bengal Hindu sadhus are commonly attacked. It is no wonder that Hindus outside of India are subject to oppression, when Hindus in India itself are under siege.

The Vedas say that Brahma or spiritual power and Kshatra or political power must go together. When Brahma or spiritual power develops it creates an appropriate Kshatra or social power to extend its influence into society. It provides a dharmic order to our human relations, both individual and collective. If Brahma or spiritual power fails to impact the social order and raise the social Dharma, then it is a sign that this Brahma or spiritual power itself has failed, that it is not legitimate or real.

Sri Krishna, the great avatar, worked throughout his life to create a dharmic Kshatriya, an order of noble souls who could establish and sustain a dharmic social order. He was willing to promote a great battle, a civil war among the Kshatriyas themselves, to allow his handpicked dharmic Kshatriya followers to gain power. He purified the Indian Kshatriya with the blood of a dharmic war. Because of his great achievement a Kshatriya order was established that maintained a dharmic society for many centuries. This example should not be lost on us today. The Kshatriya of India today, its social and political leaders, require a similar dharmic purification, perhaps not a Kurukshetra in the literal sense but a purification from false values and egoistic practices that are rampant everywhere.

Let us also look at the example of the great Swami Vidyaranya of Sringeri, an Advaitin and a Mayavadin, who yet inspired two Hindu Kshatriyas who had become Muslims to reconvert to Hinduism and found the great Hindu kingdom of Vijayanagar to protect the Dharma. Would not one say that if all is Maya or illusion, why would a great Swami start a kingdom? Such a question shows a profound misunderstanding of Hindu Dharma. One can only transcend the world by fulfilling one’s dharma and one’s karma, and even if one has done so for oneself, one still has the duty to others to teach, guide and raise the world. Let us also look at the example of Samartha Ramadas, who inspired the great King Shivaji.

Unfortunately so far modern India has not created a Prime Minister of this sort of inspiration. Many modern Hindus, taking up an excessive view of non-violence, have rejected the idea of any Hindu Kshatriya altogether. They have felt that Hindus should not have an army and should not defend themselves against violence, but should rather offer themselves meekly to their enemies. This attitude has naturally led to the idea that Hindus should not even challenge media distortions of them.

However in the Vedic view a country cannot exist without a Kshatriya order, which is the pillar of the society. The Mahabharata states that if there is not a righteous Kshatriya rulership that employs the danDa (rod) or is willing to punish adharma, then the people will end up eating each other. In the information age we could say that if Hindus do not create an intellectual Kshatriya then the people will end up destroying themselves with false beliefs and propaganda.

If a dharmic Kshatriya is not created through the force of Brahma or spiritual knowledge, then the law is that an adharmic Kshatriya will come to fill in the vacuum. This is exactly what occurred not only in modern India but throughout the rest of the world. After the excessive non-violence in the Indian independence movement no genuine Kshatriya could or was created in the country. This left the country prey to a false Kshatriya, based mainly upon Marxist ideals, mixed with war lord temperaments, such as we have found in communist countries, who similarly have misled the people and prevented the real growth of the nation.

One must remember the example of the Sikhs in India. Originally a purely spiritual movement, they were forced to take up arms and to adapt a Kshatriya order by the cruel oppression perpetrated against them by the Muslim rulers of the time, in which torture and genocide was the rule of the day. In this way they grew and flourished and became a force to be reckoned with.

Unfortunately India as a whole at that time did not take up the call of Sikh Dharma, which was the call for a real Kshatriya revival. The resurgent voice of Hindu Dharma that both Brahma and Kshatra are required, that spiritual knowledge must create a strong social order and discipline, was muffled. This movement of a new spiritual Kshatriya of modern Hindus, which the Sikhs began, needs to be completed today, not only for the regeneration of Hindu society but for the revival of Sanatana Dharma or the universal tradition of truth throughout the world. But it must be completed not so much in the field of arms as in the field of ideas. The only Kshatriya that can carry the day today is the intellectual Kshatriya.

Hindus must create a new intelligentsia that has the power to overcome and absorb the alienated and Western dominated intellectuals of India. Hindus must project an intellectual view that is articulate and compelling. They must bring the influence of Sanatana Dharma to the intelligentsia of the world. For a culture that has produced such thinkers as the Vedic seers, Upanishadic sages, Kapila, Buddha, Patanjali and Shankara, and in the modern times Sri Aurobindo and Ramana Maharshi, this is certainly possible. In fact we can find in such great modern figures of India as Sri Aurobindo and Swami Vivekananda good models of intellectual Kshatriya as well as spiritual masters. Clearly the success of Hindus in such intellectual fields as science, computers, engineering and medicine shows that they have the capacity. What is lacking is the motivation, the guidance, and perhaps the inspiration.

Another mistake Hindus have made is being too accommodating under the guise of synthesis, which erodes clear thinking. Under the guise that all religions are one Hindus hesitate to develop a proper criticism, however justified, of the exclusivist creeds working to convert them, and of other adharmic actions done in the name of religion in the world. There is also the danger that in trying to attract minorities into their fold Hindu groups in India will seek to appease minorities rather than to help them in a dharmic way. The true Kshatriya will help and lead, giving a positive direction for others to follow, not merely appease and accommodate in order to gain popularity. A true Kshatriya is devoted to dharma and cannot be won over by name, fame, influence or money.

The youth in particular need to be awakened to this call for an intellectual Kshatriya. They have the idealism and the vision of the future, as well as the vitality, but this needs to be directed not only by a spiritual urge but one that addresses the problems of society as well. To be truly relevant, particularly to the youth, this intellectual voice must address not only the social issues of today but environmental problems, the role of science, and the future evolution of humanity.

An intellectual Kshatriya must not merely be defensive but creative and expansive. It must project a positive view of Hindu Dharma, and give it a futuristic vision. Its purpose is not merely to adjust present or historical wrongs but chart out a new direction for all to follow. In this regards Hindu intellectuals must go to the universal roots of their tradition and find a compelling vision that can gather people of all backgrounds, helping them break through limited and unspiritual beliefs, toward a yogic vision of humanity. This is not to water down Hindu Dharma but to revitalize it in the world today. This new Kshatriya must be willing to spread Hindu Dharma in a dynamic way along the lines of the old Vedic impulse - kriNvanto višvam ãryam, make all the world noble.

