Amos's River of Justice

Category: Foundations

Unspoken questions wind their way through the national conversation. Where are we going? What can we expect in the future? Will we survive? How can we prepare? Anxiety is increased by omens in the sky and the weather. In myth and religion we hope to find promises and instructions. We hope to rediscover our foundations. But we also find lamentations. We are not children who deny the possibility of destruction and death. Not now. The worst is already upon us. We’ve seen families swept away in the flood and burned in the fire. Let’s face the future like wise men and women. Let’s sit down together like elders of the tribe. Let’s mourn what is lost and love what remains.

  • The State is Your Daddy

    Reading Time: 3 minutes

    It’s been my policy to ignore the Republicans. However, I feel I should say something about the government shutdown and the House tax bill. Since the Republicans control both houses of Congress I suspect that they actually want the shutdown to happen. Therefore, their threats represent a clear and present danger and must be stopped by force if necessary.

    As for the tax bill, I think it can be addressed on the basis of principle. It is important to be aware that certain ancient principles are still being honored today. The law of bridewealth is acknowledged in the Bible in a perverse way–in the changing of it. This takes place in the third chapter of Genesis.

    And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

    …Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to they husband and he shall rule over thee. (Genesis 3: 13, 16)

    I would argue that this story is justification for marriage without compensation. It suggests that marriage by default was always the norm, however there is evidence that the custom of bridewealth was practiced in the Old Testament. T.M. Lemos provides evidence of marriage gifts in the legal and narrative texts of the Bible, and in extrabiblical sources. Lemos also lists biblical references to marriage gifts other than bridewealth. Obviously, indebtedness to childbearing women is not admitted today but I believe it is acknowledged in the story of Adam and Eve. Please keep this in mind as we discuss the increase in the Child Tax Credit.

    The House Republican tax bill would increase the maximum Child Tax Credit (CTC) from the current $1,000 to $1,600 per child. However it would exclude 10 million children whose parents work for low pay—about 1 in 7 of all U.S. children in working families, including thousands of children in every state. Another 12 million children in working families would receive less than the full $600-per-child increase in the credit (in most cases much less). Altogether, about 1 in 3 children in working families would either be excluded entirely or only partially benefit from the CTC increase. In almost every state, 25 percent of children in working families would be partially or completely excluded. In 12 states, at least 40 percent would be excluded. If you include cuts to or elimination of 1 million immigrant children in low-income families, the total number comes to 23 million children.

    The credit is partially refundable. The refundable portion is limited to 15 percent of a family’s earnings over $3,000. So a single mother with two children and earnings of $10,000 is eligible for a CTC of $1,050 or $525 per child, rather than for the $2,000 ($1,000 per child) that a middle-income family with two children receives. The poorest children qualify for only a very small CTC or none at all.

    On the other hand, families with six-figure incomes would be made newly eligible for the credit or receive the largest CTC increases. The CTC of a married couple with two children earning $200,000 would rise from zero today to $3,200 under the plan.

    The Rubio-Lee proposal would help but it still falls short. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, Senators Sherrod Brown and Michael Bennet, and other lawmakers have also introduced improvements. They would improve the CTC proposal in the House tax bill but they would not touch the biggest shortcomings in the plan: its heavy tilt toward the highest-income households and profitable corporations, and its impact in substantially increasing budget deficits and debt. (Emily Horton Child Tax Credit Increase Excludes Thousands of Children, Available: https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/house-tax-bills-child-tax-credit-increase-excludes-thousands-of-children-in-low

    Rising deficits in turn would lead to increased pressure to make deep budget cuts in areas such as health care, food assistance for struggling families, and education – cuts that would fall heavily on low- and middle-income families and render them net losers, even if the plan’s CTC provisions are strengthened.

    “Overall, the House tax bill is heavily skewed toward high-income households and profitable corporations. When fully in effect, 38 percent of its benefits would go to the 0.3 percent of filers with annual incomes over $1 million…”

    Of course not even the full amount of the CTC will defray the costs of raising a child in the middle class. The Republicans seem to be counting on our ignorance of the principles involved here. I conclude that the central obligation in the resistance should belong to the parents of girls. Since the government seems to be playing the part of a spouse or in-law, I would also advise young women to cooperate with their parents to assure proper compensation from the government. I think this type of organization is a matter of self-defense under this regime.

