Amos's River of Justice

Our Season of Creation

  • [intlink id=”348″ type=”post”]Previously,[/intlink] I’ve tried to explain why I don’t like to propose specific solutions–I hope people will use these ideas to develop their own unique solutions. Then a few days ago I got an unusual spam comment accusing me of spending all of my time “talking about things you can’t do anything about, when you should be telling people what to do.” In a way he was right, I can’t do anything about these problems on my own, as I have said. This comment did motivate me to break my own rules and make a list of recommendations, but I still wound up talking about things that can’t be accomplished here and now. The best they can do is point in a specific direction. In addition, any recommendations that can be put into practice now probably won’t prove their value in my lifetime. Anyway, here is the list.

    1.  Communities should be organized into small, independent political units, with local government. I’m not advocating an arbitrary, top-down organization.  This should begin small, with people who [intlink id=”226″ type=”post”]choose to be together[/intlink] and who agree on fundamental principles.
    2.  Certain individuals in each community should develop an oral tradition. According to legend, the sages predicted that the invention of writing would lead to the loss of knowledge. They apparently knew what they were talking about. Today, books that challenge the predominant worldview are destroyed or taken out of circulation. Without exposure to competing ideas, our children and grandchildren will be defenseless. We should each work on a program of study, develop new stories of origin, collect meaningful history and current events, and put it all in a form that can be memorized and recited.
    3.  We should reexamine the institution of initiation. Initiation is part of a process that separates young boys from the clan and encourages them to identify with the male hierarchy. Initiations may not involve a formal ritual, but the results are the same. We might want to study groups such as DeMolay, and customs such as church ordination.
    4.  The basic economic and political unit of patriarchal society is patriarchal marriage, which allows a distant and unrelated hierarchy to influence a couple’s personal decisions, particularly the number of children in each family. In addition it enables the hierarchy to oversee the indoctrination of the next generation. This is important because it provides a steady supply of soldiers, taxpayers and cheap labor. Therefore, women should have complete sovereignty in their personal lives.
    5.  Matrilineal succession creates a wide circle of kinship, and was probably an important link in the democratic process. Leaders were elected from a pool of eligible candidates. Patriarchy, on the other hand, creates a vertical system where each man is subjected to the man above him. The rulers, who may have no relation to the clan, acquire their position, rather than inherit it, and they strive to pass their power on to their sons. In this process, each ‘nuclear’ family becomes alienated and isolated.

    When I started this list I didn’t intend to write a feminist manifesto; I was looking for customs that would encourage autonomous communities and better political representation. However, it is interesting that such goals work against the major tendencies of patriarchal systems. The following is a description of the political organization of the British Isles after the transition from a kin-based tribal society to an early state organization. It demonstrates the importance to rulers of a political hierarchy, centralized authority and a large tax base.

    Throughout the British Isles the prehistoric period saw the rise of warlike heroic kings who ruled over definite territories. This was true of both Argyll and Pictland and was, in part, a result of Roman withdrawal and the end of the formal government and social order. Although the Picts had not been directly influenced by Roman occupation it is likely that Pictish tribes formed alliances against this common enemy and that these alliances broke down once the threat disappeared. After the Roman withdrawal, local aristocrats began to compete for access to wealth and political prestige, which they mastered by access to material resources and the use of violence and personal charisma. Territories became more formal because they marked the extent of the areas in which leaders could protect people and grant them rights to land. At the same time tribal society, which was kin-based, began the transition to an early state organization, which was institutionalized and hierarchical, and where clientship played an important part. Clientship extended the distance over which authority could operate and led to the establishment of new elites whose authority was acquired rather than inherited. Clientship consisted of payment by the clients of food renders, or other tribute, such as labor and military services, in exchange for land, protection and patronage. This chain of relationships included all levels of society. At the top were nobles, clergy and kings, usually men, who were both socially and geographically mobile. Power was exchanged between them through agreed modes of inheritance and/or aggression. The degree of power was determined by the number and type of clients one could support, which depended on the ability to exploit agricultural resources. Territories expanded when the lord of one area accepted the authority of another. Conflict resulted if this was disputed. Conflict was a common occurrence.

    However, throughout this period, the individual household remained the primary economic unit. Contemporary Ireland was divided into tuatha, tribes or territories consisting of larger groupings of households ruled by a king who was supported by a specialist staff. These kings of individual tuatha owed allegiance to kings of groups of tuatha, who owed their allegiance to kings of provinces. These were bound to the king of all Ireland.[ref]”Foster, Sally M. Picts, Gaels and Scots: early historic Scotland. Sterling Publishing Co. New York. 2004″[/ref]

    The Occupy Wall Street protests have been a reminder that Marxism hasn’t given up its role as the political rival of Capitalism. Unfortunately, Marxism is as patriarchal as any of its competitors. Therefore, it shouldn’t be surprising that Marxists claimed to represent the worker, even as they plotted to exploit the worker. As the British example illustrates, wealth and power go to those who are able to control the land and the people who work the land. Patriarchy is the organizational system that makes this possible.

    At this point, you might be wondering whether we can do anything about these realities.  Obviously, I think we can do something about them or I wouldn’t be talking about them. Ideas make a difference.  Why do you think individuals and organizations work so hard to influence the way we think? It seems to me that if more people were able to see through the lies, maybe they wouldn’t be so willing to go to war, women wouldn’t be trapped in pro-natalist organizations that masquerade as religion, there would be fewer ideological differences between members of the same class, and elections would really mean something.

    That said, some debates are more urgent than others. The Great Recession, with the help of OWS activists, has reintroduced Marx’s answer to the depredations of Capitalism; this would be the claim that the Capitalist system is fundamentally flawed and therefore it must give way to Marxism. Of course, publicly they are only saying that they have no interest in getting out the vote, influencing elected officials, or cooperating within the system. They think this kind of participation would only validate a defunct government. We should carefully examine this idea–not so much the question of whether Capitalism is worth saving; in my opinion, it is not. However that doesn’t naturally imply that the entire system must go.