Such an intellectual Kshatriya must be based upon deep thought. It cannot be developed through mere rhetoric, character assassination, or slogans. It requires not only a well thought out critique but a positive program of action. It requires not only a Hindu examination of religion, science and politics, but the creation of a Hindu alternative to existing systems. It also requires a model for revitalizing Hindu society itself.

For those who wish to take up the role of intellectual Kshatriya there is much that can be done. An intellectual Kshatriya must challenge media distortions, whether in schools, books, newspapers, or in the media or the internet. It must also produce genuine information expressing the truth of Sanatana Dharma, whether relative to history, art, politics, religion or philosophy. This means a new revival in the field of Hindu education, which is perhaps the key factor.

This Hindu intelligentsia must be willing to debate with other groups, including exposing their distortions and wrong beliefs. It must resurrect the tradition of tarka or intellectual debate that makes the darshanas or philosophies of Hinduism so significant. It must create a forum in which everything is critically examined so only truth remains. In short, it must wield the sword of viveka or discrimination, discerning the true from the false, and not bowing down to ignorance anywhere.

This new intellectual Kshatriya must also throw up an ethical challenge, which is the challenge of Dharma, exposing the danger of exclusivist religious cults, materialistic political philosophies, and unchecked commercialism. The West throws its ethical challenge to the world, criticizing other countries, including India, for a lack of human rights. This requires a Hindu response. Let us take an obvious example, the same America that tries to speak for human rights and democracy all over the world is also the biggest weapons seller and arms supplier in the world. The biggest buyers of these weapons are the Gulf Oil producing Islamic states, none of which are democracies and none of which have good human rights records, yet none of which are under any American imposed sanctions. Clearly the Western voice of human rights is not truly dharmic but motivated by commercial and nationalistic interests. Hindus need to create an ethical alternative to such questionable Western humanitarianism.

For it to truly develop, Hindu groups must cultivate and honor their intellectual Kshatriya, which not only includes listening to them but promoting their views, and funding their work if necessary. They must stop hiding in the veil of spirituality and allowing the forces of adharma to rule the world and even pontificate over their religion, telling them what it is and what it is worth.

In Western intellectual circles the talk today is of a “clash of civilizations”. This is mainly spoken of as a clash between the West and Islam, or a clash between the West and Chinese culture. In this clash of world civilizations the Hindu has been recognized as one of the players but has already been written off as minor. Why is this the case? Because the Hindu voice has only a small place in the world sphere whether politically, economically or intellectually. Clearly without an intellectual Kshatriya, Hindus will not likely be part of this churning out of a new world order.

Now such may not be pleasant items for Hindus to hear. Should we rather not speak of Rama and Krishna and forget this turmoil of Kali Yuga, some might say? True spirituality is not an escape but a transcendence. A truly spiritual person can face the facts of the world, however unpleasant, without having to turn away or without losing inner composure. This is also the message of Rama and Krishna, if we really look at their lives and actions.

There are those who may fear that an intellectual Hindu Kshatriya may promote a new Hindu fundamentalism or oppression of minorities in India. The Hindu Kshatriya tradition is not one of aggression but of protection, not of forcing conversion to a religion but upholding the Dharma. It is a tradition of holding to truth and creating a culture in which freedom to pursue truth, not only in the outer world, but in the religious realm, is preserved. Is this not what the global age really requires? It is time for that Kshatriya to arise again. The extent that it does will be the measure of the future of India and perhaps of any dharmic revival in this generally adharmic world. Let us hope that this call is heeded! Who is there to answer it?

[From Awaken Bharata, by Dr. David Frawley, first published in 1998]

Saturday, September 12, 2009

Constantine (A brief history of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part Three)

"Such awful things to happen! To account for them, awful passions must be imputed. If these were in the service of some cause, then the cause itself must be considered, in itself bloody."
[Ramsay MacMullen, Voting About God in Early Church Councils, p. 58]
The story so far ...
Christianity took revolutionary monotheism to a whole new, and far more revolutionary, level. But to really understand this qualitative leap it is necessary to first, at least briefly, revisit the limited successes of Akhenaten and Moses.

Akhenaten's monotheizing cultural revolution was not only swift and sweeping, but it also took place at the very seat of power of one of the greatest centers of human civilization. Nevertheless all indications are that Akhenaten utterly failed to win much, if any, heartfelt support for his cause. Although there is no evidence that the Pharaoh was openly challenged, it does appear that even those closest to him merely feigned acceptance of the new religion (and may have even continued to worship their traditional Gods in secret) - while biding their time and waiting for Akhenaten to die. And once he was gone, even his most loyal officers and members of his immediate family appear to have wasted no time in systematically restoring the traditional polytheism that Akhenaten had devoted himself to overthrowing.

Mosaic monotheism (regardless of the historicity, or lack thereof, of Moses himself), on the other hand, became an entrenched cultural phenomenon, perpetuated generation after generation, millennium after millennium. But (and especially when compared to the power and the glory of Egypt) the people among whom the monotheism of Moses took root were relatively minor players on the world stage.

To sum up: Akhenaten attempted but failed to abolish the worship of the Old Gods of Egypt and replace it with the worship of a single god named Aten. Moses succeeded in establishing the worship of Yaweh while suppressing the worship of all other Gods -- but all this on much diminished scale compared to Akhenaten. Constantine, however, achieved the success of Moses, but on a scale far greater than that ever imagined by Akhenaten.

That the early church shared the kind of revolutionary vision as Akhenaten and Moses is well illustrated by the following imagined description of fourth century Christianity to "a visitor from Mars", chosen (by historian Ramsay MacMullen) precisely because such an audience would "need to be told the most obvious things". The goal in such an exercise is to emphasize that which would otherwise be passed over, in order that we non-Martians might "try to see the scene and its actors afresh and in all their strangeness ... taking nothing for granted":
.... our focus would fix on lands encircling a great sea, and their resident population of fifty or sixty million human beings, most of whom lives on or near the eastern shores. Now, among these residents (we would explain) prevailed a universal belief in the existence of an equal or greater population of other beings -- all invisible, superhuman, greater or smaller, malign or (mostly) benign, able to shape life in every detail and so requiring to be obeyed and conciliated. To one of these and to one only a special title "God" was fiercely reserved by a minority calling themselves "Christians". All other superhuman beings (except their own God's angels) they declared to be enemies, and evil, or lacking any reality at all.
[Voting About God in Early Church Councils,pp. 1-2]
It is not necessary to accept MacMullen's highly questionable characterization of polytheism (he is writing history, not theology) in order to appreciate the stark contrast between the ancient and inclusive polytheism at large in the Roman world, and the revolutionary monotheism of early Christians. This contrast is nothing other than the "Mosaic distinction" once again.