    Maybe this will lead to a society in which Paul Ryan and his ilk cannot seduce women into having more children for a few pennies, and fill the coffers of the rich while denying those same women the entitlements they’ve paid for.

    See also: Emily Hales, Can government incentives reverse falling birth rates? Deseret news, June 27, 2014. Available: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865605862/Governments-use-incentives-to-counter-falling-fertility-rates.html

    Buttonwood, Political power follows economic power, The Economist, Feb 3, 2016. Available: https://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2016/02/economics-and-democracy

  • Humanity at the Crossroads

    Reading Time: < 1 minute

    I just read the New York Times article about the baby homes in Ireland. Patriarchal ‘morality’ creates a throwaway culture. It turns love to hatred, beauty to ugliness, and human kindness to cruelty. If we really want to make things better we have to let it go. [1]

    [1] Ireland wanted to forget but the dead don’t always stay buried New York Times, 10/28/2017 (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/28/world/europe/tuam-ireland-babies-children.html)

  • Irreconcilable Differences?

    Reading Time: < 1 minute

    We’re all aware of the conflict in the Catholic Church between those who want the Church to be more modern and those who want it to maintain traditional discipline and forms of worship. For those of us on the outside, the public comments have been so cryptic and contradictory it’s impossible to know which way it is headed. That’s probably why a recent news story on Crux Now took me by surprise. The writer congratulated the pro-life faction on the election of Donald Trump because Trump plans to cut funding to Family Planning. This was published shortly after the bombs were dropped on Syria and Afghanistan. Apparently the Church is fine with Trump’s military brutality even as it applauds his pro-life agenda. This is very disappointing.

    I’m sure you’ve heard the pro-life claim that protecting life in the womb will assure world peace. I would argue instead that the frantic determination to conquer the womb is the root cause of disorder in our society. For forty years conservatives in the United States have been using the abortion issue to attack our democracy. One of their most effective strategies has been electing presidents who will appoint Scalia-type justices to the Supreme Court. Now we can see where this has led us. Their persistent efforts have finally brought our republic to its knees.

  • This is How We Should Talk to Each Other

    Reading Time: < 1 minute

    Two Italian designers made a statement about gay marriage that turned out to be very controversial. However, I believe this is how we should talk to each other.

    Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana said in a recent interview that they oppose gay adoptions. They also oppose gay marriage. They believe ‘the only family is the traditional one’.

    Gabbana said, ”A child needs a mother and a father. I could not imagine my childhood without my mother. I also believe that it is cruel to take a baby away from its mother.”

    I wanted to share this story for two reasons: first because it demonstrates kindness and consideration for mothers; and second because it’s surprising that men are questioning whether gay men should be raising children together. I agree with this point of view.

  • It Depends on Your Definition of Tradition

    Reading Time: < 1 minute
    The birth control debate has focused on single women. However married couples depend on birth control more consistently than single people. I’d like to invite the legislators to include married women in the discussion.

    There is a disconnect in our understanding of sexual relations in marriage. We laugh about old television shows that depict married couples sleeping in twin beds because we think we know better. The implications of twin beds are lost to us because the control of fertility no longer depends on the control of sex.

    Many people are not aware that married couples once slept in separate bedrooms. They also may not be aware that there used to be biological and seasonal prohibitions on marital sex. Apparently, ancient people understood the importance of population control. Or was it that they still saw women as people?

    A decrease in marital sex is not what our legislators have in mind when they limit access to birth control. Their goal is a higher birthrate. These men may pose as defenders of tradition, but there is nothing traditional about what they are doing.

  • A Challenge to Politics As Usual

    Reading Time: 4 minutesIf we limit the conversation to what we can realistically do, our choices are limited. But if we’re talking theory, anything is possible. Since I’m in charge of my own theoretical world, I’ll offer some solutions. I’ll start with solutions to environmental problems. Any changes in politics and economics will be limited to what is necessary to the particular environmental goal. Finally, everything will be done with an eye to social effects.

