A Brief History of Monotheism - 1st of 3 essays re: Israel

1. A BRIEF HISTORY OF MONOTHEISM

Monotheism is strictly Western in its origins. Eastern societies are either polytheistic or ancestor oriented; in both cases, this sidetracked any drive towards religious centralization and totalitarianism. However, monotheism was not the region's first religion. In the West, religions with polytheistic tribal gods began before recorded history. The first Western empires (Egypt, Sumer, etc.) all had many gods, as their surviving writings and temples demonstrate. We can date the origins of monotheism very specifically.

1.1 Monotheism - origin and value system

While most people don't know it, the first historical monotheist was the Egyptian Pharaoh, Akhenaton (~1350 BCE), father of the famous King Tut. Akhenaten set the pattern for the emergence of monotheisms. The pattern is that monotheism is imposed from above, usually by an all-powerful king or emperor. It is necessary to have political power in order to remove and destroy the pre-existing polytheistic religious authorities and to suppress various factions of monotheists (i.e., "heretics"). Akhenaton built a new capital, Amarna, to rule over his new religion. However, upon Akhenaton's death, his sun-god worshipping religion was immediately overthrown and destroyed by the unbowed, polytheistic ruling class. Amarna was abandoned to the desert, where it lay unknown and untouched for 3,000 years, until a French Jesuit tripped over it in 1714.

Even in failure, Akhenaton's monotheism demonstrated the behaviors of monotheists that have consistently reoccurred. These behaviors apply equally to all religions, and they can be discussed in the abstract, without singling out a particular monotheism.

1.1.1 The core values of Monotheism

Starting with Akhenaton, monotheism has been characterized by what scholars call exclusivism, the belief that worship is to be offered to a single god to the exclusion of all other gods and goddesses...some monotheists insist that anyone who dares to offer worship to a false god is worthy of not merely exclusion but death. Indeed, the most militant monotheists - Jews, Christians, and Moslems alike - embrace the belief that God demands the blood of the nonbeliever...

the most rigorous biblical authors do not define wickedness and sin in terms of moral and ethical conduct. Indeed, they are far more concerned with the purity of religion rather than the pursuit of justice. The worst sin of all, as they see it, is not lust or greed, but rather the offering of worship to gods and goddesses other than the True God...

The strict and uncompromising attitude of monotheism, approvingly described in the Bible itself as "zeal", sometimes manifests itself in a strange phenomenon called rigorism - that is, extreme strictness in religious belief and practice. (paganism too produced its own rigorists)...But tragically rigorism is not always or only expressed through acts of self-discipline and self-affliction. Extreme strictness in religious observance...becomes quite literally a matter of life and death...Turned outward, rigorism may inspire the same man or woman to punish others who fail to embrace the religious beliefs that he or she finds so compelling. The history of religion reveals that rigorism in one's beliefs and practices can readily turn into the kind of zealotry that expresses itself in unambiguous acts of terrorism...Examples of this can be found in every faith, in every place and in every age, including our own.

- Johnathan Kirsch, God Against the Gods: The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism -- Henceforth, "GAG".

In what follows, one should always keep in mind that these behaviors are theology-agnostic. It is important not to start flinging accusations of Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, or persecution of Christians around when the detailed failings of someone's particular monotheism are being discussed. I'm not picking on any one religion. I'm picking on them all.

So, in reading the various historical facts below, keep in mind that exclusivism, rigorism, zeal, and terrorism are the common coinage of all monotheisms. In short, monotheism is tribalism on steroids, tribalism with a bureaucracy.

Orwellian propaganda techniques have amplified a fundamental problem of monotheism, namely Manichaeism - dividing the world into absolute good and absolute evil. Manichaeism is hard to completely prevent if you start from state-enforced monotheism, as the West has. You can hear the Manichaean style of "argument" in just about any fundamentalist monotheistic sect you care to study, whether it be Christian, Jewish, or Islamic.