    Capitalism does not represent the sum of American life. An interesting perspective is offered by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson in their discussion of American political and economic institutions. They argue that it was America’s inclusive institutions that were responsible for the relative justice and equality accorded to the people. Contrary to what we have been told, these institutions were not the natural outcome of the founders’ belief in liberty and equality. The first British colonies in North America were business propositions and were created for one reason, to make a profit. Therefore, the British would have been happy to enslave both the natives and the colonists if necessary, as the Europeans had done elsewhere. However, the British had to contend with a sparse population and diverse economic opportunity. According to Acemoglu and Robinson, inclusive institutions were created by the rulers as incentives to secure the workers’ cooperation.[ref]”Acemoglu, Daron and James A. Robinson. The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty: Why Nations Fail. Crown Publishers. New York. 2012[/ref]

    This might explain why recent appeals to justice and fairness have not resulted in justice or fairness from the administration or the Congress. In this view, the American way of life wasn’t bequeathed by kindly, wise forebears, but by inclusive institutions limiting the avarice of the rulers. If this is true, and if those institutions were to disappear, it would be a great loss. Unfortunately, through determination and patience, many political victories have been reversed.

    In the early part of the last century, Americans created antitrust legislation to break up the monopolies. This effort was spearheaded by small farmers, who were directly affected by those monopolies. Is it coincidence that the following decades have witnessed the destruction of that segment of society?

  • Nadya Suleman’s story did not have to go in this direction. However, the headlines have chosen to paint a picture of Nadya Suleman and the Dark Side of Reality.

    In the last few years two diverse opinions were voiced. One was caring and the other was condemning. Condemnation has been the more constant presence in the headlines. They shout that her house is a mess; she spent $50 on a haircut; she pampers herself and neglects her children; she filed for bankruptcy; her bankruptcy was thrown out of court; she doesn’t really like babies; and her mother is fed up with her. These are only the opinions I’m familiar with and I haven’t really been paying attention.

    The Human Response

    The other sentiment is quiet by comparison. It is often found in the comments to online articles. People typically wonder how she’ll get by and whether someone can’t just give her a little help. This is a human response.

    The Headlines Are the Loudest Voices

    It seems to me the main goal of the headlines has been to deprive Suleman of the income that was beginning to come her way from donations. It wasn’t enough to demonize her, they demonized her doctor as well. Recently, the character assassination has really gained steam. For example, there is a petition online to boycott stores that make donations to her family. This is a direct threat to the family’s livelihood.

    The moment it was discovered that Nadya was single and had 14 children, which I admit is hard to defend, the attacks were venomous. In the view of her critics she suddenly became a gold digger who cared nothing for her children. It has come to the point where this woman is embarking on a pornography career.

    Do Her Critics Know Her Story?

    This problem began when Suleman’s inability to have children led to the breakup of her marriage. I can’t see anything in her story that would have predicted this treatment, except for perhaps her single state. Her mother and father are there for her and willing to help her. Even her ex-husband wants the best for her and worries about her.

    Compare the Duggars

    To gain perspective I want to compare another large family with the Sulemans, the family of Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar. Their source of income in their early years was an auto body business, a used car company and a towing company. Then, according to various online sites, they went to Jim Sammon’s Financial Freedom seminar and learned how to live within their means. This enabled them to sell their businesses in 1990 and buy commercial real estate, which made it possible for them to live on rental income from their investments.

    Support from Christian Organizations and Homeschooling Conventions

    Rental payments were not their only source of income. During the same period they began traveling and earning money making speeches at Christian organizations and homeschooling conventions.

    A Political Career and a Reality Show

    Then, from 1999 to 2003 Jim Bob served in the Arkansas House of Representatives. Some websites claim the Duggars built their 7000 square foot house debt free. However, the house was finished by Discovery Networks. Its decorations and furnishings were given to them by Discovery Networks and other corporate sponsors. It is estimated that the Duggars make from $25,000 to $40,000 for each episode of their reality show.

    The commercial real estate market is volatile. It crashed in the late 80s, which probably led to bargain prices in the early 90s when the Duggars entered the market. However, there is no telling if it would have continued to provide sufficient income for such a large family in subsequent years. And rebuilding and selling cars is a living at best. It’s not the road to wealth.

    Suleman’s Education and Work Experience is Good Preparation for Motherhood

    Nadya Suleman graduated from High School in 1993 and worked as a psychiatric technician at Metropolitan State Hospital. In 2006 she earned a degree in childhood and adolescent development.

    After the birth of the octuplets Suleman was offered corporate donations but they dried up when the media coverage turned negative. Then Gloria Allred, who was supposed to be helping her, squashed her reality show prospects by publicly accusing her of using her babies to make money. I seem to remember that Allred volunteered her services; Suleman didn’t ask for her help. Allred seemed to base her indignation partly on her opinion of Suleman’s parenting skills. We weren’t given Allred’s parenting credentials.

    A Large Family Can Be Both a Boon and an Outrage

    By contrast, the Duggars are one of a number of families with a reality show, which they were given solely because of the number of children in their family. They have nineteen at last count. I suppose if the same mean streak were to find its way into their life someone could say Jim Bob is a freeloader. His wife had all the kids. Further, the Duggars not only use their kids to make money, they throw in Jesus for good measure.

    As for Suleman, apparently the pundits would rather she stayed on welfare, became a porn star and lost her house. While they proclaim concern for the children, their actions say to hell with them. I, for one, prefer not to witness the dissolution of Nadya Suleman. However, if it happens I’m sure it will make the headlines.

  • In the [intlink id=”904″ type=”post”]last post[/intlink] I talked about the controversial nature of the United States’ pro-natalist policies. Policymakers such as Phillip Longman have admitted that these policies will only be effective under the influence of patriarchal marriage. The implication is that patriarchal marriage eliminates a woman’s control of her own fertility. Patriarchal marriage is sexual coercion. In trying to address the hostility of recent events it has become clear to me that the attitudes about women demonstrated by David Albo, Darrell Issa, and Glenn Grothman, constitute common abuse. Abuse doesn’t deserve an explanation. However, it does have a purpose. The feelings experienced by victims of abuse include anger, sadness, depression, betrayal, hopelessness and helplessness. Victims tend to be distracted, they can’t think clearly, they have trouble sleeping. These feelings are useful to an abuser because they give him control over his victim.

    The tactics used by abusers include verbal abuse. Name calling–for example, calling someone a slut, a term applied only to women–is common. When a student was called a slut in the national news media it victimized everyone who heard it. Likewise, the denial of women’s rights by tyrants who use the occasion to act out their contempt, is emotional abuse. Finally, when someone with authority to make the law threatens women with involuntary vaginal penetration and then laughs about it on the evening news, that is an act of sexual aggression regardless of whether it ever becomes law. The fact that we have trouble seeing it that way reveals much about the nature of patriarchal society.