    It’s been said we have 50 years to do something about the oceans. Every continent contributes to the problem of pollution, much of it from industrial farming, so ideally every country would have to participate. I propose dividing industrial farms, which also contribute to global warming, into smaller, sustainable operations. Start with the farms that drain into major river systems. This would decrease the amount of chemical fertilizers flowing into the ocean and begin to address the problem of dead zones.

    It would also create the potential for using these sustainable farms as the nucleus of a different kind of community. Such communities would have to develop over time as the underlying political theory is discovered, but they should be conceived as centers of a vibrant life—not oppressive sloughs of despair that the youth can’t wait to escape. They would have to offer opportunity; they would have to inspire and challenge all members.

    In the United States, we could consider creating another governing center in the middle of the country, specifically to serve this new type of grassroots community organization. This is not as a replacement for Washington—it could interact with Washington D.C. For example, it could facilitate the development of candidates for national office, as well as local delegates.

    The critics might say that if one country breaks up commercial farms it would cease to be competitive with other countries. Or if everyone does, we couldn’t feed the world. First, we don’t feed the world now. Second, this isn’t necessarily true. However, the first objection is important as an example of something that might work, but that can’t be tried because of outside pressure. The same thing happened in pre-war France. In a time of political and military turmoil, the French suddenly discovered that their birth rate was much lower than Germany and Great Britain. Then a series of European furniture exhibitions made them realize they were falling behind their neighbors in the decorative arts by limiting themselves to traditional French designs and methods.

    I think this illustrates that we have to develop criteria for healthy versus unhealthy competition. For example, it may have been healthy for the furniture makers to be challenged, while the manipulation of the birth rate for ideological, political, economic, or military reasons is unethical, undemocratic, and hazardous to the environment.

    What if we put limits on unhealthy competition? I’m not talking isolationism. I’m talking about the kind of limits that make it possible to solve domestic problems like dead zones in the ocean. Because of its social and environmental implications, we could start by eliminating the pro-natalist nonsense, followed by trade agreements—at least the worst aspects of them. The medieval guilds limited competition among their own members and it was effective until some hotshot broke the rules and ruined it for everyone else. This is the same idea only on a global scale.

    If you are screaming ‘Nooo!’ then maybe you don’t understand the seriousness of the world’s problems, or maybe you sense that your own privilege is being threatened. On the contrary, what we’re doing now is stupid and it threatens all of us. We are on a precipice and those responsible for it—ideologues who tell other people what to do and who have no intention of doing it themselves—look down their noses and demand to be told where all these needy people came from. In this way they prove they are unfit to wield authority of any kind, and yet there they remain.

    Iran has drained its lakes through climate change, dams, drought, and inefficient irrigation. ((Iran in Race to Save Largest Lake From Drying Up, Ali Akbar Dareini, Feb 20, 2014. The National World. Avaliable: http://www.thenational.ae/world/middle-east/iran-in-a-race-to-save-largest-lake-from-drying-up)) In parts of India, half the population is homeless. Half of India’s population defecates on the ground. Worse, even the feces that ends up in the sewage system is untreated. India is awash in antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Babies are born with these germs and they often can’t be cured. Further, the crowded conditions make it more likely they’ll pass on their infections. It should be no surprise that some of those germs are coming here. ((Harris Gardiner, Superbugs Kill India’s Babies and Pose Overseas threat, Dec. 3, 2014, New York Times. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/world/asia/superbugs-kill-indias-babies-and-pose-an-overseas-threat.html?src=me&module=Ribbon&version=origin&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Most%20Emailed&pgtype=article&_r=0)) And of course, there is evidence of America’s contribution to the problem, both from oil spills and farming, in the Gulf of Mexico.

    Women should be able to control their own fertility. In fact, the relationship between mother and child should be understood as the essential human relationship, and therefore as the basis of all other relationships. This would guard against artificiality and indifference in a community’s social relations.