1.2 Jewish monotheism and theocracy

The first successful monotheism began at the end of the bronze age (~700 to 500 BCE). True to pattern, it was imposed on a polytheistic Judea by King Josiah (640-609 BCE), who reigned just before the Babylonian Captivity (597-539 BCE). It was Josiah who, controversially, "discovered" the book of Deuteronomy and added it to the Torah. Of course, Deuteronomy was full of draconian punishments for the slightest deviation from "god's laws" - another common pattern in monotheisms.

Indeed, as it turns out, the newly discovered scroll is perfectly consistent with Josiah's own understanding of what God demands of the Israelites. It is precisely this coincidence that prompted one 19th century Bible scholar to call the lost scroll - which scholars believe to have been most or all of what we know today as the Book of Deuternonomy - "a pious fraud". Fraud or not, however, the scroll allows Josiah to claim that he is acting on specific instructions from God in escalating and expanding the purge he has been carrying out with such zeal...Idols and other paraphernalia for the worship of pagan gods and goddesses are dragged out of the Temple and burned down to ash...

- GAG

Judaism constantly reminds us that it is the oldest surviving monotheistic religion. What is left unmentioned is the trail of violence and subjugation that ALL monotheistic religions leave in their wake. It is the nature of monotheism not to bend or compromise, although monotheisms that flourish usually co-opt local cults and festivals in order to make the subjugation more palatable.

Some people argue that the Jews must be exceptionally obnoxious in order to have been banned, expelled, persecuted, and ghettoized so many times.

Prior to the rise of the Catholic Church, Jews became the objects of suspicion and occasional persecution for their refusal to assimilate, for the insularity and professed superiority of their religious culture - that is, for the content of their unreasonable, sectarian beliefs. The dogma of "a chosen people", while at least implicit in most faiths, achieved a stridence in Judaism that was unknown in the ancient world. Among cultures that worshipped a plurality of Gods, the later monotheism of the Jews proved indigestible... Christianity and Islam both acknowledge the sanctity of the Old Testament and offer easy conversion to their faiths. Islam honors Abraham, Moses, and Jesus as forerunners of Muhammed...Judaism alone finds itself surrounded by unmitigated errors. It seems little wonder, therefore, that it has drawn so much sectarian fire. Judaism is as intrinsically divisive, as ridiculous in its literalism, and it is at odds with the civilizing insights of modernity as any other religion.

- Sam Harris, The End of Faith, pp93-4.

(NOTE: Harris is a Jewish atheist. He is also a screaming Islamophobe.)

My opinion is that, as the oldest monotheism, coming from a tiny population that never amounted to a powerful empire, Judaism constantly put itself in front of oncoming trains and got run over. The theological outcome of any particular suppression/diaspora was unpredictable. It could lead to a more militant and intolerant Judaism (Zionism after 19th century pogroms); or it could lead to a more tolerant Judaism (e.g., the Talmud after the Roman conquest of 70 AD):

Via the Talmud, Judaism made its peace with paganism. The call to zealotry is replaced by the celebration of "acts of loving kindness", and rigorism is confined to the study and observance of religious law. The rabbis whose teachings are collected in the Talmud are not Bible literalists or religious fundamentalists: they preserve the passages of the Torah that command a faithful Jew to keep the Sabbath and the dietary laws of kashrut, but they overlook the passages that call on a faithful Jew to take up arms against the "abomination" of paganism.

- GAG

1.3 The Western theocracies up to the Dual (Industrial, French) Revolutions

Unlike Judaism, Catholicism and Islam came to rule powerful theocratic empires, so that they played the role of the oncoming train to any religion that got in their way.

1.3.1 Catholicism

The moment that Catholicism was made the state religion of Rome by the murderous Constantine, it began to destroy Graeco-Roman Civilization - a crime of huge magnitude. The burning of the Library of Alexandria and the murder of the scholars there was a notable example.

Rome under the Christian emperors set out to destroy its own rich patrimony - the writings of pagan poets, philosophers and historians, which were among the highest achievements of classical civilization. Scribes were forbidden to copy out old pagan texts on pain of death...Existing texts were seized and burned...

