The Universality Of Morality

FOOTNOTES:

{1  This is often referred to as moral realism–a rather inane term; as morality is either real or it isn’t.  (Imagine hawking the term “scientific realism”.)  The idea is simple: Objective moral standards exist; which is to say that they are a feature of Reality. They are what they are independently of any given social / psychical construct.  Hence I take a deontic approach to ethics, and proceed from a Kantian paradigm (which is itself predicated on an ontology / epistemology sometimes referred to as “transcendental idealism”).  As outlined in the discussion of the Golden Rule, this primarily involves the Categorical Imperative.}

{2  Note that prior to the ten commandments (which were said to have been handed down to Moses on mount Sinai), there were the seven Noah-ide laws–only TWO of which dealt with morality: prohibitions of murder and theft.  The other five include dietary restrictions and a mandate to establish jurisprudence for punishing transgressors (proscriptions against fornication, idolatry, and cursing god).  Between the Great Flood and Exodus, we might wonder what occurred during the intervening period to warrant an emendation of this list. One would think that such tenets were eternal.}

{3  We should recall that until the Mishnaic / Talmudic era, the primary ritual in Judaism was making sacrifices to the godhead (by burning animal carcasses on alters).  Why?  In order to appease him.  (We even hear about how much the Abrahamic deity enjoyed the aroma of cooked flesh!)  In the story of Cain’s well-meaning yet inadequate sacrifice, we are reminded that piety is about placating a pathologically vindictive overlord…who had particular tastes with regard to rituals.  Interestingly, when we survey religions around the world, throughout human history, we find that the perceived need to make sacrifices to appease the gods is a common theme. I explore other common leitmotifs in my essays on “Mythemes”.}

{4  See my two-part essay: “The History Of Salafism”.  There is laughably absurd argument put forth by some of the more mendacious Judeo-Christian apologists that the slavery enjoined in the Bible is not REAL slavery (i.e. chattel slavery); but merely a kind of indentured servitude.  According to this evasion, such an arrangement was entered into voluntarily–as a last resort–by those with no other options, and who were simply seeking a means of sustenance.  Some apologists have gone so far as to suggest that such “servitude” was a source of DIGNITY for such people.  And the owners were doing subordinates a FAVOR by enslaving them. This bit of apologetics is so loony, it’s not even worthy of comment.}

{5  There are actually THREE versions of the ten “commandments” in the Torah: Exodus 20, Exodus 34, and–likely the oldest–Deuteronomy 5.  Only the last is referred to as, well, the “Ten Commandments”.  It is typically the FIRST version that is cited when expositors surmise what those commandments might have been.  As if to make matters even more befuddling, THAT version (from Exodus 20) was neither written on stone tablets NOR referred to as the “ten commandments”; and is very different from the version that IS referred to as the “ten commandments” (from Deuteronomy 5).  Children “honoring” their parents seems to be a fine adjuration (under most, though not all, circumstances); but what of parents “honoring” their children?  Nope.  In the very next chapter (Exodus 21), we are told that parents are permitted to KILL disobedient children (ref. verse 17).  We might also note that the familiar version of the decalogue precedes the chapter that condones beating one’s slaves (ref. Exodus 21:20-21).  And while this version of the decalogue skips the pressing issue of unleavened bread, it fixates on other frivolous matters–such as graven images and vain invocation. Hence even the earliest Judaic lore is inconsistent about what exactly Moses was supposed to have received from the Abrahamic deity (see footnote 2 above).  Recall: During a temper tantrum, Moses smashed the first edition; so he needed to return up the mountain for a re-issue.  One is invited to pick one’s favorite version.  These “ten terms” [“Aseret ha-Divarim” / “Aseret ha-Dibrot”] constituted a contractual agreement between the Hebrews (a.k.a. “Israelites”) and the Abrahamic deity.  The Mosaic covenant–as it came to be known–had two primary versions (Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:4-21).  There were prohibitions against recognizing other deities, making idols, mixing meat and dairy, engaging in labor on the Sabbath, etc.  To reiterate: The only parts that had anything to do with (genuine) morality were admonishments against cheating, stealing, lying, and killing…which, at the time, was not shocking news to ANYONE.  In any case, it must be asked: What are we to think of these divine edicts?  As it turns out, none of it had anything to do with universal human rights or participatory democracy; and certainly nothing that pertained to racial or gender equality.  The fabled decalogue actually served to justify moral abominations like patriarchy and slavery.  It is incontrovertible that Mosaic law only succeeded in impeding the development of civil society for THOUSANDS of years.  As Oscar Wilde put it: “When I think of all the harm the Bible has done, I despair of ever writing anything to equal it.”}