    I’m aware that my solutions are radical but in my opinion, they don’t have much competition at this time. First, we have the Democrats who can’t seem to come to terms with the demise of Marxism. It’s not clear what they’re doing in this election cycle—maybe pretending to be different from the Republicans for the sake of appearances. As for the Republicans, they are becoming famous for serving shady interest rather than the interests of their own people. Incredibly, they don’t even try to hide it any more. But it’s probably remarkable that either party can still come up with a coherent platform at all. Both are operating on old ideas that were never established on firm ground in the first place so it shouldn’t be surprising that they function more like political religions than rational approaches to the world’s problems.

  • Free Dorothy Lee Barnett

    Reading Time: 3 minutesFebruary 22, 2014

    In this this article, I had two aims: to illustrate a principle about women and custody; and to help this woman avoid prison.  I’m still of the same mind, but I wish I hadn’t combined Barnett’s story with the source about battered women.  The source does describe what happens to women like Dorothy Lee Barnett in the courts, but it doesn’t fit Barnett’s case exactly, so I’ve deleted it. We shouldn’t demonize people who make mistakes. The culprits here are the court system and the judges, who should know better.   Family courts are influenced by the men who run Fatherhood Initiatives.  These men are also responsible.

    Dorothy Lee Barnett is awaiting trial for extradition to the United States. She is charged with kidnapping her own daughter from her estranged stockbroker ex-spouse. Almost two decades ago, her ex won sole custody, even though the child was only nine months old and still nursing at the time. She felt the child was in danger, so she took her out of the country. If extradited, she faces up to 23 years in prison. I just signed the petition “US Attorney Office in Columbia: Free Dorothy Lee Barnett – Mother of Savanna Todd” on Change.org.

    It’s important. Will you sign it too? Here’s the link:((http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/us-attorney-office-in-columbia-free-dorothy-lee-barnett-mother-of-savanna-todd))

    Updated, Feb. 20, 2014:

    Here’s the post of a signer of this petition, Bruce Michell of Australia:

    Dorothy Lee Barnett was let down by people within the system.  During her trial she was subjected to abuse and vilification, and the judge neglected, failed and refused to file his orders into court within the mandated 30 days and in fact did not file for 75 days.  During that period, and without the signed order, Lee was unable to appeal and was effectively locked out of the legal process which should be everyone’s right to access.  The evidence accepted by the judge upon which he wrote a scathing decision was in the main, based on the uncorroborated word of the father.  She was castigated as an untruthful person for denying that she had a mental disorder and all evidence supporting her and contradicting the father, was suppressed.  There is such a gulf between the evidence and the final order, coupled with the misconduct of the judge, that the influence of the father, his attorney and the Guardian ad Litem must be considered suspect and should be the subject of a proper investigation by the authorities.

    On the second visitation after the father had custody, whilst the judge had not filed the orders, the baby was injured whilst in the care of the father.  The injuries were consistent with those described by the father in his ‘autobiography’ during the hearing where he wrote that it was “OK to kick a baby in the face.”  Lee was extremely fearful for her baby given those circumstances, but could not appeal, given the lack of a signed order.  Lee waited another 6 weeks after this incident but still the judge refused to file the order.

    Locked out of the legal system, fearing for the safety of her baby she obeyed the fundamental law of humankind which was to flee to safety.

    These events are recorded in the chronology and the details are contained in the trial transcripts.  Lee was terrified of the power and influence of this man and remains that way today.  If he and his cohorts could influence a judge and subvert the judicial system, then the system of justice in South Carolina was corrupt and it is reasonable to question whether that power and influence still remains today.

    It seems that Barry Goldstein may have been too kind when he said the family courts were making mistakes.  It seems this judge was acting deliberately.  This is his own responsibility.

    Original Article:

    We recognize what Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote from a Birmingham jail as sound principle because it’s in our Declaration of Independence. “…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…,”

    In King’s words:

    “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” ((Martin Luther King, Jr. Letter from a Birmingham Jail. April 16, 1963, African Studies Center, University of Pennsylvania.))

