Historians dismiss the Moses story as pure myth. Abraham story could
be just a fairy tale cooked up by the jewish priests.
http://www.geocities.com/hammihanirani/articles/abrahamdem.html
On the Myth of Abraham and Democracy
By Dr. Masoud Kazemzadeh
Democracy is a relatively new system of government for humanity. Except for the
brief existence of democracy in Greek city-states some 2,400 years ago, we have
not seen the existence of democracy in any country. The rise of democracy can
be traced to the process of enlightenment and the undermining of the absolutist
ideas in Europe. The rise of Christianity in 3rd century Roman empire had
destroyed any vestige of democratic and republican system of rule. Both the
Holy Roman Empire and the subsequent monarchies were dictatorial. The only
partial exception was the English in which the existence of a powerful and
well-established landed feudal aristocracy was able since 1215 to restrain the
absolute power of the king.
Democracy and freedom require many things. Obviously, a system of government in
which the people freely elect all the leaders is of prime significance. In
addition, there are mores, ethos and other values among the population that
SUSTAINS democracy and freedom. In other words, there have been many instances
of a democratic system having been established but the democratic system was
not able to CONSOLIDATE.
One of the factors that functions as a foundation for the consolidation of
democracy is the relationship between the people and the leadership. There are
2 main ethos.
1. Absolutism.
2. Pluralism.
1. Absolutist ethos is based on BLIND OBEDIENCE.
2. Pluralist ethos is based on human reason, relativity of truth, and the
acceptance of diversity of perspectives.
1. When the people are socialized to blindly follow the leadership, the
followers of the leader blindly follow leader A. Obviously, sooner or later
leader A makes mistakes. The existence and prevalence of the ethos of BLIND
OBEDIENCE gives rise to absolutist challengers to leader A. The opponent of
leader A, called leader B claims that leader A had it all wrong. That if only
people blindly followed him, then everything would be perfect. This is how one
king, or religious leader replaced another in the past 2 thousand years in much
of the world.
2. In the past 300 years, there has been the rise of enlightenment in Europe.
The enlightenment embraced several ethos borrowed from ancient Greeks and
Romans and the notion of human rights from the Kurush.
In this essay, I write MY views on the underlying myth of Abraham and how this
myth has been the foundation of blind obedience for the past 2000 years giving
rise to the absolutist systems of governance in Europe, and the Middle East.
In the Old Testament (Torah), there is the story of Abraham. Abraham could not
have a child. So God gave Abraham a son. The son's name is Isaac. In the myth
of Abraham, God to test the faith and fidelity of Abraham tells him to prove
that Abraham loves and obey's God, Abraham has to cut the throat of his only
son, Isaac. Then Abraham places his toddler son on a thing like a table and
puts the sharp knife to cut the throat of his son. At the last second, God
tells him to stop.
This myth from Jewish religion has been placed at the center of Islam. Haj is
one of the five pillars of Islam. ALL the pilgrims have to go through and act
step by step what Abraham had done. The pilgrim walk round the kaaba (the House
of Abraham), (and some go to zam zam fountain which is another historical
mythical place in Judaism and Islam). Then the pilgrims have to CUT THE THROAT
OF A SHEEP in the manner that Abraham had to cut the throat of his only son.
A. WHAT is the goal (or moral, or purpose) of the myth of Abraham?
B. WHO benefits from propagating the myth of Abraham?
C. What sort of LEADERSHIP benefits from socializing the masses through this
myth?
Answers:
A. Those who write these myths initially were the Jewish rabbis. Obviously,
this myth was soooooo useful and powerful tool for socializing the masses that
both Christianity and Islam also adopted it. Islam in fact raised this myth to
a central socializing story. Those who wrote this myth had a purpose. What is
that PURPOSE or GOAL of the myth makers?
Clearly, the myth tells that individuals confront situations that they do no
understand. They HAVE to BLINDLY OBEY those in the positions of POWER.
Individuals may not understand the reasons why they are told to go to war and
sacrifice their lives. The myth says that one should suspend his/her reason,
love of children and BLINDLY OBEY the source of authority.
Obviously, Abraham could have used his brain and ask God for an explanation.
Either God could give Abraham a good reason why he should cut the throat of his
son. But here the GOAL of the myth of Abraham is to tell the people NOT to
QUESTION those in authority.
Leaders find this myth sooooo useful that they still after 2000 year socialize
the children with this myth.