{6  Even many Scientologists are for civil rights.  But we would never think to attribute that to their Scientology.  Nevertheless, a Scientologist will opt to articulate even the most noble cause in different terms than would, say, a Hmong civil rights activist. Whether Druid or Druze, one is apt to use the phrasing germane to his Faith community.  (I discuss the use of idiomatic expression in conveying a gist in my essay on “America’s National Origin Myth”.) That such lingo is put in the service of a noble cause is not testament to the credence of the religious institution.  Our framing of the world is always a function of the idioms that most resonate with us.  This has no bearing on the verity of that which is being framed.}

{7  Heck, even the Huns invented SOMETHING useful (horseshoes).  Note, by the way, that “Huns” just meant “people”.  Granted, they were–indeed–rather primitive (and, yes, barbaric); yet they were STILL HUMAN.  The signature Roman portrayal likely represented the first example of programatic other-ization (read: State-mandated dehumanization) in human history.  Who were they?  Nomadic Steppe peoples who were extremely adept at riding horses. Attila contributed approximately as much to human society as, well, any of the prophets in the Bible (almost nothing).}

{8  Regarding the medieval Silk Road, it might be noted that Sogdian merchants also participated in the thriving slave-trade across Eurasia.  It is telling that the Sogdians did NOT engage in slave-trade when they predominantly subscribed to Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism (with a smattering of Buddhism and Nestorian / Syriac Christianity).  It was not until they converted to Islam that they became involved in slavery.  This was no coincidence.}

{9  And when Nathan (an Abrahamic prophet) rebuked David for having coveting his friend’s wife, he made no reference to a breach of any compact with the godhead.  In order to make his point, he actually resorted to parable.  Also note that Second Kings refers to an un-named scroll of laws that the high priest, Hilkiah, found in Solomon’s temple–with diktats that seemed to catch the king of Judah at the time (Josiah) completely off guard.}

{10  The Gospels fare a tad-bit better, but not by much.  As we’ve seen, slavery continued to be endorsed.  And while compassion (forbearance / magnanimity) toward one’s fellow man is encouraged (as in the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke), JoN also said a few rather daffy things (as with “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery” in Matthew).  The latter may have been intended to discourage husbands from a wandering eye, leaving their spouses simply for having found more enticing prospects.  But it fails to address the majority of cases where divorce is prudent; thus eliding the possibility for new love thereafter.  JoN also said: “As for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them: Bring them here and kill them in front of me” (Luke 19:27).  Gadzooks!  In Mark, he angrily curses a fig tree for not bearing any figs.  In Matthew, he sends a group of demon-possessed pigs to their death.  Such delectable nuggets are not exactly the most astute guidelines for moral conduct.  If there were an Abrahamic deity, and JoN was indeed an incarnation thereof, it was a deity that was not attuned to some of the most obvious moral principles.}

{11  Indeed, many of those who pioneered usury happened to be devout Jews; so clearly this was not prohibited in their doctrine.  In his “The Sociology of Religion”, Max Weber weighed in on this point.  Historically, for the Jewish community, he noted: “The realm of economic relations with strangers, particularly economic relations prohibited in regard to fellow Jews, was an area of ethical indifference.  This is, of course, the primordial economic ethics of all peoples everywhere.  That this should have remained the Jewish economic ethic was a foregone conclusion; for even in Antiquity, the Jews almost always regarded strangers as enemies.  All the well-known admonitions of the rabbis enjoining honor and faithfulness toward Gentiles could not change the impression that the religious law prohibited taking usury from fellow Jews but permitted it in transactions with non-Jews.  Nor could the rabbinical counsels enjoining honesty and reliability in dealing with Gentiles alter the fact…that a lesser degree of legality was required by the law in dealing with a stranger than in dealing with another Jew (in such a matter as taking advantage of an error made by the other party).  In fine, no proof is required to establish that the pariah condition of the Jews, which we have seen resulted from the promises of Yahweh, and the resulting incessant humiliation of the Jews by Gentiles, necessarily led to the Jewish people’s retaining different economic moralities for their relations with strangers and with fellow Jews” (p. 251).}

{12  The best sources for this point are Charles Freeman’s “The Closing Of The Western Mind” and Catherine Nixey’s “The Darkening Age”.}