    Child custody law is broken, and American family courts are perpetuating injustice. Both mothers and their children suffer from this injustice, but it is the children who are in danger. Watch the video from the APN Newsdesk.((http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/mother-facing-years-jail-over-kidnapping-daughter/2153734/))

     

  • Reproductive Rights & Female Status

    Reading Time: 4 minutesThe dialogue about women has not been flattering lately. Officially, it’s centered around reproductive rights, but in between the lines the brutal tactics convey something else. Most recently we’ve been confronted with callous hospital policy. One hospital risks a mother’s death from complications of pregnancy. The other keeps a dead woman on life support against her wishes. Supposedly the abortion debate is about protecting life, however these extreme cases represent a clear statement of low female status. How did it come to this?

    Status is the value of one person in relation to another. There is evidence that female status was high at one time. The belief in the gigantic size of the Amazons was probably based on a misunderstanding—they were depicted that way to indicate high status. By contrast, pictures of Hindu gods with their consorts, indicate low status for females.

    From Moor's Hindu Pantheon
    Vishnu & Lakshmi on Sesha or Ananta

    Unfortunately, because hospital policy is premised on the absolute equality of a woman’s life with the life of her fetus, women in the United States would have to be drawn no taller than a man’s ankle. This doesn’t seem consistent with our ideals, but we don’t realize what it means when the issue of status is built into the world’s three main religions. The Bible wastes no time in ranking the first two humans in relation to each other.

    We don’t know what factors were behind the high status of the Amazons. However, there is evidence in the custom of bride wealth that it had something to do with the female role in procreation. Defenders of patriarchy claim that this changed after the discovery of the male’s part in conception. However, that’s not supported by the evidence. In any case, the male part is minuscule compared to the female part, and this was recognized in the custom of bridewealth.

    The value of the female role in procreation can be framed in the form of a cost analysis. Costs to the female include physical hazards as well as the time required for each pregnancy—9 months, not counting 2 or more years of breast feeding. Costs to males are non-existent.

    Consider also what bridewealth says about the value of females to their families. Bridewealth was a form of compensation to the bride’s family, especially to her mother, for the loss of her companionship and help. it was also compensation to the bride’s parents for the loss of her offspring. If not for the payment of bridewealth, her children would keep their name and remain with them.

    It was not the discovery of the male role in procreation that began the loss of female status. It was a philosophical attack on the relative contribution of the female. We know that Aristotle asserted the superior contribution of the male in the creation of life, and much later, Aquinas concurred. They claimed the father was the active agent and that the man’s sperm and the physical motion of intercourse ‘organized’ the lifeless matter in the menstrual blood. Further, both Aristotle and Aquinas said the ‘sensitive soul’ was entirely produced by the male. The semen is an instrumental cause, while the soul of the male parent is the principal cause.

    Aquinas added to Aristotle’s scheme by saying that the human soul was directly created by God. Nevertheless, he didn’t alter the superiority of the male’s contribution over the female’s. Theologians in the Middle Ages thought the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks.

    Later, Thomas Fieinus (1567-1631) argued that the soul is present from conception. The development of the fetus consists of successively emergent functions attributable to a single original principle brought to life by the motion of intercourse. Following Fieinus, Paulo Zacchia (1584-1659) argued that the soul which organizes the development of the ‘conceptus’ is internal to it.

    Finally, an 1879 article, Aquinas on Human Ensoulment, Abortion and the Value of Life, argued that the principle of formative development is ‘immanent’

    With the development of embryology, you might think the female role would be vindicated, but that was never in the cards. On the contrary, the fetus is now said to be a separate individual whose right to life rivals the mother’s.

    But what about the physical costs of each pregnancy? They can’t explain that away, can they? You will recall that in Eve’s case, marriage was a punishment, and according to Christianity, there is no value attributed to the female for her role in procreation. At best, it might redeem her from her wretched state! The strange thing is that we see the practice of bride wealth, or rather bride service, in the Old Testament. Jacob worked 7 years for each of his wives. Jacob and Adam seem to represent two entirely different cultures.