- GAG

The list of Catholic crimes of zealotry after the fall of the Western Empire is long: the unprovoked assault that was the Crusades (which even attacked and looted Christian Constantinople), the slaughter of the Albigensians ("kill them all, God will know his own." - how quintessentially monotheistic), the 400 year reign of terror that was the Inquisition, the Borgia Popes, the Spanish expulsion of the Jews in 1492, the destruction of the native civilizations of the Americas and the enslavement of their peoples, all the way down to the Catholic collusion with the Fascists and Nazis.

1.3.2 Islam

In less than two hundred years from its founding, Islam ruled from Spain to Persia. Interestingly, it recognized Christians and Jews as fellow "people of the book" and allowed them to practice their religions, albeit with penalties. Classical Islam, up to 1200 AD was literate and scientific, bequeathing the West algebra and copies of the classical writings destroyed by the Catholics, and allowing Jewish scholarship to flourish. But, about 1200 CE, in reaction to a growing agnosticism among the sophisticated Moslem philosophers that predated the Enlightenment by 700 years, it suffered a massive outbreak of fundamentalism and began its journey to its current fossilized state.

I wrote about the Moslem fundamentalist backlash in 2008, and republished it here at c99p in 2018. The 2008 version generated a really good discussion.

1.3.3 The state of play as of 1789

The Christian and Islamic theocracies, despite being wracked by heresies, rebellions, and Christo-Islamic wars, endured for over a thousand years. From the point of view of this outline, nothing much changed religiously.

It was the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453 was the impetus that kicked off the Renaissance and put Europe on the path to modernity. The Renaissance, in turn, provoked the Protestant Reformation, which then led to the bloodbath of the Thirty Years War and the discrediting of religious fanaticism in Europe. From 1648 onwards, Europe was turning to religious moderation and technical advance. These changes were not pronounced by theocratic edict, but accumulated out of changing social practices

So, by 1789 in the West, Protestant pluralism had cracked the totalitarian control of the Catholic Church. The Enlightenment had been raging for almost 50 years. So, Christianity was moving on, despite the various rabidly fundamentalist sects of Calvinism. Nevertheless, the Inquisition's last victim was murdered in 1826.

The Islamic world was in decline, the result of its fundamentalism causing it to take a pass on the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment. It was rapidly falling behind the West.

The Jewish community was still largely ghettoized, except in Poland; and Poland was about to be dismembered in 1795. The Polish Jewish community fell largely inside the part given to the Russian Empire and was treated horribly.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

yellopig's picture

On this:

Monotheism is strictly Western in its origins. Eastern societies are either polytheistic or ancestor oriented…

From my reading, the origins of monotheism were strictly in the desert tribes of the Middle East. At the time, "the West" was just as polytheistic as everybody else, right up until the Christians arrived & forced everybody to quit all that (as you noted later in the piece).

Sorry, but that first sentence was a little jarring. Now I'm off to read the next article…

up
0 users have voted.

“We may not be able to change the system, but we can make the system irrelevant in our lives and in the lives of those around us.”—John Beckett

arendt's picture

I don't know where you were educated, but in my part of the US high school history had a course called History of Western Civilization.

That history begins in Mesopotamia, the "cradle of Western civilization". Mesopotamia today is Iraq and Syria. It also begins in Egypt, which again is given a lot of pages in "history of Western civ" books.

So, if my usage of "the West" is not correct, then just about every general history textbook is also incorrect.

Another nuance of "West" is its synonym "Occidental", which is used in oppostion to "Oriental". The point of my statement was as much the lack of monotheism ever occurring in China, as much as it was the origin of monotheism in the West.

In short, your reading is too narrow and too literal. Ironic that should happen in an essay about fundamentalist literalism.

up
0 users have voted.
yellopig's picture

@arendt
We all know how propaganda-free that was.

You elide a lot of Western polytheism in your leap from the "cradle of civilization" to the Christian emperors rampaging through Greek & Roman civilization (which, again, were polytheist before the Christians showed up from the middle eastern deserts).