    Divide and conquer is a major tenet of patriarchal rule. The spouses of these legislators, among others, may feel they are exempt from hostility because they have been told they are morally superior to the unfortunate targets of the legislation. However, sexual morality is only part of it. According to the beliefs of Quiverfull, if a woman controls her own fertility she is somehow immoral. This belief is meant to influence married women. The fact that the policymakers don’t have large families is probably an indication of class division.  

    Contrary to patriarchal propaganda, victimization is not a natural part of human experience and like other humans on the planet, women resist subjection. However, public humiliation is a powerful method of control.  The perception that some of us are exempt is a dangerous delusion, if a very persistent one. The latest attack on reproductive rights should teach us that no one is immune, but perceptions are manipulated in powerful ways.

    The punch line of my life was given to me by a professor of humanities at Arizona State University. I assumed because of what I had seen in the national media that feminism had changed attitudes and earned respect for women, at least from men outside of my tradition.  So, I told this professor that I didn’t understand why the philosophers denigrate women, since they supposedly use logic to arrive at their opinions rather than religious dogma. I understand it better now, but this was in 1994.  Without hesitation he said, “They don’t want to be polluted by the world.”

    Like a fool I stayed and asked him another question. “Why are women treated so badly in Muslim countries?”

    He said, “Those governments know how to control their subject populations.”

    Apparently, governments that don’t execute women for minor offenses are failing to properly control their subject populations? More to the point, women are a subject population regardless of whether they are properly controlled. We should have known. When one human being serves another without compensation, and when cultural attitudes and customs and even the law make it difficult, if not impossible, for her to leave, that is bondage. The problem is, we don’t call it bondage. We call it patriarchy. We have seen that even single women are defined by patriarchal standards and subjected by the state.

    It is important to repeat that the subversive definition of reality often goes undetected and results in the loss of our humanity. For example, how many of us believed the things we were told about “Octomom”, Nadya Suleman? In retrospect, it seems this may have been a patriarchal hatchet job.  She is a poster-child for single motherhood. Recently it was reported that she has declared bankruptcy. In the accompanying picture of her family I imagined I could see in the faces of her children the effects of the harsh things said about their mother and the withdrawal of public affection and support. Ostracism is a vicious punishment but it is dished out to young mothers all the time. Children are an inevitable casualty of this treatment. They are a family in danger. They need help.  Hopefully they won’t get the kind of attention that the social workers offer.

    Another mother who needs support is the Texas women who was fired from her job for becoming pregnant before her marriage. [ref name=”Former Coach of the Year Fired from Christian School for Out of Wedlock Pregnancy”]Former Coach of the Year Fired from Christian School for Out of Wedlock Pregnancy. Yahoo! Sports. cited May 12, 2012. Available: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/former-coach-fired-christian-school-wedlock-pregnancy-145601399.html[/ref] Judging from the things I observed in my traditional ‘community’ she can expect shunning from her church congregation. She should also be made aware of the possibility of mistreatment when she gives birth.  This could be anything from cold indifference to physical and emotional torture. 

  • On March 31, an opinion was published on the Yahoo Contributor’s Network concerning a Tennessee mother who had her son baptized without the permission of her estranged husband. in this man’s opinion she should go to jail. ((Poupard, Vincent L. Mother who baptized children without consent needs to go to jail. Yahoo Contributor Network. March 31, 2012. Cited April 6, 2012. Available: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/30/mother-faces-contempt-jail-for-baptizing-children/)) In light of the ongoing attacks on women’s rights, this suddenly seems like a real possibility. ((Indiana’s Judge Christopher B. Haile Inflicting Maternal Deprivation abuse. Fathers Winning Custody. March 6, 2009. cited April 6, 2012. Available: http://fatherswinningcustody.com/indianas-judge-christopher-b-haile-inflicting-maternal-deprivation-abuse/)) ((Armstrong, Ken and Maureen O’Hagan. Seattle Times Special Report: Twisted ethics of an expert witness. Indiana Mothers for Custodial Justice. June 26, 2011. Cited April 6, 2012. Available: http://imfcj.blogspot.com/))

    The political environment has become decidedly hostile to women, and current legislation only reinforces the trend. Rude remarks about female sexual morality have been a strange part of this entire process. I have already said these pieces of legislation represent [intlink id=”849″ type=”post”]the effort to own female reproductive potential[/intlink]. All things considered, it can be argued that the insulting rhetoric is calculated to obscure the real purpose. These things are typically associated with a natalist policy. Apparently, the government of the United States is attempting to increase the birthrate. Therefore, the ‘slut’ remarks are probably a smokescreen. A chaste population is the last thing they want to see.

    And the lawmakers continue their assault. Since November’s election in Mississippi, Republicans have been in charge of both chambers of the house and have used their position to target abortion. First, the “Heartbeat Bill” was introduced, which would have required doctors to look for a fetal heartbeat before performing an abortion. The detection of a heartbeat would make it illegal for the doctor to continue. Although this bill never made it out of committee, more recently a measure was proposed that will probably cause Mississippi’s only abortion clinic, the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, to shut down. House Bill 1390 would require doctors working at abortion clinics to be Ob-Gyn certified and have admitting privileges to a local hospital. It has passed both houses and Republican Governor Phil Bryant is expected to sign it into law in a matter of days. ((Schmitt, Barbara A. Controversial Measure Would Essentially Shut Down Mississippi’s Only Abortion Clinic. ABC News. April 7 2012. Cited April 7, 2012. Available: http://abcnews.go.com/US/controversial-measure-essentially-shut-mississippis-abortion-clinic/story?id=16088001#.T4CKKe0SHzI))

    The Think Tank, the Church, and Public Policy

    New America Foundation

    In addition to the obvious concerns about women’s rights, there are at least two important directions for this conversation. First, the decision to increase the birthrate is controversial in itself. Second, the methods reveal much about the country’s current direction and those who lead the way. Apparently, a relatively small group of organizations and churches are at the helm, and for quite some time they have been arguing that a higher birthrate is good for the nation’s economic and political future. The New America Foundation is a key player in this effort and is part of a wider cooperative network. The New America Foundation is a ‘non-partisan, public policy institute’ founded by Ted Halstead in 1999. It is headquartered in Washington D.C. and also has a ‘presence’ in California. Phillip Longman is a demographer and a Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow at the Foundation. Longman claims to be a political centrist, however he is influenced by Rick and Jan Hess, promoters of the Quiverfull Movement. Longman has also endorsed Allan Carlson’s views as put forth in his pro-Quiverfull treatise, “The Natural Family: a Manifesto”. Quiverfull is not centrist. Its political persuasion is conservative evangelical. Allan Carlson is a paleoconservative.