The Spread of Judaism
Before going further it would be helpful at this point to dispel one of the more persistent misconceptions about Judaism, especially as it was practiced during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Not only did Jews of this time engage in proselytizing, the very word "proselyte" is thought to have been originally coined (proselythos in Greek) to refer to a convert who had turned away from the polytheistic traditions of the Greeks, Romans, etc, and embraced Judaism.

According to A History of the Jewish People, the "roots" of the proselytizing movement among Jews "reached back to the beginnings of the Second Temple Era", that is, the late 6th century BC, and this movement "reached it's peak in the first century CE" [p. 276]. This proselytizing movement increased after the destruction of the Second Temple in 60 AD -- a time when Jewish communities already existed throughout the ancient oikoumene from Babylonia to Spain.

During the Second Temple Era, Judaism did not stop at mere proselytization, as we can see in these two passages concerning Simon Maccabaeus and his son John Hyrcanus, who reigned as rulers of Judea for almost four decades (142-104 BC):
Soon after his accession Simon sent an army against Jaffa, under the command of Jonathan ben Absolom, with orders to expel the foreigners and secure the port as part of Judea. The fraternal wars in the Seleucid Kingdom provided him with an opportunity to remove the last serious threat to Judea by conquering Gezer, which controlled the road to the coast, and the Acra, which since the time of Antiochus Epiphanes had endangered the security of Jewish Jerusalem. The conquest of these places was made possible by the rapid progress of the Jewish Army in seige techniques. Gezer was invested according to all the rules of that art and attacked with the sophisticated siege engines that were in use in the hellenistic armies. The population was expelled, pagan cults abolished and the city resettled with Jews faithful to their religion. Simon also built himself a palace in Gezer, which became one of the administrative centres of Judea. John Hyrcanus, Simon's son, was appointed governor of the city. An even greater impression on contemporaries was made by the conquest of the Acra, for as long as the citadel was inhabited by hellenists and garrisoned by gentiles Judea's independence could not be assured. On the 23rd of Iyyar in the year 141, Simon's forces entered the Acra .... The day of the citadel's conquest was made a permanent feast day ....
[A History of the Jewish People, Ben-Sasson & Malamat, p. 215]
John Hyrcanus' wars were essentially a continuation of those begun by his father and uncles, but were pursued on a larger scale and, to some extent, by different means. In principle, John's position was the same as that previously formulated by Simon in his reply to the envoys of Antiochus Sidetes -- that the whole of Palestine was the ancestral heritage of the Jewish nation. In that heritage there was no room for foreign cults, as evidenced by the conversion of Idumea and the destruction of the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim. Under John Hyrcanus territorial expansion proceeded in various directions -- south, north and east -- with decisive consequences for the history of the people and the land ....

At the time of John Hyrcanus' death, in 104, the Jews were expanding their borders everywhere in Palestine. His son and heir Judah Aristobulus I, and the latter's younger brother, Antigonus, had been among the chief implementers of their father's policy during his lifetime. Now they completed the conquest of Galilee and defeated the Itureans, who seem to have ruled over part of the Upper Galilee. Like the Idumeans before them and in line with the policy developed by John Hyrcanus, they were converted ....

The conquests of John Hyrcanus and Aristobulus increased Judea to several times its former size. Not only had virtually the entire population outside the territory of the hellenistic cities come under Jewish rule and become part of the Jewish nation ....
[pp. 218-9]
Aristobulus was succeeded by Alexander Jannai, whose reign was "a succession of conquests and wars", and under whom "Hasmonean Judea reached its largest territorial size." [p. 220] Jannai ruled from 103 to 76 BC, and was succeeded by his wife Shelomziyyon (Salome) Alexandra. But when Alexandra died in 67 Judea plunged into literally fratricidal civil war, and within a few years the Kingdom was reduced to an "autonomous" vassal state of the Roman Empire:
The conquest of Judea by the Romans [64 BC] resulted in decisive political changes. Syria became a Roman province, but Judea was granted autonomy, though its territory was reduced and its ruler's authority was dependent on the provincial administration of Syria. The autonomous state of Judea was shorn of all Jannai's conquests and part of those of Simon and John Hyrcanus. It was forced to surrender the entire coastal plain from the Carmel to Raphia including Jaffa; this deprived it of any outlet to the sea, and in that respect the situation reverted to what it had been before the Hasmonean Revolt. In addition, part of Idumea (Marissa) and the bulk of Samaria were detached. As a result, the Jewish population of Palestine was no longer territorially continuous, and contact between Jerusalem and the Jewish centre in Galilee could be maintained only through the Joran Valley. The fact that Pompey freed the large hellenistic cities in Trans-Jordan and Scythopolis from Judean rule was only to be expected; they formed themselves into the Decapolis of Union of the Ten Cities and resumed their life as independent cities. The Greek cities on the coast were also freed. What remained to Hyrcanus II was Judea (including southern Samaria, which had been annexed under Jonathan), most of Idumea, the parts of the Trans-Jordan closely settled by Jews (the Peraea), and Galilee.

The tendency of Pompey and his successors, the first proconsuls of Syria, was to rehabilitate the Greek urban settlements at the expense of the Jewish population, which had so remarkably gained in strength during the period of the Hasmonean Kingdom. But the hands of the clock could be set back entirely, and for many years to come the Jewish population of Palestine was to exceed the gentiles in strength and numbers. The absorption of the gentile population, excluding the hellenized cities and the Samaritan concentration around Mount Gerizim, as a result of the proselytizing policy of John Hyrcanus and his successors, was irreversible.
[pp. 223 - 224]
The point of this is that well before Jesus, let alone Constantine, Judaism had already adopted not only persuasion (proselytism) but also coercion as a mode to be employed in spreading the religion of the One True God. However, the use of coercion was limited to Palestine and its immediate environs, while proselytism went on throughout the Diaspora (especially in urban centers with large well establish Jewish communities).