Toynbee notes that Sir Arthur Evans (in his book The Earlier Religion of Greece in the Light of Cretan Discoveries) says:

‘So far as it has been possible to read the evidences of the old Cretan worship we seem to discern not only a prevailing spiritual essence but something in its followers akin to the faith that for the last two millennia has moved the adherents of successive Oriental religions: Iranian, Christian and Islamic.’

In fact, throughout the work, Toynbee refers to the monotheisms you're discussing as "Oriental" intrusions.

But Toynbee is probably not the kind of thing high schoolers read.

But it's so kind of you to take the time to disparage my education and world view. Thanks, but I think I have good company here.

up
0 users have voted.

“We may not be able to change the system, but we can make the system irrelevant in our lives and in the lives of those around us.”—John Beckett

arendt's picture

@yellopig

I post 12,000 words and you want to go the mat about a term as general as "the West".

But it's so kind of you to take the time to disparage my education and world view. Thanks, but I think I have good company here.

If stating facts is disparaging you, I plead guilty. The West is a generic term with many nuances, open to many interpretations.

You seem only interested in starting a fight over one sentence.

up
0 users have voted.
yellopig's picture

@arendt You could have replied to my original comment by saying "Well, yeah, that's true," and moved on. Instead…

up
0 users have voted.

“We may not be able to change the system, but we can make the system irrelevant in our lives and in the lives of those around us.”—John Beckett

arendt's picture

@yellopig

But, just as you chose to quibble, I chose to quibble back.

I must admit that it was annoying that one of the very few comments that I received on this massive amount of work was on such a minor detail. You might notice that I never again did any comparisons between Western and Eastern religion. It was just an opening generalization.

I felt as though I had opened a speech with "Ladies and Gentlemen" and before I could get past that, a feminist protestor had arisen to call me sexist for using the word "ladies". Meanwhile, attendance at the lecture was about five people.

In the end, the entire paragraph about west vs east could be left out, and the rest of the essays would be just fine.

up
0 users have voted.

@arendt admit that the additional info provided was useful.

up
0 users have voted.

dfarrah

that "Sam Harris is a screaming islamophobe" stuff.

https://www.amazon.com/Islam-Future-Tolerance-Sam-Harris/dp/0674088700

And I happen to agree that Islam is a danger to the modern world, just as Chriatianity and Judaism have been for the last 2000 years. It just took Islam longer to catch up.

up
0 users have voted.

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

arendt's picture

@Fishtroller 02

I thank you for the pointer to the book by Harris and Hawaz. But, after some consideration and googlin, I don't think this book changes anything. They are just trying to muddy the waters by attempting to redefine the meaning of Islamophobia.

----

When I pick up a political book, I look at the dust jacket to see who is endorsing it. The Amazon webpage you linked to has the following endorsees:

Irshad Manji, New York Times Book Review

-- does anyone at c99p trust the NYT's political stance anymore?

Brian Stewart, National Review

-- NR is a hard-core rightwing site

New Statesman

-- the UK equivalent of The Nation, a formerly left mag that was bought out and sold out. They are completely on board with the New Atheists.

In December 2011 the magazine was guest-edited by Richard Dawkins. The issue included the writer Christopher Hitchens's final interview, conducted by Dawkins in Texas, and pieces by Bill Gates, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Philip Pullman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Statesman

Jeremy Rutledge, Post and Courier

--The Post and Courier is the main daily newspaper in Charleston, South Carolina. And this is authoritative how? Yeah, they got a Pulitzer for some completely non-political reporting.

These corporate media blurbs for Harris, who has been a corporate media darling since his debut book in 2006, are not making a compelling case to me. So I started Googling to see whether Harris has really changed.

I learned that he and his co-author are now into the same verbal deconstruction games that the Zionists play with the word Zionism. Now, Harris says that the word "Islamophobia" is a meaningless smear of his position. He splits hairs with something called "Muslimophobia".