    We can’t improve things for women if we don’t understand the problem. The female role in procreation was the basis of female status, but the protections and privileges associated with it have been systematically removed.

    The President is currently talking about higher wages for certain groups of people. This would be an improvement, but the lower wage paid to women is a special case. It is a conscious statement of lower status. On the other hand, if you think that your becoming a priest will improve the status of women, you don’t understand your own religion. And the abortion debate? It’s simply the effort to close the last loophole available to the world’s perennial subject class. In the process, its extreme nature masks the attack on female status. Those who are fighting Roe v. Wade may not realize how this draws women into the debate who would never consider an abortion for themselves.

  • Onan and the Patriarchal Agenda

    Reading Time: 8 minutesThis issue of women’s rights is at the center of any serious discussion about political reform. It can be argued that women’s rights are synonymous with human rights, or that the repression of women is the foundation of all repression. Every repressive regime in the world has developed a rationale for limiting the freedom of women. Onan and the patriarchal agenda demonstrates this trend.

    In this article, I will show how the biblical story of Onan is used to justify a patriarchal agenda and the repression of women’s rights. We will also see how it remains so powerful after all this time.

    Society Treats the Patriarchal Agenda as Proper

    Even though there is clear evidence of this effort, powerful influences make women’s rights look like a peripheral issue. Systems of male rule are bound up with religion and treated as proper, inevitable, even moral. In addition, they are sustained by claims to great antiquity. For example, until the eighteenth century, educated classes in Europe and the United States believed that Abraham established the patriarchal order.  Believers were told that Abraham’s descendants carried it forward until it radiated from the temple of Solomon to the rest of the world.

    Confronting These Ideas is a Necessity

    I based my suggestion for self-governing, matrilineal communities on a pre-patriarchal model of society. I am aware that revolutionary change is improbable. However, it is a waste of time to talk about reform without confronting the ideas that have made reform necessary. I will use the matrilineal model to identify the principles that lead to strong families and communities. I will also call into question the dogmas that obscure these principles.

    The Withdrawal Method of Birth Control Was Condemned by Onan and the Patriarchal Agenda

    We haven’t yet had the discussion of Christianity that it deserves. We’ve talked about its Hermeticism and the ‘heretical’ teachings of some sects, like the Dispensationalists. But we were analyzing their influence on current events. Now we’ll talk about the historical effects.

    Misrepresenting the Religion of Israel and Christianity

    In this post I want to expand on another troubling tendency that I have already mentioned, the tendency to disguise unrelated ideas as the religion of Israel. Here, we will discuss the Biblical story of Onan, the son of Judah, in greater detail. Onan married his sister-in-law Tamar, but instead of fathering a child with her, he practiced the withdrawal method of birth control. The Bible says Yahweh killed Onan Onan for spilling his seed on the ground.

    The Quiverfull Movement

    This story is especially relevant today because of the Quiverfull movement. Quiverfull is the vanguard movement of America’s pronatalist agenda. It rejects any form of birth control including the withdrawal method, which they call Onanism.

    Judah and Tamar

    We first meet Onan in the account of Judah and Tamar, in Genesis 38: 1-30. In this story, Judah left the family to go and live in the Canaanite lowlands to the West.This happened immediately after Joseph was sold into slavery.

    At about that time, Judah parted from his brothers and put in with a certain Adullamite named Hirah.

    There Judah met the daughter of a Canaanite named Shua, and he married her and cohabited with her.

    She conceived and bore a son, who was named Er.

    She conceived again and bore a son, whom she named Onan.

    Then she bore still another son, whom she named Shelah; they were at Chezib when she bore him.

    Judah got a wife for his first-born Er, and her name was Tamar.

    but Er, Judah’s first-born displeased Yahweh, and Yahweh took his life.

    Then Judah said to Onan, “Unite with your brother’s widow, fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law, and thus maintain your brother’s line.”

    But Onan, knowing that the seed would not count as his, let it go to waste on the ground every time that he cohabited with his brother’s widow, so as not to contribute offspring for his brother.

    What he did displeased Yahweh, and he took his life too.