Every totalitarian dictator in the Middle East loves this myth. Wether the king
(the divine right of king in Iran mohebat-e Elahi), or religious leader claims
that God has appointed him to rule over his flock.
ALL dictatorial leaders want their supporters to BLINDLY OBEY them. Whether it
is Mohammad Reza Shah, Khomeini, Khamanehi (velayat motlagh faghih), or Massud
Rajavi, they ask their supporters to obey them blindly and not to question
their authority.
In conclusion these are the answers:
A. the moral (or the goal, or the purpose) of the myth is that BLIND OBEDIENCE
is GOOD, questioning and skepticism, and using one's brain is BAD. Follow the
LEADER, do not question the wisdom of the LEADER.
B. Those DICTATORIAL LEADERS who do not have reason and logic on their side
benefit from this myth.
C. The DICTATORIAL leaders and those leaders who do not have logic on their
side benefit from this myth.
In other words, absolute dictatorship, absolute truths, absolute morality, and
blind obedience are values that go together. They are spokes in a wheel that
keep the tire attacked to an absolute dictatorial ruler.
The myth of Abraham is embraced by those in power AND for those totalitarian
leaders who want to replace one form of dictatorship with another form of
dictatorship.
2. What sort of ethos is compatible with freedom and democracy.
Freedom is always for those who think differently. Freedom is the ability to
say and write something that those in power do not like to hear. Freedom rests
on the foundation of doubt and skepticism. We are seldom certain of what the
truth is, therefore we should allow ALL perspectives to be heard. Progress is
always achieved when someone said things that had not been said before. Out
knowledge is relative. There are very few things that are absolutely true. No
one knows the absolute truth. We all have to use our brain to evaluate what we
are told. We have to use REASON, LOVE, LOGIC, evidence before we accept to do
this thing or that thing.
Democracy means that the particular person in power is there temporarily until
the people change him/her with another person. Democracy is a system in which
the power is in the hands of the people. In a democracy, there is no such a
thing as leadership for life or for a historical period. Democracy is a not a
perfect system of government, because there is no such a thing as perfect
system of government. We are all human beings and we ALL have made mistakes and
WILL make mistakes in the future. There is no panacea. We could only gradually
muddle through. Through trial and error, we gradually learn what works and what
does not. As situations and circumstances change, the older solutions become
useless and the process of finding better solutions starts again.
We could and should try to make our situation better. We could not bring
absolute harmony and absolute solutions. Those who think that they have the
lock on absolute truth are simply mistaken.
If we want to see freedom and democracy in Iran, we should move away from BLIND
OBEDIENCE (of the Shah, Khamanehi, Massud Rajavi). We should move away from
absolute morality, absolute truths.
This is not to say that we are not absolutely certain of anything. No the
absolute relativism of the post-modernists is wrong. We do know absolutely that
the earth is not flat. We do know that killing an innocent child is wrong. Not
all explanations are equally valid. There are good and bad explanations.
However, the criteria for judging is our mind, our rationality, our science,
our logic. A bit of skepticism is good. A whole lot of reason is imperative.
In conclusion, what sort of ethos is coterminous with freedom and democracy? We
should reject BLIND OBEDIENCE, we should reject ABSOLUTE morality.
Obviously, there is a need for leadership. The DEMOCRATIC leadership is 100%
different than a DICTATORIAL leadership. A democratic leadership is OPEN to
CRITICISM. A DICTATORIAL leadership closes off the avenues of criticism. A
democratic leadership is open to a plurality of views and there is a REAL
competition for leadership positions at ALL levels. A dictatorial leader
selects and promotes those in the party which are yes men and women and
chaploos.
Our history is full of one dictatorial group and person opposing another
dictatorial ruler. If we are to break this cycle of one dictator replacing
another dictator, we need to change the ethos and values that give rise to
dictatorial and totalitarian leadership and goosfand-like supporters. We have
to learn to use our brain. We have to learn to stand up for the rights of those
with whom we differ. We have to stand up to ALL dictatorial groups and leaders.
Democracy is not replacing one dictatorial leader whom we hate with one
dictatorial leader whom we like. Democracy is a system in which the PEOPLE
FREELY choose the leaders in frequent intervals. Democracy presupposes freedom
of all parties, individuals, to freely compete for all positions of power.
Freedom of thought presupposes that all parties are allowed to compete
unhindered. It is the people who after hearing and listening to all sides may
vote for any one that they want.