    Quiverfull

    The name ‘Quiverfull’ is taken from Psalm 127: “Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate.” Quiverfull parents often have more than six children; they are home-schoolers, members of fundamentalist churches, and believers in male headship and female submissiveness. The movement began with the publication of Rick and Jan Hess’s 1989 book, A Full Quiver: Family Planning and the Lordship of Christ. In this book the Hesses argue that God is the “Great Physician” and sole “Birth Controller”. Therefore, a woman’s attempt to control her own body is a seizure of divine power. The movement’s core ideas can be tied to conservative Protestant critiques of contraception. Many conservatives believe that when mainline Protestant churches accepted birth control in the 1950s they opened the way for the sexual revolution. Yet, the feminists don’t escape blame–in this view, feminism is a religion that is incompatible with Christianity.

    Population is a big concern for Quiverfull believers; the recent decline in the birthrate of some European countries inspires great fear, and the world’s political turmoil is said to be a consequence of this tendency. Some beliefs will sound familiar to anyone following the current presidential campaigns. They say the pill is an abortifacient and so they support pharmacists who refuse to distribute birth control on moral grounds. Of course, they extend this right of refusal to corporate entities such as insurers.

    Phillip Longman

    In 2006 Longman’s article “The Return of Patriarchy” was published in the March issue of Foreign Policy, a publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Longman predicted that falling birthrates throughout advanced societies will lead to financial, political, social and demographic decline and argued that the return of patriarchy is essential to the recovery of higher birthrates and reproduction. He claimed that the cause of falling birthrates is often the loss of social cohesion and he held the feminists and members of the counter-cultural movement of the sixties and seventies to blame for the childless segment of the population. People naturally avoid the costs of parenthood, he said, and the only reason the human race has not gone extinct before now is, patriarchy. Longman was quoted in an interview published in the Christian Post:

    Patriarchal societies come in many varieties and evolve through different stages, he explains. What they have in common are customs and attitudes that collectively serve to maximize fertility and parental investment in the next generation.

    A culture of patriarchy directs men to their responsibilities as husbands and fathers. Men who fail in these responsibilities are seen as inferior to those who are both faithful and effective. Furthermore, a patriarchal structure holds men accountable for the care, protection, discipline, and nurture of children. In such a society, irresponsibility in the tasks of parenthood is seen as a fundamental threat to civilization itself.”

    (He) quotes feminist economist Nancy Folbre, who observed: “Patriarchal control over women tends to increase their specialization in reproductive labor, with important consequences for both the quantity and the quality of their investments in the next generation.” As Longman explains, “Those consequences arguably include: more children receiving more attention from their mothers, who, having few other ways of finding meaning in their lives, become more skilled at keeping their children safe and healthy.” ((Mohler, R. Albert, Jr. Fatherhood and the Future of Civilization. The Christian Post: Opinion. June 13, 2008. cited April 5, 2012. Available: http://www.christianpost.com/news/fatherhood-and-the-future-of-civilization-32799/))

    It seems clear that these ideas provide motive for the laws that restrict birth control and ‘encourage’ marriage. The headline on the cover of that issue of Foreign Policy was “Why Men Rule – and Conservatives Will Inherit the Earth”.

    The Policy Making Network

    As Wikipedia’s ‘Patriarchy’ discussion evolved in 2009, biological determinism was a major argument of the pro-patriarchy editors. At the time I assumed that they represented a minority faction. The individuals and organizations promoting natalism seem to be the missing link.

    Allan C. Carlson

    Allan C. Carlson is president of the Howard Center, a director of the family in America Studies Center, the International Secretary of the World Congress of Families and editor of the Family in America newsletter. He is also former president of the Rockford Institute, where he was a member since 1981. He believes that the post-World War II baby boom in the United States was a Catholic phenomenon, a “heroic” flowering of Catholic family life in America, and he has criticized the impact of feminism on women’s roles in society as disastrous for the family. ((Wikipedia: Allan C. Carlson. cited April 5, 2012. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_C._Carlson))

    The Rockford Institute was founded by Rockford College president John A. Howard in response to the social changes of the 1960s. Allan Carlson was president until 1997 when he and Howard left to form the Howard Center for Family Religion and Society. In 1989, the Lutheran pastor, Richard John Neuhaus and his Religion and Society center were evicted from the Rockford Institute’s New York office after he complained about what he said were racist and anti-semitic tones in the Institute’s Chronicles magazine. Other leading conservatives supported this charge but it was denied by the Institute. Neuhaus’s eviction was interpreted as a division in the conservative movement between paleoconservatives and neoconservatives. ((Wikipedia: Rockford Institute. Cited April 5, 2012. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockford_Institute))

    Richard John Neuhaus

    As a pastor in the 1960s Neuhaus addressed civil rights and social justice and spoke against the Vietnam War. He was active in liberal politics until Roe v. Wade was handed down. Then he became part of the neoconservative movement. He became a Roman Catholic priest in 1990 and was an unofficial advisor of President George W. Bush. In later years he likened the pro-life movement to the Civil Rights struggle. ((Wikipedia: Richard John Neuhaus. Cited April 5, 2012. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_John_Neuhaus))

    The New Biological Determinism

    Allan Carlson, true to his paleoconservative views, uses [intlink id=”6″ type=”post”]sociobiology in the development of policy[/intlink]. ((Wikipedia: Paleoconservatism. cited April 5, 2012. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism)) The argument provided by sociobiology goes something like this: Because women are biologically different from men, they have different roles. A woman’s place is in the home. A woman’s most important role is the bearing of children. We have seen that in Longman’s view, patriarchy provides the necessary assurance for this type of social arrangement.