One interesting wrinkle that is introduced by the reality of Jewish proselytism (and, more generally, the idea of "spreading" Judaism) is that the Apostle Paul is seen in a new light. Usually he is proclaimed as the "Apostle to the Gentiles", and it is claimed, by those who know little about the actual history of the period (and especially about Jewish history), that his eagerness to preach to the Gentiles was Paul's distinctive contribution to early Church history. But the truth is that Jewish proselytism had always been aimed at Gentiles (although there was also internal proselytism on behalf of competing Jewish sects, such as the Pharisees), and this proselytism had, as already noted, roots going back many centuries prior to Paul's arrival on the scene. And at least some Pharisees (the sect to which Paul belonged) were also active leaders of the proselytizing movement in the diaspora [HJP, p. 236].

What's going on, then, when we hear talk of Paul's "mission to the Gentiles" is just some garden variety historical legerdemain. Paul was certainly an innovator, and everyone knows what his primary innovation was, but Christians have chosen to de-emphasize what was really unique about Paul. You see it was Paul who forcefully, and successfully, championed the idea of abrogating the Mosaic Law. And it is only once they abandoned the Law that Christians came to constitute a separate religion in their own right, as opposed to just another sect of Judaism. In other words, Paul wasn't so much the "Apostle to the Gentiles" as was the true founder of the religion of Christianity.

Early Christianity
And now let's look at another persistent misconception. These days, no one in their right mind tries to defend the violent suppression of Paganism (that is, all religions other than Christianity) by the Christianized Roman state (although until quite recently few Christians considered this to be problematic). The tack that is now taken by modern day apologists for Christianity is to insist that "early" Christianity was not only not intolerant, but that it was, as a matter of fact, a positively egalitarian social movement that was primarily based among the poor, slaves and women -- whose rights and well being it championed. According to this fairy tale version of early Christian history, it was only after Christians gained political power (that is, from the time of Constantine onward) that they became Great Big Meanies.

First of all, the theological position of intolerance toward all other religions was a feature of Christianity from its inception. As just discussed, Christianity did not at first exist as a "new" religion at all, but rather as a sect of Judaism. Recalling Ramsay MacMullen's imaginary Martian anthropologist, it is important to emphasize that one of the most basic and uncontested characteristics of Jesus (but one that is very often, and quite conveniently, ignored) is that he and all of his followers were observant Jews. And, as Jews, Jesus and his disciples were, from the beginning, inheritors and (enthusiastic) perpetrators of the Mosaic distinction.

And we can see the mindset of the Mosaic distinction already hard at work in the early Church, well before Constantine's vision of the Cross. Early Christians were infamous both for their vitriolic factionalism among themselves, and their undisguised contempt for non-Christians. Polycarp (ca 59 - ca 155) is one of the first well-documented Christian fundamentalists. He claimed to have known John the Apostle personally, and made great use of the supposedly "apostolic" authority of his own "orthodox" views to condemn the teachings of the early Gnostics such as Marcion and Valentinus. Justin (100-165) called the Pagan Gods "evil demons" and mocked those who worshipped them. Polycarp's disciple Irenaeus (late second century, died 202) is best known for his heretic hunting manual On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis (aka Against Heresies).

Here is a description (intended by the author to be favorable to early Christianity) of attitudes toward "Rome and Her Gods":
Christians found different things in the world around them. For Clement, paganism was the sordid scene of many gods and unspeakable mysteries, with some residual gleans of light from the universal Logos. For Justin and Tertullian, it was the world of good order and a promise of justice, compromised by the power of demons. The pagan gods were deceitful demons, hostile to Christians, who knew the truth about them. For Irenaeus, paganism hardly mattered; there were too many troubles ["heresies" and "heretics"] at home and too much to defend and declare. He thanked Rome for peace and safe travel (haer. 4.30.3). The pagan world was marked by exuberant variety, the 'shapeless profusion of polytheism', where all were tolerated and reverence for the past ensured that none was lost. Tolerance was balanced by hostility to atheists and monotheists. Christians were worse than Jews because they had left the faith of their Fathers.
[The Emergence of Christian Theology, Eric Francis Osborn, p. 8]
It is unfortunately necessary to dwell on the negative aspects of the early Christian world-view. These were not sensitive intellectual egalitarian counterculturalists who just wanted to do their own thing in peace and quiet, or who compassionately, if forcefully, agitated for social justice and world peace. Rather they were, or at least were widely viewed as (and not without reason), narrow minded and highly antisocial people who not only loudly and enthusiastically derided the views of others individually, but in the most sweeping terms denounced all of human society as a whole, as it existed at the time and had existed for millennia, as profoundly and thoroughly evil. The perceived belligerence (and belligerence is always a matter of perception) of the early Christians is important to keep in mind when considering the "persecution" of these Christians, most of which resulted from charges being brought against them by their fellow citizens acting as individuals. [CPMO, p. 120] This is not to say that such "persecution" was thereby justified, but only to provide the context for understanding why Christians were so widely hated.

Many early Christians were not satisfied with verbally insulting the religious beliefs of their Pagan neighbors, while bickering incessantly among themselves. These fanatics were eager to make a more emphatic display of their hatred for all religious views other than their own. The result was often criminal violence directed not only against (sacred) property associated with various Pagan cults and/or the state, but also against individual Pagans, including Priestesses and Priests and also civil government officials. Here is what one of the world's leading experts on early Christian "martyrdom" has to say:
It is a significant fact, as yet not generally appreciated, that a very large number of sources (Passions as well as literary texts) show intrepid Christians going far beyond what their churches officially required of them, often indeed offering themselves up to the authorities of their own accord, and occasionally acting in a provocative manner, smashing images and so forth. After making a detailed study of the evidence for these 'voluntary martyrs', I would claim that the part they played in the history of the persecutions was much more important than has yet been realized. It seems to me impossible to doubt that the prevalence of voluntary martyrdom was a factor which, for obvious reasons, both contributed to the outbreak of persecution and tended to intensify it when already in being. Contrary to what is usually said, voluntary martyrdom was by no means confined mainly to heretical or schismatic sects such as Montanists and Donatists, but was a good deal more common among the orthodox that is generally admitted. The heads of the churches, sensibly enough, forbade voluntary martyrdom again and again .... Nevertheless, we do hear of an astonishingly large number of volunteers, most of whom, whatever the bishops might say, were given full honour as martyrs, the general body of the faithful apparently regarding them with great respect.
[Christian Persecution, Martyrdom and Orthodoxy, G.E.M. de Ste Croix, p. 130]
All that has been said to this point goes to support the continuity of Constantinian Christianity, in terms of its revolutionary monotheism, both with early Christianity and with Judaism (and, indeed, with Akhenaten's failed cultural revolution over 16 centuries before Constantine).