{13  Voltaire also averred: “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.  Let us worship god through Jesus if we must…if ignorance has so far prevailed that this name can still be spoken in all seriousness without being taken as a synonym for rapine and carnage.  Every sensible man, every honorable man, is obliged to hold the Christian sect in horror.”}

{14  One might say that liberal democracy is as predicated on the Judeo-Christian tradition as veganism is predicated on the meat-packing industry.  And one can cull a paean to human rights from the Old and New Testaments–or from the Koran–about as readily as one can cull the laws of astro-physics from an astrology chart.}

{15  Note that when thinkers like Erasmus, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, and Thomas Aquinas attempted to incorporate Aristotelian logic (and even neo-Platonism) into the Christian theological repertoire, it was IN SPITE OF Christian doctrine, not because of it.  The grand total of moral and/or scientific insights for which we can thank the Roman Catholic Church: ZERO.  Even those who considered themselves “Catholic” (most notably: Roger Bacon, Athanasius Kircher, Michel de Montaigne, Blais Pascal, and Gregor Mendel) did what they did in spite of, not because of, their fealty to the church.  Are we expected to believe that such thinkers owe their accomplishments to PIETY?  Meanwhile, when Sa’adia ben Yosef “Gaon” attempted to incorporate Greek thought into the Talmudic repertoire in the 10th century (as part of the program of Jewish “Kalam”), he was not VALIDATING Judaic dogmas; we was simply trying to reconcile them with medieval philosophy.  And insofar as Maimonides contributed in any meaningful way to medieval thought, the Halakha had nothing to do with it.  Insofar as men affiliated with a given Faith can be said to have made any worthwhile contributions, they did so by TRANSCENDING Abrahamic tenets, not by hewing more stringently to them.  Generally, half-baked attempts to reconcile religious dogmas with science have only wound up in embarrassment for the apologist.  Such desperate attempts to retro-actively square the circle only amount to special pleading.}

{16  Kai Nielsen makes this point especially well in his “Ethics Without God”.  The kind of exegesis that level-headed religionists insist is necessary to get their scripture to work (spec. in the way that they very much want it to work) requires a capacity we must possess independently of having availed themselves of said scripture.  This effectively renders ANY scripture superfluous (that is: short of serving as a moral prosthetic).  For a discussion of the utility of parable as an effective didactic tool, see my essay on parables.}

{17  That’s in Deuteronomy 22:20-21.  Numbers 5:11-31 prescribes a poisonous drink to any woman accused of adultery; which, we are told, will induce a miscarriage [“cause a rupture of the womb”].  Leaving aside the nuttiness of trial by ordeal, we might note that the “Kohanim” in the Torah endorsed abortion.  That’s right: The prerogative to abort a pregnancy is BIBLICAL.}

{18  If not, then what?  Don’t mix meat and dairy?  No mixed fabrics?  No mixed races?  No foreskin allowed?  What are we to think when we’re notified that any work on Saturdays is impermissible (even if it’s gathering kindling to make a fire for a much-needed meal for one’s family)?  In what we’re asked to believe is the most important book ever written, prohibitions on eating shrimp cocktail made the list, yet prohibitions on slavery did not.  Seems like the authors’ priorities were slightly askew.}

{19  In no case was the common-man (spec. the lowly laborer) EMPOWERED by such authoritarian systems…let alone put in charge of his own destiny (or even given a say in the conditions of his labor).  Indeed, these tyrannical regimes did the EXACT OPPOSITE.  They were tribalistic and Reactionary to their very core–prizing highly-concentrated wealth / power and top-down control.  In other words: They were the epitome of ANTI-Marxian ideals.  As anyone knows who knows anything about Marx, his primary concern was eliminating systems of domination / oppression / exploitation.  The lesson here is simple: Cult activity–no matter what form it takes–is detrimental to the weal of society.  Marx recognized this; which is why he was so skeptical of dogmatism and tribalism (i.e. the primary facets of religion).}

{20  It’s actually even worse.  Adherence to the most traditional versions of the Judaic creed is positively COUNTER to such ideals.  Once one gets past the theocracy, the patriarchy, the slavery, and the calls for genocide, one can try to marshal the better angels of one’s nature…and use one’s imagination to its full capacity.  If one dims the lights, squints one’s eyes and tilts one’s head JUST SO, one can almost get the Judaic tradition to seem enlightened.  Doing so would involve pretending that Hillel’s (laudable) call for the Golden Rule encapsulates the entirety of Judaic heritage…rather than, say, animal sacrifice, the slave trade, usury, and the exhortation to not engage in labor on Saturday.  (In any case, Hillel offered that already-ancient insight half a millennium AFTER the Torah was composed…even as both Confucius and Siddhartha Gautama were propounding it.  For the Judeo-Christian tradition to take credit for the Golden Rule would be like Scientologists taking credit for the heliocentric model of the solar system.  Yes, they accede to its veracity; but this has no bearing on the credence of Dianetics.}