    In Christopher Wolfe’s “The family, civil society, and the state” Carlson argues that while several American political factions uphold family values, they do not have the same definition of family. The type of family structure that Carlson promotes is ‘rooted in human nature: in our genetic inheritance; in our instincts; in our hormones’. He disagrees with those who say the family is changing into new forms better suited to modern life, and claims that the only free cultural choice is between monogamy and polygamy.

    “The so-called ‘changes’ we observe in family living are either deterioration from a natural order, or restoration toward that order: decay or renewal. Holy scripture affirms these truths, and so do the modern sciences of sociology and psychology, sociobiology and paleoanthropology.”

    Religion, History and Dubious Science: the Politics of Birth Control

    Again, this definition of the problem depends on a very selective history. Longman and his fellow pro-natalists insist that everything was fine until the 1960s. This has allowed the pro-natalists to pose as allies of the Libertarians and to blame the feminists and counter-culture movement for any supposed population decline. No one mentions that by the sixties the writings of Thomas Malthus had been widely accepted. Malthus argued for a low birthrate as a response to a limited food supply and a fragile environment. The part played by feminists in this debate differs from the paleoconservatives’ version of it. The people who were fighting for birth control, like Margaret Sanger, were virtually alone in supporting people’s right to have as many children as they wanted.

    The Catholic hierarchy’s position in the birth control debate was resistance to the idea of people having sex without becoming pregnant. Church leaders also worried that if women controlled their own bodies they would be less likely to obey their husbands and the Church. Communists opposed Malthusianism for their own reasons, but were willing to change their population policies depending on the needs of the state. The government of the Soviet Union was the first to provide birth control and abortion, but in the face of war with Germany they banned birth control and paid women to have large families.

    The definition of the problem provided by Longman, Carlson and Quiverfull is criticized for another reason as well. In an essay by Matthew Connelly, author of “Fatal Misconception: the struggle to control world population”, it is argued that predictions about population are a poor guide for policy making. Although the predictions may not come true, they will probably lead to terrifying reactions.

    For most of recorded history population growth has been seen as proof of prosperity and also a measure of sound laws and good government. Based on the birthrate in his time, Teddy Roosevelt was certain America was committing race suicide. As a result, political and religious authorities worked together to deny access to contraception and keep abortion unsafe and illegal. (See link to page 2 below footnotes.)

  • Senate Bill 507 introduced by Wisconsin Republican Senator Glenn Grothman is the last in a series of outrageous attacks on the rights of women, and it signals a clear trend. Senate Bill 507 moves to amend existing state law by “requiring the Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board to emphasize (non-marital) parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.” In addition, Grothman thinks that the food stamp program makes single motherhood more attractive to women than marriage, so he would like to restrict the types of foods that can be purchased with food stamps, make Section 8 housing more cramped, limit applicants’ value of assets owned to $2000, and eliminate school choice.

    These attempts to legislate a repressive agenda are shocking, but such tactics have historical precedents. John Locke, for example, thought it was only right that women should have no property rights. He thought it would ensure their cooperation. In other words, it would make them unable to survive outside of a patriarchal marriage. This effort has at its core the determination to own female reproductive potential, but since this is a well-kept secret it is usually called something else, even among the liberal media. For example, some have attributed the latest tactics to a ‘fear of women’s sexuality’. But it is being called by other names as well. I recently read an article on an ACLU page where a professional black woman complained that she was treated disrespectfully at her OBGYN’s office. She insisted it was racism. I would wager that a few million white women could prove her wrong, if they cared to. But if women possess such a valuable resource, bad behavior on the part of doctors and legislators seems to make no sense. In the next few posts I will attempt to make sense of this. The discussion will begin with a look at the implications of Grothman’s bill for Wisconsin.

    Some have observed that the Republicans’ woman-baiting can only help Obama in the coming election. But aside from a secret pact to help Obama, is there anything else that could make elected representatives act in ways that are contrary to the interests of their constituents? Lobbies would probably be at the top of the list.

    Already many onerous pieces of legislation have been enacted at the state and local level. Both David Albo’s trans-vaginal sonograms idea in Virginia and Glenn Grothman’s Senate Bill 507 in Wisconsin were proposed to state legislatures. It turns out that fatherhood organizations are active in both states and these organizations have an active and energetic lobby. Although Wisconsin has strict laws against politicians benefiting personally from lobbyists’ gifts, their presence provides an important piece of the puzzle–a source of funding.

    One question that arises in light of Grothman’s proposal has to do with the potential of an increased work load for social workers in Wisconsin. Social workers are traditionally over-worked and under-paid, and yet this bill would force them to red-flag families who have no history of problems. In other words, even if families don’t require intervention, this law would require Wisconsin’s social services to add them to their work load. Therefore, Grothman can’t be serious, right? On the contrary, there seems to be a good chance that this bill will become law.

    On October 7, 2011, the Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel reported that “Milwaukee County will receive up to $5.4 million over three years, through a federal grant program aimed at boosting marriage rates, reducing the number of unwed births and helping men find jobs. The county’s award through the Pathways to Responsible Fatherhood program, announced Friday by County Executive Chris Abele, will be disbursed through a variety of community groups. The county will hire the Center for Self-Sufficiency, a Milwaukee-based nonprofit, to help evaluate local program proposals. The fatherhood initiative is expected to help about 2,000 families a year.” ((Schultze, Steve. “County to Receive $5.4 Million for Fatherhood Initiative”. March 11, 2012. Available: http://www.jsonline.com/newswatch/131333099.html October 7, 2011)) Note that this is a federal grant program.

    Maybe it is just a coincidence, but there are several pages of job openings with Wisconsin social services. ((indeed.com. March 11, 2012. Available: http://www.indeed.com/q-Social-Worker-l-Wisconsin-jobs.html))

    On June 21, 2010, Obama announced a new fatherhood and families fund at an event in Washington D.C. He said it was part of a ‘nationwide fatherhood initiative’. The fund is titled, the Fatherhood, Marriage and Innovation Fund and will “scale up effective fatherhood and family strengthening programs across the country.” It is part of a White House effort to bolster fatherhood, part of which is run by its faith-based initiatives office. ((Fabian, Jordan. “Obama Announces Fatherhood Initiative”. The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room. March 11. 2012. Available: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/104421-obama-announces-fatherhood-initiative-))

    On the same day the Washington Post reported Obama’s intention to ask Congress to move on his $500 million budget request for a Fatherhood, Marriage and Families Innovation Fund, which would give grants to nonprofits that support fathers and families, including job training programs and economic incentives for dads. (my emphasis) According to Obama, economic support for fathers is nothing new, but the marriage building efforts were previously ‘undernourished’. This article ends with a quote from the president.