Constantine
Constantine became sole emperor of the Roman Empire only in 324. But he had ruled the western Empire for much longer, and since 312 had favored the new Christian religion and discouraged the traditional Pagan cults. In fact there continues to be disagreement as to just how far Constantine went in reflecting his religious preferences in how he ruled, both before and after he became sole emperor.

At least two sources state unequivocally that Constantine outlawed public celebration of important Pagan rites, especially animal sacrifice. One of these sources is Eusebius, the Church historian, and the other is the Theodosian Code. But a Pagan source, Libanius (his For the Temples in particular) states that it was not until the reign of Constantius that public Pagan sacrifice was legally proscribed. But there is no doubt that it was with Constantine that the Roman state became an instrument for the spread of Christianity and the suppression of all other religions. The first chapter of Frank Trombley's Hellenic Religion and Christianization offers a valuable overview of the sources, and their interpretations, on the legal status of Pagan sacrifice from 321 to 529.

As earlier alluded to in the quote from Ramsay MacMullen above, the number of human beings affected by this new phase of revolutionary monotheism was roughly 50 to 60 million. Estimates of the total human population at the time range around 200 to 300 million. This means that between 1/6 and 1/3 of humanity was at stake. Interestingly, the number of Christians today is usually estimated at right around 1/3 of the total human population.

I will end this post with some passages from Eusebius' biography of Constantine. As Henry Chadwick notes dryly in his The Church in Ancient Society "it was a commonplace that panagyrists were not writing under oath and offered what their audience wished to hear." [p. 195] However, wherever Eusebius might exaggerate the violence with which Constantine smote the Pagans, this does not at all invalidate his testimony, rather it just means that he is giving voice to the violent inner world of revolutionary monotheism, which now finally was given the chance to put into practice what had already been long imagined, indeed, prayed for:

CHAPTER XXIII: How he forbade Idolatrous Worship, but honored Martyrs and the Church Festivals.

SUCH were his sacred ministrations in the service of his God. At the same time, his subjects, both civil and military, throughout the empire, found a barrier everywhere opposed against idol worship, and every kind of sacrifice forbidden. (1) A statute was also passed, enjoining the due observance of the Lord's day, and transmitted to the governors of every province, who undertook, at the emperors command, to respect the days commemorative of martyrs, and duly to emperors entire satisfaction.

CHAPTER XXV: Prohibition of Sacrifices, of Mystic Rites, Combats of Gladiators, also the Licentious Worship of the Nile.

CONSISTENTLY with this zeal he issued successive laws and ordinances, forbidding any to offer sacrifice to idols, to consult diviners, to erect images, or to pollute the cities with the sanguinary combats of gladiators. (1) And inasmuch as the Egyptians, especially those of Alexandria, had been accustomed to honor their river through a priesthood composed of effeminate men, a further law was passed commanding the extermination of the whole class as vicious, that no one might thenceforward be found tainted with the like impurity. And whereas the superstitious inhabitants apprehended that the river would in consequence withhold its customary flood, God himself showed his approval of the emperor's law by ordering all things in a manner quite contrary to their expectation. For those who had defiled the cities by their vicious conduct were indeed seen no more; but the river, as if the country through rose higher than ever before, overflowed the country with its fertilizing streams: thus effectually admonishing the deluded people to turn from impure men, and ascribe their prosperity to him alone who is the Giver of all good.

CHAPTER XLVIII: How he built Churches in Honor of Martyrs, and abolished Idolatry at Constantinople.

And being fully resolved to distinguish the city which bore his name with especial honor, he embellished it with numerous sacred edifices, both memorials of martyrs on the largest scale, and other buildings of the most splendid kind, not only within the city itself, but in its vicinity: and thus at the same time he rendered honor to the memory of the martyrs, and consecrated his city to the martyrs' God. Being filled, too, with Divine wisdom, he determined to purge the city which was to be distinguished by his own name from idolatry of every kind, that henceforth no statues might be worshiped there in the temples of those falsely reputed to be gods, nor any altars defiled by the pollution of blood: that there might be no sacrifices consumed by fire, no demon festivals, nor any of the other ceremonies usually observed by the superstitious.

CHAPTER LIV: Destruction of Idol Temples and Images everywhere.

ALL these things the emperor diligently performed to the praise of the saving power of Christ, and thus made it his constant aim to glorify his Saviour God. On the other hand he used every means to rebuke the superstitious errors of the heathen. Hence the entrances of their temples in the several cities were left exposed to the weather, being stripped of their doors at his command; the tiling of others was removed, and their roofs destroyed. From others again the venerable statues of brass, of which the superstition of antiquity had boasted for a long series of years, were exposed to view in all the public places of the imperial city: so that here a Pythian, there a Sminthian Apollo, excited the contempt of the beholder: while the Delphic tripods were deposited in the hippodrome and the Muses of Helicon in the palace itself. In short, the city which bore his name was everywhere filled with brazen statues of the most exquisite workmanship, which had been dedicated in every province, and which the deluded victims of superstition had long vainly honored as gods with numberless victims and burnt sacrifices, though now at length they learnt to renounce their error, when the emperor held up the very objects of their worship to be the ridicule and sport of all beholders. With regard to those images which were of gold, he dealt with them in a different manner. For as soon as he understood that the ignorant multitudes were inspired with a vain and childish dread of these bugbears of error, wrought in gold and silver, he judged it right to remove these also, like stumbling-stones thrown in the way of men walking in the dark, and henceforward to open a royal road, plain and unobstructed to all. Having formed this resolution, he considered no soldiers or military force of any sort needful for the suppression of the evil: a few of his own friends sufficed for this service, and these he sent by a simple expression of his will to visit each several province. Accordingly, sustained by confidence in the emperor's pious intentions and their own personal devotion to God, they passed through the midst of numberless tribes and nations, abolishing this ancient error in every city and country. They ordered the priests themselves, amidst general laughter and scorn, to bring their gods from their dark recesses to the light of day: they then stripped them of their ornaments, and exhibited to the gaze of all the unsightly reality which had been hidden beneath a painted exterior. Lastly, whatever part of the material appeared valuable they scraped off and melted in the fire to prove its worth, after which they secured and set apart whatever they judged needful for their purpose, leaving to the superstitious worshipers that which was altogether useless, as a memorial of their shame. Meanwhile our admirable prince was himself engaged in a work similar to what we have described. For at the same time that these costly images of the dead were stripped, as we have said, of their precious materials, he also attacked those composed of brass; causing those to be dragged from their places with ropes and as it were carried away captive, whom the dotage of mythology had esteemed as gods.

