Chronic Disrespect (Part 2)

By David Spry

Continued from Part 1

The supposed status of the warrior male in the modern world is not the product of a balanced assessment of the human condition, but is rather the result of the deliberately biased teaching of men and boys in order to perpetuate male dominance.

Frequently accepted social beliefs about equality, or the lack of it, and the supposedly true natures of men and women need to be examined in the context of more than two millennia of unbalanced teachings that had a deliberate intention of exploiting and subjugating women.

As an example, some of the writings in the Bible attributable to Saul of Tarsus, when viewed objectively and analytically, are clearly tenets of patriarchal social engineering expressed by a politician intending to reinforce the subjugation of women. Their appearance in a book that some people believe to be special does not change their essential character.

The intention to advance the status of men over women is clear in many texts throughout the Bible and it is worthwhile looking for the origins of this intention.

The Abrahamic religions did not emerge from a vacuum. Much came before, and some Bible stories have their origins in far more ancient writings than the Judaic ones, and are from other cultures – the content of the bible is not drawn from a single source – it is a much edited amalgam.

Of particular relevance to the patriarchal approach, and the assertion of man’s superiority to women, is the history of the Abrahamic deity. Before his assertion as the only god, he was part of a pantheon of gods and goddesses where he was the god of War and Weather and for a significant period it was believed that he had a consort/partner/equal whose status was believed to be equivalent to his.

This goddess was called Asherah. She was widely worshipped throughout the region and amongst a number of races including the Abrahamic people, and there is strong evidence to support her historical and religious existence and worship going back beyond the 9th Century BCE. She had a long history dating back through many centuries and she represented fertility, childbirth and motherhood. She was also associated with sacred trees which are thought to have been a focus of worship. She is mentioned 40 times in the Hebrew bible, but the Christian bible decided on more oblique references. The St. James translation almost completely expunged clear references to her, however, she may be the one referred to as the Queen of Heaven.

Despite the aims of the patriarchal promoters, the significance of Asherah could not be easily dismissed, as she had a significant history in the pantheon of their gods, having even been said, at an earlier time, to be the mother of Yahweh and later to be his consort. She was worshipped alongside Yahweh. A recent archaeological discovery revealed writing that is generally held to read, “Yahweh and his Asherah”. Asherah was important and relevant in the history of the region as she represented the sacred female and emphasised the importance of women. Her removal from the structure of their culture was the work of patriarchal men seeking dominance and the removal of the concept of the sacred female.

However, was it simply going too far to totally dismiss a deity that some still believed had some relevance and who continued to receive devotion and worship?

Her role was not diminished until the desire developed politically and in religious administration for a single male deity to direct a male dominated society. There are even records of leaders and priests, aggressively asserting the status of Y/Yahweh/J/Jehovah, by attacking Asherah’s place of worship, cutting down the tree that was sacred to her and then dragging that tree to their temple, where they burnt it. The forty references to Asherah in the Hebrew bible are negative because, in the view of the authors, recognition of her as Yahweh’s consort demeaned the status of Yahweh. These were men seeking dominance over women and avoidance of the significance of the status previously accorded to the female.

The assertions in the Bible that Y/J was the only true god take on a different complexion when the activities of the priests of Y/J are considered.

The biblical admonition against idols or graven images takes on a different significance when it is seen as a tool to undermine the worship of other deities that used to sit alongside what became Judaism.

What is also significant in putting the Abrahamic religions in the full human context is that the focused assertion that Y/J was the only god did not occur until after the fall of Jerusalem in 587/586 BCE and the banishment to Babylon. On their return 50 years later, the surviving tribal members had to rebuild their cultural identity, confirm a history that affirmed their status and they chose a patriarchal and monotheist one.

Does a set of teachings that came so late to the so-called cradle of civilization really have the authority to dictate the lives of human beings and to influence behaviour today?

Much has been asserted, particularly in recent years, about a need to respect “Faith” and a supposed duty of everyone to not demean it. But extending freedoms to people that allows them to follow their religions does not preclude anyone from assessing the assertions of those religions in an objective and realistic manner, particularly when such assertions are argued to justify control of all people’s lives. This does not constitute an attack on those religions but an assessment of their relevance to community conduct and human rights.