    “Nurturing families come in many forms, and children may be raised by a father and mother, a single father, two fathers, a stepfather, a grandfather, or caring guardian.”

    Note that in this list he includes: a father and mother (father listed first), a single father, and two fathers, but he does not mention a single mother.

    Also in the Washington Post article, Roland Warren, President of the National Fatherhood Initiative, praised Obama’s leadership. Warren’s organization was founded in 1994 and recently contracted with the federal government to produce public service announcements promoting fatherhood.((Washington Post, Post Politics. March 11, 2012. Available: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/21/AR2010062100006.html))

    Maybe the Republicans will manage to drive voters to Obama after all. Apparently, they are on the same team. Unfortunately, we have seen that one aim of fatherhood organizations is to help fathers wage persistent court battles that eventually deny mothers guardianship of their children. They have been successful the majority of the time, even when the fathers have a history of abuse. ((Wilson, Trish. “How Can a Good Enough Mother Protect Herself”.©1996 March 11, 2012. Available: http://abatteredmother.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/mothers-under-siege-tactics-of-the-fathers-rights-movement-how-can-a-good-enough-mother-protect-herself/))

  •       Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions
    Roland de Vaux

    The Bible is not reliable for ethnographic information. This is especially true in regard to nomads’ and city dwellers’ institutions and worldview. Sheep-breeding tribes who are beginning to settle down were formerly camel-breeders who had begun to raise cattle so they are not comparable to the people of ancient Israel . However, the nomadic Arabs were closely related to the Israelites and are comparable in patterns of life and institutions. For this reason, the knowledge of pre-Islamic, modern and contemporary Arab life can help in understanding the primitive organization of Israel. Biblical parallels strengthen this comparison.

    (more…)

    Pages: 1 2

  • In a previous article it was pointed out that the words ‘Man’ and ‘Woman’ in the second chapter of Genesis have been translated from īš and ‘iššă. This led to three assumptions:

    The first man and woman of Genesis 2 were deities.
    These deities were Siva and Parvati, who is also Osiris and Isis.
    Humans had no part in a catastrophe called the Fall of Man. (This statement is probably too simplistic.  I’m working on a new artical about the Fall of Man.)

    There is evidence that īš and ‘iššă have the general meaning of ‘Lord’. Following are two examples provided by Edward Moor:

    “When they consider the divine power exerted in creating, they call the deity Brahma, in the masculine gender also; and when they view him in the light of destroyer or rather changer of forms, they give him a thousand names: of which, Siva, Isa, or Iswara, Rudra, Hara, Sambhu, Mahadeva, or Mahesa, are the most common…

    “Mahesa is maha, great, and Isa, Lord; the epithet is prefixed to many names of gods…”

    The Hindu Adam, Swayambhuva, is called ‘the first of men’, but he is clearly something more than human.

    “Swayambhuva, or the son of the self-existing, was the first Manu, and the father of mankind: his consort’s name was Satarupa. In the second Veda the Supreme Being (Brahm) is introduced in this way: ‘From me Brahma was born: he is above all; he is pitama, or the father of all men: he is Aja and Swayambhu, or self-existing.’ From him proceeded Swayambhuva, who is the first menu: they call him Adima (or the first, or Protogonus): he is the first of men; and Parama-Parusha, or the first male. His help-mate, Pracriti, is called also Satarupa: she is Adima, (the feminine gender) or the first: she is Visva-Jenni, or the mother of the world: she is Iva, or like I, the female energy of nature; or she is a form of, or descended from, I: she is Para, or the greatest: both are like Mahadeva, and his Sacti (the female energy of nature), whose names are also Isa and Isi. ((Moor, Edward, F.R.S.. “The Hindu Pantheon”. T. Bensley, London. 1810))

    In “The Hindu Pantheon” īš and ‘iššă are more strongly associated with Siva and Parvati. And Moor associates Siva/Parvati with the Egyptian goddess Isis. Because Hinduism is fundamentally monotheistic, many deities who have their own attributes melt into each other and become one. It is also true that each of the deities has a consort, but the consorts can be reduced to one as well. The goddesses, in turn, are merely the female energy or ‘sacti’ of their lord. For this reason, the Supreme Being of any particular sect, whether it is Vishnu, Siva or Brahma, is said to be a hermaphrodite, with male and female attributes combined.   So it is not really clear in what way the mythology should be applied to human men and women.

    For Christians, the doctrine of original sin is at least partly responsible for policies concerning women, but that doctrine is not a universal belief. Judaism and Islam have no such doctrine, but they have all proscribed the rights and equality of women to some degree.  This is particularly true of Islam. So there seems to be a common tendency that aligns with the conception of woman as portrayed in the story of the Fall of Man, and which is independent of the doctrine of Original Sin. It could be argued that a rationale for subjection is the main function of the story of the Fall of Man.  But on the other hand, maybe it is the attempt to say in mythological language what really happened.  We just don’t happen to understand the language.

    There are similarities in the creation stories of many cultures between Noah and Adam. For example, Noah and Adam both had control over animals, as did the Chinese Shang-te, the Hindu Siva, and the Greek Hermes. Additional shared elements include the ark and the dove.

    In Chinese mythology, the Yin, or darkness, or the female principle is the ovum mundi and becomes the Earth, the ark or the Great Mother. Heaven, or Shang-te is the son of Earth, (or the ark), as he is ‘born’ from her womb. But he is also the builder of the ark, and the creator of Mother Earth. So she is his daughter. And since they are both born from the same circle, they are brother and sister. Heaven or Shang-te marries his mother or daughter or sister. In other words, their union is incestuous.

    Since Eve was created from Adam’s rib they are brother and sister, or father and daughter. This is true of the Greek Jupiter and Juno and of the Hindu gods, as well. “Brahma, the Supreme Being of Hinduism, is an androgynous conjunction of Adam and Eve, the universal parents of the human race.”  ((The Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal”. Vol. 4, Rozario, Marçal & Co. Foochow, 1872. p. 217.))