See also (links NOT automatically generated):
Roman Catholicism (A brief history of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part Seven)
Charlemagne, Part Deux (A brief history of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part Six)
Charlemagne (A brief history of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part Five)
Muhammad (A brief history of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part Four)
Constantine (A brief history of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part Three)

Moses (A Brief History of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part Two)
Akhenaten (A Brief History of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part One)
Monotheistic Robots of Doom, Part Deux
Monotheistic Robots of Doom
Lies, Damned Lies, and Pagan Monotheism
Hic Sunt Dracones

Friday, September 11, 2009

Gordon Brown Apologises for Homophobic Treatment of Alan Turing and "Thousands" of Others

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown apologized today for the 1952 trial and conviction of Alan Turing for the crime of being a gay man. The full text of his statement is here. Below is an excerpt. The apology was in direct response to a petition campaign that gained over 30,000 signatures (and which was previously mentioned in an earlier post in this blog).
I am both pleased and proud that, thanks to a coalition of computer scientists, historians and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) activists, we have this year a chance to mark and celebrate another contribution to Britain's fight against the darkness of dictatorship: that of code-breaker Alan Turing.....

In 1952, he was convicted of "gross indecency" – in effect, tried for being gay. His sentence – and he was faced with the miserable choice of this or prison – was chemical castration by a series of injections of female hormones. He took his own life just two years later.

Thousands of people have come together to demand justice for Alan Turing and recognition of the appalling way he was treated. While Turing was dealt with under the law of the time, and we can't put the clock back, his treatment was of course utterly unfair, and I am pleased to have the chance to say how deeply sorry I and we all are for what happened to him. Alan and the many thousands of other gay men who were convicted, as he was convicted, under homophobic laws, were treated terribly.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

"The Gods and Their Makers" by Edwin Long

Wren Walker, over at The Witches Voice, is always finding fascinating stuff that relates to the portrayal of Paganism in the mass media. These range from enlightened or even enlightening journalism, to items that are quirky or funny, to things that are irksome or even offensive and bigoted. Somewhere nearer the lower end of this spectrum is a piece she posted today in which it is claimed that "ancient goddess figurines" were really just neolithic Barbie dolls, or some such shyte. Whatever.

This brought to mind (well, to my mind, anyway) the playfully gorgeous painting by Edwin Long titled "The Gods and Their Makers":

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Moses (A Brief History of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part Two)

Akhenaten and his monotheistic religious revolution are (now) historically well-documented. But within a few decades of his death (over three thousand years ago) the process of erasing all memory of his regime was already well underway. That process would eventually succeed in eliminating all knowledge of Akhenaten for thousands of years. Jan Assmann succinctly describes how this "forgetting" took place:
The simplest and commonest technique of forgetting is the destruction of memory in its cultural objectifications such as inscriptions and iconic representations. This is what happened to the monotheistic revolution of Akhenaten, and the destruction was thorough enough to keep this event completely unretrievable until its archaeological rediscovery in the course of the nineteenth century.... The Amarna episode came to be completely forgotten within about eighty years, but the experience was traumatic enough to produce legendary traditions which -- because of their unlocatability in the official cultural memory -- became free-floating and thus susceptible to being associated with a variety of semantically related experiences.
[Moses the Egyptian p. 216]
Since there is very little (if any at all) historical documentation for either the person Moses, or the dramatic events depicted in the Book of Exodus (and/or the movie The Ten Commandments), some have suggested (indeed this is precisely what Assmann is implying above) that this "traumatic", "unlocatable" memory of Akhenaten's failed revolution "freely floated" until it landed on the children of Israel.

It is worth stressing how detailed our knowledge of Akhenaten is. He was born Amenhotep IV, and became Pharoh in 1353 BC. His father, Amenhotep III, had ruled for four decades during one of the most prosperous periods in Eygptian history. Amenhotep IV married the famous Nefertiti, and together they had six children, all daughters.

Starting in the early years of his reign Amenhotep IV unleashed a cultural revolution. He built a new capital city and moved 20,000 people to inhabit it (while it was still under construction); changed his name from Amenhotep, which means "Amen is satisfied", to Akhenaten, which means "The One Beneficial/Effective for Aten", which was also the name of his new capital city; reorganized the government bureaucracy and restructured the priesthood to place those most loyal to him in the strongest positions of power; and also instituted changes in art, architecture and even in the Egyptian language! At the ideological core of this cultural revolution was an abrupt theological shift from the many Goddesses and Gods of the traditional Egyptian pantheon to a focus on a single, solar Deity named Aten.

In his Akhenaten and the Religion of Light, Erik Hornung quotes from the findings of the 19th century Egyptologist Karl Richard Lepsius that Akhenaten commanded:
.... the names of all the deities be hacked away from all public monuments, and even from the accessible private tombs, and that their images be destroyed to the extent possible.
[p. 4]
In his conclusion to that book Hornung wrote
In Amarna religion [that is, the monotheism of Akhenaten], for the first time in history, an attempt was made to explain the entire natural and human world on the basis of single principle.... Akhenaten was perhaps the first fundamentalist in history.
[pp. 125-6]
Akhenaten had a son (by a wife other than Nefertiti) who was named Tutankhaten, which means "Perfect is the Life of Aten". This son did not immediately take the throne when his father died in 1336 BC, probably because he was only four or five years old at the time. The boy had been born and raised in the city that bore his father's name, and as a child never knew any religion other than the now official state religion that consisted of the worship of one, and only one, God, Aten.

Other members of the royal family ruled at least until Tutankhaten was nine or ten years old. Almost immediately a scaling back, at the very least, of Akhenaten's revolutionary monotheism was underway. Soon after he began to rule (in 1332), Tutankhaten moved the capital back to Thebes, and changed his name to the one we now know him by: Tutankhamun: "Perfect is the Life of Amun". Soon after Tutankhamun's death, Horemheb became Pharoh and ruled from 1319-1292. Horemheb set about completely erasing all evidence of both Akhenaten and his son Tutankhamun.