{21  It is no wonder, then, that Paine concluded: “Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity.  Too absurd for belief, too impossible to [be convincing], and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid; and produces only atheists or fanatics.  As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests.  But so far as it respects the good of man, it leads to nothing here or hereafter.”}

{22  But wait.  There’s a “catch”.  Exodus 23:9 preempts Exodus 23:31-33 with the exhortation to not oppress foreigners; as you know how it feels to be foreigners, because “you were once foreigners in Egypt” (the allegorical significance of which is worth heeding, even though it is based entirely on historical farce).  In urging magnanimity, this singular entreaty seems to at least mitigate the overriding message of the Torah’s slew of genocidal passages.  There was also a meager articulation of the golden rule in the previous chapter (Exodus 22); as well as in Deuteronomy (10:19).  The best articulation of “accepting the other” was probably in the New Testament: the parable of the Good Samaritan in the Gospel of Luke (10:25-37).}

{23  A declaration of the sanctity of ALL human life does not exist in the Hebrew Bible OR in the Koran.  It is arguable that JoN was a kind of proto-humanist…though the authors of much of the New Testament most certainly were not.  I discuss the genealogy of the trope “we are all made in the image of god” in my essay, “The Long History Of Legal Codes”.  The idea goes back to the 8th century B.C. (in the Far East).  It has typically involved a worldview in which our shared divinity–and thus our shared HUMANITY–was emphasized above tribal divisions.  And so it ended up in Genesis…in a fleeting passage (9:6).}

{24  What were these importune matters?  Honor your elders, refrain from gathering sticks on Saturday, don’t worship other deities BEFORE the Abrahamic deity, don’t make pictorial representations of any idols, don’t plant different kinds of seeds in the same field, and don’t invoke “Yahweh” in an un-approved manner.  But slavery–as well as certain kinds of genocide–is fine.  If one is looking for a tract that promotes human rights, one will not find it in Abrahamic scripture.  But, hey, at least we’re obliged to be nice to our parents.}

{25  Note: I discuss various societies’ policies on slavery in “The History Of Legal Codes”.}

{26  That we cannot achieve perfect objectivity does not preclude this exercise.  That is: It does not follow from the fact that we cannot achieve COMPLETE impartiality that such an aspiration is pointless (and so should refrain from trying).  Nobody can possibly be absolutely benevolent; but that doesn’t preclude us from aspiring to that standard.  Unattainable as it might be, we must shoot for this ideal, getting as close to it as possible; doing so with the understanding that we can never be anything more than fallible humans.}

{27  This is why “It’s racist when you do it, but not when we do it” is itself a form of racism.  When one refuses to apply the same standards to oneself that one applies to others (viz. a TRIBALISTIC gestalt), one is more than just a hypocrite.  One is indulging in Exceptionalism (read: in-group Supremacy).  To the degree that one justifies this by contending that one’s own tribe X is somehow superior to all others (or uniquely entitled to something), one is an X-Supremacist.}

{28  In being against all forms of institutionalized dogmatism (read: all religions), species-being entails embracing all ethnicities (nay, all demographic groups); and doing so as a matter of course.  As with Spinoza’s apostasy, Marx’s antipathy toward Judaism (qua ideological mindset, based on a tribalistic posture along ethnic lines) must not be confused for anti-Semitism…which is ALSO an ideological mindset based on a tribalistic posture along ethnic lines.}

{29  The solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is contained in this single insight.  Whether Jew or Palestinian, Marx would enjoin all people involved in a given exchange to think of themselves first and foremost as fellow citizens of the world–as he put it: to “live in a universal human condition” with one another.  (Again, this was an echo of Thomas Paine’s framing.)  A tribalist, Marx pointed out, considers it a god-given right to separate his own group from the rest of humanity.  He is obliged to NEVER be interested in taking part in HUMAN movements; as human solidarity is inimical to his worldview.  His legacy is tribally defined; therefore his destiny must be tribally defined.  Consequently, he looks to a future that has nothing in common with the future of mankind as a whole.  He regards himself, above all else, as a member of the anointed tribe (be it Beth Israel, the Vatican magisterium, Dar al-Islam, or anything else).  Israel-Palestine is a cockamamie feud OVER LAND; but it is a dispute between tribes that are DEFINED BY religion, and–to make matter worse–concerns issues (and agendas) that are BASED ON religious beliefs.  The solution, then, is to take the religion out of the equation; thereby rendering the matter solely about humans living with fellow humans.}