He has strongly pushed Islamophobia for over a decade. Here is a 2013 Glenn Greenwald piece which gets to the core of the objection to Harris - namely that his atheist rants against the religion of Islam actually inflame racists.

I do, however, absolutely agree with the general argument made in both columns that the New Atheists have flirted with and at times vigorously embraced irrational anti-Muslim animus...what I unequivocally affirm again now - is not that Harris is a "racist", but rather that he and others like him spout and promote Islamophobia under the guise of rational atheism.

Whether Islamophobia is a form of "racism" is a semantic issue in which I'm not interested for purposes of this discussion. The vast majority of Muslims are non-white; as a result, when a white westerner becomes fixated on attacking their religion and advocating violence and aggression against them, as Harris has done, I understand why some people (such as Hussain) see racism at play: that, for reasons I recently articulated, is a rational view to me. But "racism" is not my claim here about Harris. Irrational anti-Muslim animus is.

The key point is that Harris does far, far more than voice criticisms of Islam as part of a general critique of religion. He has repeatedly made clear that he thinks Islam is uniquely threatening...This is not a critique of religion generally; it is a relentless effort to depict Islam as the supreme threat. Based on that view, Harris, while depicting the Iraq war as a humanitarian endeavor, has proclaimed that "we are not at war with terrorism. We are at war with Islam." He has also decreed that "this is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims, but we are absolutely at war with millions more than have any direct affiliation with Al Qaeda." "We" - the civilized peoples of the west - are at war with "millions" of Muslims, he says. Indeed, he repeatedly posits a dichotomy between "civilized" people and Muslims: "All civilized nations must unite in condemnation of a theology that now threatens to destabilize much of the earth."

Perhaps the most repellent claim Harris made to me was that Islamophobia is fictitious and non-existent, "a term of propaganda designed to protect Islam from the forces of secularism by conflating all criticism of it with racism and xenophobia". How anyone can observe post-9/11 political discourse in the west and believe this is truly mystifying. The meaning of "Islamophobia" is every bit as clear as "anti-semitism" or "racism" or "sexism" and all sorts of familiar, related concepts. It signifies (1) irrational condemnations of all members of a group or the group itself based on the bad acts of specific individuals in that group; (2) a disproportionate fixation on that group for sins committed at least to an equal extent by many other groups, especially one's own; and/or (3) sweeping claims about the members of that group unjustified by their actual individual acts and beliefs. I believe all of those definitions fit Harris quite well, as evinced by this absurd and noxious overgeneralization from Harris:

The only future devout Muslims can envisage — as Muslims — is one in which all infidels have been converted to Islam, politically subjugated, or killed."


That is utter garbage: and dangerous garbage at that.

Glenn Greenwald, Sam Harris, the New Atheists, and anti-Muslim animus

Fine, that's five years old, you might say. Too bad that within the last year, Harris whitewashed Charles Murray's racism in a two hour interview under the transparent excuse that he was merely defending Charles Murray's free speech rights. This was so egregious that it was called out by the corporate media, in the person of that loser, Ezra Klein.

Harris returns repeatedly to the idea that the controversy over Murray’s race and IQ work is driven by “dishonesty and hypocrisy and moral cowardice” — not a genuine disagreement over the underlying science or its interpretation. As he puts it, “there is virtually no scientific controversy” around Murray’s argument.

This is, to put it gently, a disservice Harris did to his audience. It is rare for a multi-decade academic debate to be a mere matter of bad faith, and it is certainly not the case here.

Subsequently, Eric Turkheimer, Kathryn Paige Harden, and Richard E. Nisbett — three academic psychologists who specialize in studying intelligence — wrote a piece for Vox arguing that Murray was peddling pseudoscience and Harris had been irresponsible in representing it as the scientific consensus. (You can read their piece here, a criticism of their piece here, and their response to their critics here.)

Ezra Klein, Sam Harris, Charles Murray, and the allure of race science

Here is another 2018 piece in the corporate media (The sadly sold out UK Guardian) that again calls the New Atheists out, with Harris a prominent target.