    Whereupon Judah said to his daughter-in-law, “Stay as widow in your father’s house until my son Shelah grows up” –for he feared that this one also might die like his brothers. So Tamar went to live in her father’s house.

    A long time afterward, Judah’s wife, the daughter of Shua, died. When the period of sorrow was over, Judah went to Timnah for the shearing of his sheep, in the company of his friend Hirah the Adullamite.

    When Tamar was told, “Your father-in-law is on his way to Timnah for the sheep-shearing,” she took off her widow’s garb, wrapped a veil about her to disguise herself, and sat down at the entrance to Enaim, which is on the way to Timnah; for she saw that, although Shelah was grown up, she had not been given to him in marriage.

    When Judah saw her, he took her for a harlot, since she had covered her face.

    So he turned aside to her by the roadside, and said, “See now, let me lie with you” –not realizing that she was his daughter-in-law. She answered, “What will you pay me for lying with me?”

    He replied, “I will send you a kid from my flock.” but she answered, “you will have to leave a pledge until such time as you send it.”

    He asked, “What pledge shall I leave you?” She answered, “your seal-and-cord, and the staff you carry.” So he gave them to her, and lay with her, and she conceived by him.

    She left soon, took off her veil, and resumed her widow’s garb.

    Judah sent the kid by his friend the Adullamite to redeem the pledge from the woman, but he could not find her.

    He inquired of the men of that place, “Where is the votary, the one by the Enaim road?” They answered, “there has never been here a votary!”

    So he went back to Judah and said to him, “I couldn’t find her. What is more, the townspeople told me, ‘there has never been here a votary.”

    And Judah replied, “Let her keep the things, or we shall become a laughingstock. I did my part in sending her the kid, but you never found her.”

    About three months later, Judah was told, “Your daughter-in-law has played the harlot; moreover, she is with child from harlotry.” “Bring her out,” Judah shouted, “and she shall be burned!”

    As they were taking her out, she sent word to her father-in-law, “It is by the man to whom these things belong that I am with child. Please verify,” she said, “to whom these things belong–the seal-and-cord and the staff!”

    Judah recognized them, and said, “she is more in the right than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah.” Nor was he intimate with her again.

    Bible Writers May Have Inserted Onan’s Patriarchal Agenda

    There are several problems with this story, but the most obvious one would be the portrayal of Levirate marriage. According to Yaffa Eliach, Levirate marriage simply didn’t work that way. The obligation to remarry belonged to the widow. This obligation was taken quite seriously and there were legal ramifications if she breached it.

    The woman was obliged to remarry, but her brother-in-law could release her from her obligation to him. He could do this by giving her a legal document relinquishing his claim. 1

    Yet, in this story we have Tamar mooning over Judah’s ‘seed’. It’s as though she knows it represents a royal line, or these are the last men left on earth.

    What Can the Institution of Levirate Marriage Tell Us?

    It seems to me that if Levirate marriage obligated the widow rather than her brother-in-law there was a different dynamic than what we see in this story. It’s more likely that it was part of the custom of matrilineal inheritance and/or bridewealth.

    The Bible does not provide detailed information about Israelite customs in this matter. But according to Roland de Vaux, among the Israelites, the mohar was a sum paid by the groom to the bride’s family as compensation for the loss of their daughter. The bride’s father could use the profits from this payment, but the principal reverted to her at the time of ‘succession’, or her husband’s death. (This explains why Rachel and Leah complained in Genesis 31:15 that their father, Laban, ‘devoured’ their money after having ‘sold’ them. Apparently he used the principal of the mohar, rather than holding it in trust for his daughters.)

    The Palestinian Arabs, Babylonians, Assyrians, and the Jewish Colony of Elephantine Had a Similar Custom

    The Palestinian Arabs of today have a similar custom, the makr, and part of it goes to the bride’s trousseau. In Babylonian law, the tirhatu was paid to the girl’s father, and was administered by him. It reverted to her if she was widowed, or to her children after her death. In Assyria, the tirhani was given to the girl herself. There was a parallel in the Jewish colony of Elephantine, where the mohat was paid to the girl’s father, but was counted among her possessions.