    It is interesting that Chinese, Hindu and Greek myths also identify the snake with both Adam and Noah. The woman seems to be connected indirectly.  Ancient legends say that in the golden age there was no distinction of sex.  According to Plato, “in the first arrangement ordained by Jupiter there were neither human politics, nor the appropriation of wives and children, but all lived in common upon the exuberant productions of the earth.” It was the hero-god, also called the snake-king, who instituted marriage.

    In Greek mythology marriage was instituted by Cecrops. Cecrops was a native of Egypt, who led a colony to Athens about 1556 B.C. He was a culture hero who introduced the worship of Zeus Hypatos, and forbade the sacrifice of living things. His marriage decree came about in this way:

    “He was arbitrator at the ‘strife’ of Athena and Poseidon. The women, who exceeded the men by one, voted for Athena, and to appease the wrath of Poseidon they were henceforth disenfranchised and their children were no longer to be called by their mother’s name. The women’s decision came as a shock to old Cecrops and he forthwith instituted patriarchal marriage.”

    All of the hero-gods of Greece were serpents.

    “Cecrops is a snake, Erichthonios (Cecrops’ son) is a snake, the old snake-king is succeeded by a new snake-king…What the myths of Cecrops and Erichthonios tell us is that, for some reason or another, each and every traditional Athenian king was regarded as being also in some sense a snake.”

    CecropsHarrison thinks this came about because of the ceremonial carrying of snakes or figures of snakes. This was like the carrying of phalloi, a fertility charm. A Hermes of wood was the votive-offering of Cecrops, and it was possibly snake-shaped. ((Harrison, Jane Ellen. Epilegomena & Themis. University Books, New York. 1927″))

    In Chinese mythology, the dragon is the symbol of Shang-te. In this way, the Chinese gods resemble the fish-gods Vishnu and Dagon. The serpent was the symbol of the transmigrating diluvian god, who was reborn.  It was also the token of regeneration for those initiated into the mysteries.

    Shang-te also gave the first couple coats of skins and instituted marriage.  In Hinduism, Siva is depicted with a coat of skins.

    Siva and his coat of skins.jpgDemon-god, Hero-god, and snake-king are the terms used by Christian missionaries in the Chinese Recorder. In that publication, these names referred to non-Christian myths. But according to the same publication, Shang-te’s dragon is identical with the serpent in the Garden of Eden.  However, in the bibical story, it was God Yahweh who provided coats of skin and instituted pariarchal marriage.  Patriarchal marriage is clearly implied in the following verse:

    “I will make intense your pangs in childbearing.
    In pain shall you bear children;
    Yet your urge shall be for your husband,
    And he shall be your master.” (Genesis 3:16)

    In the notes on verse 16 concerning ‘pangs in childbearing’ we are told that this is a parade example of hendiadys in Hebrew. The literal rendering would read “your pangs and your childbearing,” but the idiomatic significance is “your pangs that result from your pregnancy.”((Speiser, E.A. “Genesis: The Anchor Bible”. Doubleday & Co. Inc. New York, 1986″))

    And the sentence Yahweh pronounced on the serpent becomes more interesting as well.

    God said to the serpent:

    I will plant enmity between you and the woman,
    And between your offspring and hers;
    They shall strike at your head,
    And you shall strike at their heel. (Genesis 3:15)

    It seems the serpent who became the mortal enemy of the woman and her offspring (perhaps in their human character) was the serpent-king.  Both male and female are affected.  The verse says “the woman and her offspring”.  In a strict comparison with the Chinese myth, the serpent-king would be God Yahweh and also his son, Adam/Noah.  (According to the Anchor Bible, the deity in the Garden of Eden was “God Yahweh” rather than “Yahweh”.  This may be the personal name of another deity.)  It seems that these myths refer to a political development that has adverse consequences for the woman and her offspring.

    In the following verses from the New Testament, Jesus seems to have claimed membership in the ranks of the demon-gods.

    “For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.

    But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.

    And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

    They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, an destroyed them all.

    Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

    But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.

    Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.” (Luke 17:24-30)

    Lot’s connection with Noah in this passage is explained by the fact that Lot was saved from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, which he believed had destroyed the whole world. He also had incestuous relations with his daughters. Something similar may have happened between Noah and his son Ham. This is the pattern of a snake king.

    In the Chinese Recorder,

    “This Demon-god or First Man or Noah is a reappearance of Adam in his deified character…or ‘Imperial Heaven’, and also the Son of Noah as being the eldest of the triplication Fuh-he, Shin-nang, Hwang-te; or Shem, Ham, and Japhet…. ‘Noah, in every mythological system of the pagans was confounded, or rather identified with one of his three sons. Fab. Vol. I. p. 343. Vishnu (one of the triplication of Bram or Monad) appears distinct from Menu (First Man) and personates the Supreme Being: yet, single, he is certainly Noah or Menu himself: as one of a triad of gods springing from a fourth still older deity (the Monad, or elder Noah) he is a son of Noah. Ibid. vol. II. 117. Considered then as Noah, we find Jupiter (the elder Monad or Chaos) both esteemed the father of the three most ancient Cabiri (Cælus, Terra, and First Man), and himself also reckoned the first of the two primitive Cabiri (Cælus and Terra); Bacchus being associated with him as the younger. This however is a mere reduplication, for Jupiter and Bacchus are the same person. &c., i. e. the First Man.”

    This, in turn, agrees with the following etymology of īš and ‘iššă.

    “Linguistically, the name Issa (‘Isa) is the Aramaic form of the Arabic Al-‘Ays, meaning ‘the water of the male’, in reference to the masculine semen, the suffixed ‘a’ in ‘Isa being the Aramaic definite article. Related to this term is the Arabic ‘Aysh, meaning ‘life’ (as in Al ‘Ayyash). The Jesus of the ‘I am’ statements was none other than the God Jesus who was Al ‘Isa or Al ‘Ays–the ultimate source of the fertilizing ‘power’ of the male.” Al ‘Ays is ‘the God of Semen’, and Al ‘Ayyash is the ‘Life-Giving God’. ((Salibi, Kamal, S. “Who was Jesus?: Conspiracy in Jerusalem. Tauris Parke Paperbacks, 2007″))

    [display-posts cat=”mythology”]

  • I was going to write about nomadism. My sources were going to be a Dominican priest who lived most of his life in Jerusalem and two Jewish scholars, one Hungarian and one German. The main idea I wanted to get across was the innocence, simplicity, and integrity of the nomadic way of life. I thought these things came through in the sources even though the scholars each had their own particular beliefs, as well as some of the prejudices of their age. Two divergent points of view honored the nomadic stage of human existence as the foundation of the truest sort of society. It seemed like good timing for such an article, right before Christmas. But on December 12, a woman was executed in Saudi Arabia. She had been arrested in 2009, they say, because people were paying her to heal them–not a capital offense in Saudi Arabia by the way. I searched the Internet to see if any of her kinsmen objected to her execution but the entire first page of search results was American commentary. I finally found a site with videos of past atrocities in Mulsim countries, including Iran and Iraq. I watched two separate groups of men stone women who were buried in the ground up to their chest. I watched another group of men lash a woman while bystanders laughed. I watched two young men cut the throat of a teenaged boy. I saw a man tortured in public.