BLIND OBEDIENCE is the enemy of free thought. BLIND OBEDIENCE is the enemy of
reason. BLIND OBEDIENCE to any leader is supporting a dictator. BLIND OBEDIENCE
is the father of totalitarianism and dictatorship. It is no accident that
Stalin had suppressed many of the works of Marx. Once a group of French workers
who had read the Communist Manifesto went to Marx and gave him a list of 10 or
so positions and proposed to him that they were establishing a party with the
ideology of "MARXISM." Karl Marx looked at the 10 demands that were accurately
taken out of Communist Manifesto. He thought for a second or two, and replied:
"j'n se pas Marxist." [I am not a Marxist]. For Marx, liberation was not a
bunch of people following a set platform and following a leader. For Marx,
socialism was a society where the workers themselves would rule the society.
Marx may have been wrong in assuming that the workers themselves through
un-mediated role of the politicians and
leaders could directly control the means of production and the running of the
society. But Marx was right in the sense that placing him [Marx] as the sole
ruler of a society would not be liberation, for workers were replacing one
overlord (the capitalist) with another overlord. Liberation may occurs when the
people themselves run their lives. Marx had assumed that it could be done
without the mediation of a democratic state. In hindsight, we see that
democracy could exist although through a REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM.
The actual history of the world has illustrated that if we want to develop
politically, economically, socially, we have to open our eyes and learn from
the achievements and failures of others. If we do not want to replace one form
of dictatorship with another, we have to have the courage to stand up to all
those who demand BLIND OBEDIENCE. We have to use our mind, and ask for logical
explanations. We have to ask for freedom and democracy inside political parties
as well as outside political parties.
Democracy requires that we accept the rights of others to hold different views,
perspectives, analysis and tactics. The acceptance of plurality of views is a
requirement of democracy. We should avoid character assassinations of those
merely because they hold a different perspective than one's own. Democracy is
based on the agreement that political differences be resolved peacefully and
through going to the people for THEIR votes. This as I mentioned earlier
requires respect for the freedom of others to hold opposing viewpoints and
ideologies.
--- On Tue, 10/20/09, TurquoiseB <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: R.Crumb on Genesis
Date: Tuesday, October 20, 2009, 4:37 AM
First, I get the feeling you didn't notice
that the story/illustration of Abraham and
Issac was only the first of several such
illustrations. There are more. Click the
buttons in the upper right.
Second, it's important IMO to remember that
this isn't Robert's story -- it is the literal
text of the Book Of Genesis...the "Word Of God"
if you prefer.
The interesting thing about the story of Issac
and Abraham is that it's not only about faith,
it's about the *prioritization* of faith.
Abraham, like you, loves his son. On the other
hand, he is under the impression that God not
only talks to him personally, but *when* he
talks to him, has told him in no uncertain
terms to slaughter his own son like a cow and
roast him up like he was the main dish at the
annual Temple barbeque.
So what's a "person of faith" to do? Do you go
with your gut and your intuition and your natural
love for your own son, or do you go with the
belief that you are, in fact, talking to such
a being as "God," and that being is telling you
to do something unimaginable and horrific?
Abraham obviously goes for Door Number Two. He
decides that his "inner vision" (which arguably
could be pure delusion) is more important than
society's laws, or than his own love for his own
son. He has *no problem* butchering up his own
kid and turning him into a crispy critter offer-
ing to God.
In the original story, he is stopped before he
does it, and God tells him that it was all just
a "test of faith." He says to Abraham, "Do not
reach out your hand against the lad, and do
nothing to him. For now I know that you *FEAR
GOD*, and you have not held back your only son
from *ME*."
So what are we to make of this story? God turns
out not to be a slaughterer of young children,
merely an egotistical sadist. He does all of
this just to find out whether Abraham FEARS
him enough.
How many people do you know in spiritual pursuits
who would do the same thing that Abraham did if
their "inner visions" told them to? Sadly, I know
quite a few. I used to know one guy in the TMO
who said often that he would kill anyone Maharishi
told him to kill, because that would be the way of
dharma and the will of Nature.
I think they come from people who are so attached
to their subjective experiences and beliefs that
they are willing to prioritize them over common
sense and intuition and the laws of society and
instead commit atrocities in the name of their
"spirituality. "
This story is timeless because we see it around us
every day. Guys who oppose abortion blow up clinics
and kill doctors in the name of God. Suicide bombers
do the same thing.
Which is probably why so many Jews felt that Jesus
was a breath of fresh air compared to the heavy-
handed stuff they read in their scriptures.
Robert decided to illustrate these stories because
they are ageless. We see the same stories around
us every day, and in our headlines.