    In Israel, parents might give their daughter gifts after her wedding, and these were considered her property. In Babylon, the father gave his daughter presents that belonged to her in her own right. But while she was married, her husband had the use of them. They reverted to her if she was widowed or divorced, without fault on her part. Assyrian law has similar provisions. 2

    You could argue that under such a system the groom’s family would have stood to lose their investment in the marriage if their son died prematurely. They would also lose any benefits that accrued from the bride’s property while the marriage lasted. Levirate marriage would protect this investment.

    This would explain why it was the man’s right to release the woman from this obligation and not the other way around. It also makes nonsense of Onan’s stated motive. He should have given Tamar a letter releasing her from her obligation.

    Onan’s Supposed Motivation is All Wrong

    Of course, the story doesn’t attribute monetary concerns to Onan. It says he was reluctant to ‘raise seed to his brother.’ In my opinion, this presents its own difficulties. It seems to me that It implies either non-Hebrew religious beliefs or a non-Hebrew political organization. The following is my own speculation.

    The belief that one could raise seed to a deceased brother is consistent with the belief in a fully functional afterlife. Unfortunately, the Hebrews didn’t have such a belief at that time.

    But perhaps Onan’s reluctance had a more worldly aspiration–he wanted to be the father of a dynasty. If that’s the case, he would have resented the fact that the royal line would be attributed to his brother. Again, the Hebrews didn’t have kings in this period, not to mention dynastic succession.

    Perhaps We’re Looking at a Matrilineal System in Disguise

    On the contrary, the modes of inheritance mentioned above indicate a matrilineal system, although it takes a rare scholar to admit this. It is customary to call such an inheritance a gift, but property belonged to the woman in her own right.

    It also follows that any ‘seed’ would have belonged to Tamar’s line, regardless of who the father was. Tamar’s seed would only belong to her husband’s line if  bridewealth was paid to her father’s family.

    Did the Bible’s ‘J’ Author Use This Story to Trace a Lineage for King David?

    According to the Anchor Bible, this episode was written by the Bible’s ‘J’ author, who wanted to trace the lineage of King David from the tribe of Judah. Unfortunately, the Judah of this story doesn’t match Judah, the brother of Joseph. This Judah stays in Canaan long enough for his three sons to reach manhood, but when the story of Joseph resumes there has been no corresponding passage of time and Judah is still living with Jacob’s family. 3

    Conclusion

    I conclude that the story of Onan is suspect. Perhaps it was never anything more than pro-patriarchy, pronatalist propaganda. After all, that is how it is used today. This isn’t the first time we have seen a ruling class agenda in the Bible and, as usual, it hinges on the subjection of women–especially of their reproductive potential.

    Compare Moor’s Hindu Pantheon

    Recently, I found corroboration in Moor’s Hindu Pantheon for my theory that the story of Onan is an Indo-European idea.

    “To the four deities of purification, Maruta, Indra, Vrihaspati, and Agni, goes all the divine light, which the Veda had imparted, from the student who commits the foul sin avacirna.”–Ib. v. 122.

    According to this source, avacirna is a term for anyone who commits the sin of Onanism. The offender must follow specific instructions to expiate this sin.

    “…sacrifice a black or a one-eyed ass, by way of a meat offering to Nirriti, patroness of the south-west, by night, in a place where four ways meet….Let him daily offer to her in fire the fat of that ass; and, at the close of the ceremony let him offer clarified butter, with the holy text Sem, and so forth, to Pavana, to Indra, to Vrihaspati, and to Agni, regent of wind, clouds, a planet, and fire.”–Ins. of Menu, Chap. XI. verses 119, 120.

    The imposition of patriarchy on the world is still blamed on Israel. This is not surprising considering the effort that has gone into making it appear that way. The biblical story of Onan is not evidence for a patriarchal system in Israel. It is only evidence that the ruling class has no shame.

  • Nadya Suleman and the Dark Side of Reality

    Reading Time: 4 minutesNadya 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.

error: Content is protected !!