{30  The quintessential example here is, of course, astrology.  The religious fundamentalist is just as out of touch with Reality as the person who–diligently scrutinizing a star-chart the way a shaman reads tea-leaves–laments the fact that this or that planet is in retrograde…while double-checking to ensure his spirit animal wasn’t properly matched with his moon sign.  After all, zodiacs are just another kind of sacred doctrine…every bit as bewitching, every bit as fatuous.}

{31  In his “The Age Of Reason”, Thomas Paine expressed his concern for the sorts of things decreed by the Abrahamic deity in the Hebrew Bible: “There are matters in that book said to be done by the express command of god that are as shocking to humanity, and to every idea we have of moral justice, as any thing done by Robespierre, Carrier, and Joseph le Bon in France; by the English government in the East Indies; or by any other [murderous power] in modern times.  When we read in the books ascribed to Moses, Joshua, etc., that they (the Israelites) came by stealth upon whole nations of people, who, as the history itself shows, had given them no offense; that they put all those nations to the sword; that they spared neither age nor infancy; that they utterly destroyed men, women and children; that they left not a soul to breathe; expressions that are repeated over and over again in those books, and that too with exulting ferocity… Are we sure these things are facts?  Are we sure that the Creator of man commissioned such things to be done?”}

{32  Make no mistake, even the Tengri-ist Mongols were far from perfect.  The most serious problem was a belief in collective punishment–though never according to ethnicity (it was according to immediate kith, kin, and political brethren; i.e. those with demonstrable social ties who were seen as sharing moral culpability).  Thus an entire family / clan may have been held liable for one member’s transgressions.  The idea was to engender a sense of collective responsibility; thereby–the thinking went–fostering civic-mindedness (a sense of communal honor: the only honor worth having).  There was no individual honor; only honor for the group.  The problem, then, was that when a contingent in a given community thwarted the Khanate, everyone was seen as culpable; and thus subject to reprisal.  This explains why Genghis Khan felt obliged–in a few instances–to massacre the denizens of an entire city when it repeatedly refused to surrender.  Even then, such an assault was done after extensive fair warning–many months in some cases.  In a few instances (notably Nishapur and Herat c. 1221), destruction was done to set an example (to wit: in order to deter resistance by others in the future).  Such cities were razed for entirely strategic reasons; never due to ethnic antipathy.  Immediately after the military phase was complete, Genghis Khan’s primary concern was winning over the hearts and minds of the people.  (For more on this issue, see footnote 34 below.)  Misconceptions about the Mongols (as unsophisticated barbarians) only began proliferating in modern times.  It started with the slander propounded by (Occidental) expositors like Thomas of Spalato and Matthew Paris.  For reference, I recommend the following: “The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia” by Rene Grousset, “Empires of the Silk Road” by Christopher Beckwith, “The History of The Mongol Conquests” by J.J. Saunders, and “Genghis Khan And The Making of the Modern World” by Jack Weatherford.}

{33  Marxian thought–as well as its grotesque mutation, “Marx-ism”–is an integral part of the Occidental tradition.  So why, pray tell, don’t those who fetishize “the West” count THAT?  The “Orientalist” mindset (call it: programatic alterity) went into overdrive during the Cold War, where the nemesis was equated with Soviet-style “communism”–which came in a variety of odious forms: from Stalinism and Maoism to Juche and the Khmer Rouge.  This was done without regard for the fact that such regimes were FASCISTIC in nature; and the OPPOSITE of genuine socialism (a mischaracterization that served the simplistic narrative of “capitalism” vs. “communism”).  Weirdly, this mischaracterization served BOTH sides.  For U.S. oligarchs, it served as handy rhetoric for besmirching the dreaded “socialist” movement (guilt by contrived association); whereas for Soviet oligarchs, it appealed to the rank and file (for whom the quasi-Marxian rhetoric had undeniable cache).  The perverse irony of it all is that each side decried the other’s version of top-down control (and highly-concentrated power) by conflating DEMOCRATIC socialism with Soviet tyranny (either to discredit it or to justify it, as the case may be).  This simple-minded, Manichean worldview–impelled by mutual vilification–was espoused by BOTH sides in a vicious cycle of recrimination that bolstered the ideological obduracy of each.}