A diverse and eclectic litany of prominent Islamophobes occupies the left. These liberal Islamophobes, like Bill Maher and Sam Harris, weaponize atheism as an ideology that not only discredits the spiritual dimensions of Islam but also demonizes it in line with longstanding orientalist, political terms. For these new atheists, Islam is illegitimate because it is a religion, but unlike other religions, is distinctly threatening because it is inherently at odds with liberal values.

Echoing Samuel P Huntington and the intellectual father of modern Islamophobia, Bernard Lewis, Harris writes: “While the other major world religions have been fertile sources of intolerance, it is clear that the doctrine of Islam poses unique problems for the emergence of a global civilization.”

Harris, the spearhead of the new atheist movement, which has broad appeal on the left, is a mainstay on HBO’s Real Time With Bill Maher. Furthermore, Harris’s influence on Maher, perhaps the most vivid and venomous liberal Islamophobe, is routinely on display on his weekly program – a program widely viewed by progressives and wildly popular with educated, cosmopolitan and middle-class liberals.

US liberal Islamophobia is rising – and more insidious than rightwing bigotry

I'm sorry, but I do not see the slightest change in Harris's behavior. He still supports racism. He is deeply embedded in the corporate media. He is still a cheerleader for Israel, even after all of their crimes against Palestinians.

up
0 users have voted.

rob humanity of its ability to think rationally, use reason, and address reality in a constructive way. At this point in history, I find all religions dangerous to secular governments where the idea of human rights is that it is something we confer upon each other (as opposed by "gods"). At this particular point in history, we see Islam behaving as Christianity did in western Europe (also all over the world with the destruction of native populations). Islam has not faced a dressing down like Christianity did during the creation of our founding documents and as it did with the enlightenment in France and elsewhere. Therefore, I agree with Maher and Harris when it comes to the view that Islam is the most dangerous religious movement the world faces, both socially and politically. So I guess that makes me a "new atheist" too.

"For these new atheists, Islam is illegitimate because it is a religion, but unlike other religions, is distinctly threatening because it is inherently at odds with liberal values."

I don't however agree with Harris on Israel, nor did I agree with Jerry Coyne on Israel (a reason I was banned from his site, along with others arguing on behalf of the Palestinians. Both men appear to set aside their usual application of reason when it comes to that topic, most likely because of family influences or personal history.

All that being said, I have a particular fondness for Harris because it was his first book that helped me shake off the last vestiges of god belief, a very intellectually freeing time for me.

up
0 users have voted.

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

arendt's picture

@Fishtroller 02

but policies aren't. Thanks for explaining what you do and don't like about Harris. Its rare to find such nuance.

I too found the atheist arguments in Harris' book to be devastating and concisely stated. But, even in that book, he was already singling out Islam. We are on the same page about Israel, but you could see that in this entire five part essay.

As for liberalism, I am beginning to have my doubts. I referenced my OP about "The Age of Anger" in one of the essays. The thing is that liberalism, taken too far, is just another extremism. There are people who make good arguments that the original economic liberalism was (and still is) very destructive to society, and that religions as social groupings had legitimate complaints against the heartlessness and greed of classical liberalism (and modern neoliberalism, which has set its sights on destroying not just society, but also government).

I'm currently reading (very vigilantly) the 1998 "False Dawn" by John Gray. At a very early point in time, Gray, as a conservative, is arguing against Globalization. Of course, the book is littered with the standard conservative cant about the evils of socialism, which I have to ignore. But, this is an instance of what I spoke about before that people (and their books) are a package. You have to unpack them into policies.

Anyway, thanks again for your clarity and your commitments to what you think is correct. And thanks for contributing to the thread.

up
0 users have voted.

@arendt

This is the kind of back and forth that became impossible on DKos.

up
0 users have voted.

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

arendt's picture

@Fishtroller 02

It's been so long since I've had an amicable exchange with someone who has a somewhat different POV. The internet has made everyone ready to fight at the slightest difference.

This was refreshing.

up
0 users have voted.