The above summary is taken mostly from Erik Hornung's book, already mentioned, and the first two chapters of Akhenaten and Tutankhamun: Revolution and Restoration by David P. Silverman, Joseph William Wegner and Jennifer Houser Wegner. Silverman, Wegner and Wegner describe the actions of Pharoh Horemheb in this way:
Within a few years [of taking the throne], Horemheb began to revise the events of the recent past. In his apparent wish to ensure that later generations of Egyptians would not think of or remember the chaotic times under the Amarna pharohs (Akhenaten and Tutankhamun), who had preceded him, he dismanteld Akhenaten's temples and removed his name and images from statuary and relief. He also razed the newly built capital city and targeted the monuments of Tutankhamun, appropriating them for himself.
[p. 1]
Now, as to Moses there is, in fact, no shortage of sources that purport to tell his story: from the Bible and Josephus to Sigmund Freud and Cecile B. Demille. The problem is that none of these stories can be supported with facts.

One possible scenario, as previously alluded to, is that despite the best efforts of Horemheb and others to erase the shameful impiety of Akhenaten's monotheism from written history, the idea itself continued to have Egyptian adherents. Some of these adherents might have been Asiatic migrants who had settled in Egypt and were later expelled, and who then returned to Asia/Canaan.

Whatever the historical facts might be, the story of Exodus is clear enough. It tells the tale of a Hebrew who was raised as an Egyptian -- and not just any Egyptian but the adopted son of the Pharaoh's daughter. Not only was this Hebrew, named Moses (Egyptian for "child"), brought up as a member of the royal family, he was essentially (if not by blood) the brother of the Pharaoh-to-be, Ramses II.

The story goes that Moses eventually turns against his "brother" and leads the Hebrews out of Egypt, across the Sinai desert, and into Canaan. In this narrative Pharaoh and Egypt come to represent all that is evil: oppression, slavery, cruelty, injustice and, of course, polytheism. On the other hand, Moses and the "children of Israel" represent all that is good: freedom, morality, justice and, of course, the belief in the One True God.

The depths to which the Manichaeistic set piece of "Egypt versus Israel" has penetrated the western psyche is illustrated by the rhetoric of the Black church tradition going back to the days of slavery and up to this day. One wonders what must have gone through the minds of recently enslaved Africans when they first discovered that this story is central to the religion of their new "masters"! Even the titles of Negro Spirituals reveal the strength and pervasiveness of this "cultural memory": Didn’t old Pharaoh get los’, Turn back Pharaoh’s army, Go down Moses:
Go down Moses
Way down in Egypt land
Tell ole Pharaoh
To let my people go

When Israel was in Egypt land
Let my people go
Oppressed so hard the could not stand
Let my people go

“Thus spoke the Lord”, bold Moses said
“If not, I’ll smite your first born dead"
Let my people go
A century after the abolition of slavery, the imagery of Pharaoh versus Moses still resonated strongly with African Americans, as can be seen in the last speech given by Martin Luther King before his assassination, the famous "Mountaintop speech":
We aren't engaged in any negative protest and in any negative arguments with anybody. We are saying that we are determined to be men. We are determined to be people. We are saying -- We are saying that we are God's children. And that we are God's children, we don't have to live like we are forced to live.

Now, what does all of this mean in this great period of history? It means that we've got to stay together. We've got to stay together and maintain unity. You know, whenever Pharaoh wanted to prolong the period of slavery in Egypt, he had a favorite, favorite formula for doing it. What was that? He kept the slaves fighting among themselves. But whenever the slaves get together, something happens in Pharaoh's court, and he cannot hold the slaves in slavery. When the slaves get together, that's the beginning of getting out of slavery. Now let us maintain unity....

I left Atlanta this morning, and as we got started on the plane, there were six of us. The pilot said over the public address system, "We are sorry for the delay, but we have Dr. Martin Luther King on the plane. And to be sure that all of the bags were checked, and to be sure that nothing would be wrong with on the plane, we had to check out everything carefully. And we've had the plane protected and guarded all night."


And then I got into Memphis. And some began to say the threats, or talk about the threats that were out. What would happen to me from some of our sick white brothers?


Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn't matter with me now, because I've been to the mountaintop.

And I don't mind.

Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!
One final example of the deeply ingrained equation of Egypt and "Pharaoh" with injustice, oppression and all things evil is to be found in a 2007 entry entitled We Were Slaves to Pharaoh (a direct reference to Deuteronomy 6:21) in a blog that describes itself as "A Vegetarian Journal for Quakers and Other People of Faith":
His [Jesus'] execution at the time of Passover, at the hands of the Roman overlords and their creatures the Temple authorities, (not the Jewish people), was the answer of the Pharaoh of his day to Jesus' prophetic proclamation of the Kingdom/Commonwealth of God. His resurrection was God's response, "with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm," to the violence that enforced the rule of the new Pharaoh. It proclaims God's will that we be liberated both from human slavelords, and from bondage to the fear of death.
As the above makes clear, there is a strong tendency for the Moses/Egypt good-versus-evil narrative to seamlessly morph into a Jesus/Rome good-versus-evil narrative. One even finds (in fact very often) modern Pagans uncritically adopting the resulting equation of Pagan Rome with all that is oppressive, unjust and evil!

The pervasive influence of the story of Moses and Pharaoh is not in any way diminished by it's lack of historicity. If anything this highlights the power that the story holds over the western mind. Naturally, attempts have been made to reconcile, somehow, the traditional story of the founding of Israel with historical fact. Moses Maimonides, a 12th century Torah scholar (well, in fact he was much more than that -- one of the most brilliant minds of the Middle Ages, and possibly of all time) who was born in Moorish Spain, studied in Morocco, spent most of his adult life in Egypt, and was buried in Palestine, attempted just such a reconciliation in his Guide for the Perplexed (which was written in Arabic like all of his voluminous work).

Maimonides used the people that he referred to as "Sabeans" to represent everything that the revolutionary monotheism of Moses was a revolution against. The precise identity of these Sabeans is not really important, because despite the fact that Maimonides' goal was to historicize Moses, what he actually produced was yet another myth, or, rather, a rationalistic sounding interpretation of the existing (that is, Biblical) myth. This effort at historicizing is not without siginficance, though, for Maimonides took the crucial step of proposing an interpretation based on (what he believed to be) historical fact. Therefore, whatever deficiencies there are in Maimonides' results, as history, he nevertheless championed the methodology of objective historiography.