When considering equality and domestic violence, “Faith” cannot change the facts or justify irresponsible human behaviour. “Faith” does not make “honour killings” anything but murder or the subjugation of women anything but inhuman. The demands of certain religions and their attendant cultures that require rigid social conformity and exclusivity, do so to maintain the authority of their religion and its leaders, and rely on the fear associated with being seen as non-conformist. Such authoritarian demands do not respect personal feelings and aspirations. The rules of religion and culture can be wrong and harmful.

Religions and competitive, combative cult behaviours have been imposed upon the human condition without acknowledging or respecting the essential nature and value of the human condition. The human ability to exist came before any of these efforts to modify our understanding of ourselves or the blurring of our reality. We need to understand the nature of humanity in the context of our full history and not be limited by reliance on chronologies concocted with the intent of giving authority to a religion.

I strongly suspect that accusations of blasphemy could flow from such analysis. Blasphemy, as a concept may have a role as a controlling mechanism within a religious society, but it has no authority over people outside that religion. Often accusations of blasphemy are utilised and relied upon when the accuser is unable to objectively challenge the material asserted by the accused. A religious person can be respected for their freedom to have faith in particular religious beliefs, but this does not mean that non-religious people outside that faith are obliged to accept the use of that faith’s mythology to influence or govern people’s thoughts and lives.

Blasphemy, quite rightly, is no longer an offence under Australian law.

Belief does not justify nor sanitize acts of prejudice or crimes against women or children.

A willingness to persecute or kill to protect one’s religion deserves to be condemned. Such violence may be asserted as faith-based, but the reality is that the major motivations of those religions advocating such conduct are the protection of their power base and to reinforce the perpetrators sense of their own superiority. Killing non-believers and blasphemers does not prove the rightness of a religion, it simply proves the insecurity of the purveyors of that religion.

In the context of the modern world there is no chance that any of the organised religions are going to be able to objectively, logically and scientifically prove that their writings, traditions, beliefs and teachings are accurate depictions of human reality, life on Earth, or its history.

To survive without conflict, they are going to need the extension to them of respect and tolerance. They are also going to need to extend respect and tolerance to other religions and to the millions of people who choose to live without religion.

The rights and freedoms of non-religious people are not inferior to those who profess a religion and the non-religious are not subject to judgement by reference to any arbitrary religious teaching.

The distortions that result from the application of biased religious assertions are only a part of the self-serving assertions used to justify inequality.

One of the most distorting considerations is the status accorded to “Competition” in the understanding of the human condition. For decades it has been asserted to be the ultimate in human, political and economic management. It is claimed to be the best tool to achieve the best results for everyone. It is even claimed to be a way of ensuring honest behaviour.

It is also the underlying tool in perpetuating inequality and exploitation.

Humanity did not invent competition, but our intelligence and our ability to assess matters objectively means that we can properly assess and understand competition and utilize it responsibly – if we want to.

Unfortunately, we do not follow this responsible course, but accord to “Competition” a special sanitising status that asserts that anything that is the result of competition is sanctified and justified. Worldwide, we are still assured that “Competition” is the best and fairest tool to utilise in commerce even though the evidence shows us, in a constant flood of corporate and business revelations of unfairness and illegality, that “Competition” is not a panacea but a problem when it is left to run riot.

Competition is an underlying problem in domestic violence in that the abusers want to be the winners and see themselves as of higher status than their partners and children because they can abuse them. But also, the abusers look at themselves by comparison to other “real men”, and part of their motivation is to score enough man-points to be seen as being as tough and assertive as the men they regard as their peers or their ideals. They are competing in their own minds, and often in their interactions with like-minded men, to prove their dominant status.

The ardent competitor not only has an overwhelming desire to be a Winner, but draws satisfaction from identifying those failing to win as Losers. The Winner’s ego wants and needs to identify and disparage the Loser’s failed status. Their focus is on being confirmed as superior and seeing that status as giving them power. They need to fuel their ego.

But the damaging significance of the winner/loser model is that the gratification drawn from denigrating losers is not limited to individual and specific contests. Once on the path of drawing status from categorising others as losers, the direction of these judgements, by aspiring ‘superior people’, spreads to finding identities in others that are argued to show inferiority and then applying prejudice against them.

Continued tomorrow… (Link to Part 3)

 

Dear reader, we need your support

Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.

One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.

With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.

Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969