    They say the prophet Muhammed was a nomad, but I’m afraid I don’t know what that means any more. How can I say that nomadism is the foundation of the truest sort of society when the Arabs had a great desert culture and yet they bully and brutalize their own people? Or when Iran kept a large nomadic population perhaps longer than any other country?  This is not the time to write about nomadism. This is a time to mourn.

  • There is a growing discussion about the future of Occupy Wall Street. Since the protesters’ campsites have been taken down, some speculate that the movement will fade away. So far, the protesters are determined to continue. Everyone agrees that in order to be effective they must stay in the public eye. Actually, that may not be a problem. It’s beginning to look like this particular organization will have no trouble staying relevant. I never thought I would see Americans of all ages and occupations confronting the lobbies in Washington D.C. If Occupy Wall Street (this time with help from the Service Employees’ International Union) managed to do nothing else, this protest would have to go down in history as a proud legacy. But the protesters have managed to do more. For example, they were named in a New York Times article as part of the reason that Governor Cuomo decided to reform New York’s tax code.

    Participation by the opposition in this conversation continues in the form of authoritarian contempt and violence. At least they have been consistent. The government’s answers before the appearance of Occupy Wall Street were no better. These answers would include the decision to go through with the bank bailouts despite opposition from voters, the passing of the disputed healthcare reform bill, the refusal to end tax breaks for the wealthy, and the tailoring of estate tax policy to suit large farmers and landowners. At this point the powers-that-be look like the true radicals in this confrontation.

    I’ve considered joining in the speculation about Occupy Wall Street’s future and I’ve tried to imagine how they might be involved in the long term process of cultural change. I have no doubt they will continue to be influential if they choose to be, but I’ve started to think that maybe this site takes a slightly different approach, although with many of the same assumptions. I’ve written these [intlink id=”35″ type=”post”]posts[/intlink] with the idea that much of the planning for the future will take place out of the public eye and that it must continue for generations. The organizers of Occupy Wall Street have been invaluable in their ability to address immediate problems and promote change–an important development because the country’s current problems are too urgent to be left to future generations.

    As for our similarities, the protests have served as a reminder that the country belongs to the people. The Occupy camps have actually made it impossible to ignore the people who have been harmed the most by the economic crisis. I agree that the focus on the wishes of corporations, together with the undo influence of money in politics is entirely backward. It will only continue to erode the well-being of the country as a whole. Real strength and confidence are created by human communities under conditions of peace and economic security, never by the activities of a privileged class, nor by military might.

    In the end, I’ve decided Occupy Wall Street is doing just fine. These posts will continue talking about basic principles and the corresponding view of political events. At the least, these ideas can serve as starting points for other conversations.

    The first thing that comes to mind on the subject of community building is the nomadic life. Nomadic principles have been mentioned in [intlink id=”226″ type=”post”]previous[/intlink] posts. The next article will go into more detail about the importance of the nomadic stage in human communities. Some say nomadic principles lead to the truest, highest form of society. Perhaps the Occupy camps represent a nomadic beginning for America.

    See also:

    [intlink id=”658″ type=”post”]Wall Street Protesters Join the American Conversation[/intlink] and [intlink id=”802″ type=”post”]The Conversation with OWS[/intlink]

     

  • The central tendency and probably the major cause of error in modern religion is the determination to separate male and female and define them as superior or inferior in relation to each other. This is often called ‘difference’ rather than inferiority, but it usually results in disadvantages for women. Even today the Catholic Encyclopedia states that women are inferior to men. (See Catholic Encyclopedia, Newadvent.org, Article, ‘Women’)

    “The female sex is in some respects inferior to the male sex, both as regards body and soul.”

    Christian fathers, such as Tertullion condemned women for the part Eve played in the Garden of Eden. But he must have known that the first chapter of Genesis is actually an independent creation story, while the second and third chapters were written by a different author and speak of traditions that are not Hebrew. The first chapter was written by ‘P’ or the priestly source. The second chapter was written by ‘J’, the J standing for Jehovah. The J source tends to be more politically minded, which can be seen in the segments attributed to him.

    In the first chapter, Elohim created humans, male and female. But the second chapter actually tells of the birth of gods, or of the man-god.

    In verse 23,

    “Said the man, This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called Woman for she was taken from Man.”

    According to the Anchor Bible notes, Woman and Man are translated from ‘īš and ‘iššā. This assonance has no etymological basis in Hebrew. ((Speiser, E.A. “The Anchor Bible: Genesis”. Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1986))

    The Hebrews were persecuted by Isis,so it isn’t likely they would claim descent from her. This only makes sense if they were telling the history of their world, which included various people of that region and time period. It seems they were not speaking of themselves as an isolated entity.

    Some of the people in that region worshiped Adam as a god. Apparently the Greeks did because Luke, who wrote his gospel with the Greeks in mind, traced their lineage to Adam. This is in contrast to Matthew, who wrote for Palestinian Jews and traced their lineage to Abraham. As explained in The Community of Ancient Israel, genealogies establish identity as well as religious and political alliance. In our time they should serve to establish the identity of various people in the scriptures, but they are misunderstood and ignored.

    The story of Adam and Eve was not an allegory for human males and females. Yet, Christian theologians have claimed for two thousand years that we are all the children of Eve. Today this error is at the heart of Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

    See also:

    Adam, Noah and the Snake-king

    Nomads and City Dwellers: Institutions, Worldview

error: Content is protected !!