Here are some of the things that Maimonides says concerning the religious/philosophical beliefs of the Sabeans:
All the Sabeans thus believed in the eternity of the Universe, the heavens being in their opinion God. Adam was in their belief a human being born from male and female, like the rest of mankind; he was only distinguished from his fellow-men by being a prophet sent by the moon; he accordingly called men to the worship of the moon, and he wrote several works on agriculture.....
In accordance with the Sabean theories images were erected to the stars, golden images to the sun, images of silver to the moon, and they attributed the metals and the climates to the influence of the planets, saying that a certain planet is the god of a certain zone. They built temples, placed in them images, and assumed that the stars sent forth their influence upon these images, which are thereby enabled (to speak) to understand, to comprehend, to inspire human beings, and to tell them what is useful to them. They apply the same to trees which fall to the lot of these stars. When, namely, a certain tree, which is peculiar to a certain star, is dedicated to the name of this star, and certain things are done for the tree and to the tree, the spiritual force of that star which influences that tree, inspires men, and speaks to them when they are asleep. All this is written in their works, to which I will call your attention. It applies to the "prophets of Baal," and the "prophets of Asherah," mentioned in Scripture, in whose hearts the Sabean theories had taken root, who forsook God, and called, "Baal, hear us" (1 Kings xviii. 26); because these theories were then general, ignorance had spread, and the madness with which people adhered to this kind of imaginations had increased in the world. When such opinions were adopted among the Israelites, they had observers of clouds, enchanters, witches, charmers, consulters with familiar spirits, wizards, and necromancers.
[Part 3, XXIX]

The idolaters also held cattle in esteem on account of their use in agriculture, and went even so far as to say, that it is not allowed to slay them, because they combine in themselves strength and willingness to do the work of man in tilling the ground. The oxen, notwithstanding their great strength, do this, and submit to man, because it is the will of God that they should be employed in agriculture. When these views became generally known, idolatry was connected with agriculture, because the latter is indispensable for the maintenance of man, and of most animals. The idolatrous priests then preached to the people who met in the temples, and taught them that by certain religious acts, rain would come down, the trees of the field would yield their fruit, and the land would be fertile and inhabited.
[Part 3, XXX]
And here is an example of Maimonides using "normative inversion" directed against the Sabeans to explain Mosaic Law:
When these ideas [of the Sabeans] spread, and were considered as true, God, in His great mercy for us, intended to remove this error from our minds, and to protect our bodies from trouble; and therefore desired us to discontinue the practice of these useless actions. He gave us His Law through Moses, our teacher, who told us in the name of God, that the worship of stars and other corporeal beings would effect that rain would cease, the land be waste, and would not produce anything, and the fruit of the trees would wither; calamities would befall the people, their bodies would be deformed, and life would be shortened. These are the contents of "the words of the covenant which God made" (Deut. xxviii. 6-9). It is frequently expressed in all parts of Scripture, that the worship of the stars would be followed by absence of rain, devastation of the land, bad times, diseases, and shortness of life. But abandonment of that worship, and the return to the service of God, would be the cause of the presence of rain, fertility of the ground, good times, health and length of life. Thus Scripture teaches, in order that man should abandon idolatry, the reverse of that which idolatrous priests preached to the people, for, as has been shown by us, the principal object of the Law is to remove this doctrine, and to destroy its traces.
[Part 3, XXX]
According to Jason Philip Rosenblatt in his Renaissance England's Chief Rabbi: John Selden,
Maimonides relies on The Nabatean Agriculture, translated by Ibn Wahshiyya' for a description of 'the doctrines, opinions, practices, and cult of the Sabians". It becomes necessary to understand idolatry because it is the mirror image of Hebraic self-identification, what [Jan] Assmann calls "a polemical counter-construction". This narrative inversion is the utter negation of the mutual religious translatability....
[p. 87]
Writing over seven centuries after the death of Maimonides, Sigmund Freud once again took up the task of attempting to historicize Moses. The opening sentence of Freud's Moses and Monotheism is
To deny a people a man whom it praises as the greatest of it's sons is not a deed to be undertaken lightheartedly -- especially by one belonging to that people.
But Freud's attempt ends up being yet another contribution to the cultural memory of Moses, rather than to the history, properly speaking, of Moses. And that is because there was still no historical documentation for Moses or the story of Exodus.

But Freud did have the advantage of being in possession of the relatively newly discovered facts about the Amarna period of Egyptian history, and Akhenaten's monotheistic revolution. I'll conclude this post with an excerpt from Jan Assmann's Moses the Egyptian:
Freud knew what all the others [Maimonides, etc.] did not know: that there really was a monotheistic and iconoclastic counter-religion in ancient Egypt. He was able to fill the gap that so many had tried to fill with fanciful reconstructions. If the history of the this discourse, from the early oral beginnings after the breakdown of the Amarna revolution until modernity, can be reconstructed as a story of remembering and forgetting, Signumd Freud is the one who restored the suppressed evidence, who was able to retrieve lost memories and to finally complete and rectify the picture of Egypt. With his book the Moses/Egypt discourse seemed to come to a conclusion. If we look at Moses and Monotheism not from the viewpoint of Freud's oeuvre but from that of the Moses/Egypt discourse, we realize that this book had to be written. The rediscovery of Akhenaten simply could not pass unnoticed by those who looked for Egyptian origins. The case of Moses had to be reopened.

The discovery of Akhenaten and his religious revolution was a sensation in itself. But it must have gained even more importance in the eyes of an Aufklarer thinking along the lines of the Moses/Egypt discourse. Akhenaten must have appeared to him as the ultimate solution to the riddle. Freud's Moses oscillates strangely between being a figure of memory and being a figure of history. This accounts for many of the obstacles Freud encountered in writing his book. He began writing a historical novel and ended up by using almost juridical forms of authentification to present his historical evidence. As a figure of history, Freud's Moses lacks "proofs". The testimony of Scripture is dismissed as merely the voice of memory, which counts for nothing in the "tribunalistic situation" of history. Instead, Freud is looking for historical traces and clues, and is all too aware of their scarcity.
[p. 147]

See also (links NOT automatically generated):
Roman Catholicism (A brief history of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part Seven)
Charlemagne, Part Deux (A brief history of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part Six)
Charlemagne (A brief history of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part Five)
Muhammad (A brief history of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part Four)
Constantine (A brief history of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part Three)

Moses (A Brief History of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part Two)
Akhenaten (A Brief History of Revolutionary Monotheism, Part One)
Monotheistic Robots of Doom, Part Deux
Monotheistic Robots of Doom
Lies, Damned Lies, and Pagan Monotheism
Hic Sunt Dracones