{34  There are some tall-tales told of a gratuitous massacre of the city of Merv perpetrated by Tolui Khan c. 1221.  However, such accounts are primarily taken from a hatchet-job: the “Tarikh-i Jahan-gusha” [History of the World Conqueror] written by a hagiographer from Khorasan known for wild exaggeration and flagrant anti-Mongolian bias: Ata-Malek of Juvayn.  Evidence indicates that most of the looting of Merv would have occurred toward the end of the 13th century by Kaidu Khan of the Chagatai Khanate (via Ogedei).  There are also horrifying–though highly dubious–tales of massacres at Nishapur and Herat (also c. 1221).  For similar reasons, those accounts must be taken with a hefty grain of salt.  The razing of [Old] Urgench (also in 1221) was perpetrated by Genghis Khan’s (insolent) sons: Jochi and Chagatai…who resorted to drastic measures (including: flooding the entire city) after six grueling months of fighting.  In no case was killing due to a campaign of ethnic cleansing.}

{35  By the mid-17th century, the Enlightenment was gathering steam.  In the wake of the critical essays of Michel Eyquem of Montaigne, René Descartes’ bold forays into rationalism, and Nicolas Copernicus’ ground-breaking “The Harmony of the World”, the stage was set for a major sea-change.  Francis Bacon wrote a landmark disquisition on the scientific method in 1620: “Novum Organum”.  Robert Boyle published “The Skeptical Chymist” in 1661.  And starting in 1665, the world’s first scientific journal was published in England: the “Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society”.  None of it had anything to do with sacred doctrine.  In fact, every word of it amounted to a repudiation of “received wisdom”.}

{36  Even the United States can’t seem to get something as fundamental as “free speech” right.  To the present day, many citizens AND OFFICIALS persist in proscribing politically incorrect things like flag-burning; while mandating (in signature fascist fashion) that everyone stand at attention during the national anthem…as if they were hewing to Juche in North Korea.  And in most states, sympathizers of Revisionist Zionism have managed to enact anti-B.D.S. legislation…in flagrant contravention of the Constitution’s First Amendment (explicitly guaranteeing the freedom of speech / protest).  This is a stark reminder that, as I write this essay, fascist strains linger in the self-proclaimed “freest country in the world”.  Meanwhile, many Americans STILL can’t seem to apprehend the simple principle, “separation of Church and State” (insisting that public funds be used to facilitate religious observance; and that religious operations be exempt from standard taxation).  Incredibly, there exists even more misunderstanding when it comes to the SECOND Amendment (a topic I explore at length in my essay about its incontrovertible obsolescence).}

{37  Note that this is not to be confused with the reprobate movement known as “post-modernism”; which was every bit as delusive as the psychical / social constructs it sought to debunk (as it was based upon absolutist moral / cultural relativism.)  THAT ironically became its own religion–replete with catechism and sanctified dogmatic edifice (namely: that everything under the sun was–and could only ever be–a psychical / social construct).  This involved its own anti-science bias: an absolutist treatment of behaviorism and rejection of evolutionary psychology.}

{38  In general terms: Justifying X by recourse to X is, of course, question-begging.  For any given system (X), an analysis of X must be done from a meta-X standpoint.  Consequently, one is obliged to assess X according to standards that exist independently of X.}

{39  Think of someone who constantly found the need to announce, “I am brilliant!  I am filled with compassion!  And don’t you forget it!”  What would this say about such a person?  Hint: He is most likely NOT brilliant OR compassionate.  (After all, actions speak louder than words.)  Yet we hear some version of: “Remember me.  Pay tribute to me.  Be grateful to me; and don’t deny me.”  Does this sound like an unfathomably wise super-being?  2:152 in the Koran puts these words into the mouth of the alleged Creator of the Universe; thereby making him seem like a spoiled debutant (or an ornery diva, depending on the tone one ascribes to the pronouncement).  In the Koran, the reader is expected to believe that this navel-gazing deity is wonderful because he repeatedly PROCLAIMS that he is wonderful.}

{40  Does this sound like the “frame of mind” of a divine entity?  Suffice to say, it is rather peculiar for a super-being to create creatures only to say to them: “Pay tribute to me.  Pay homage to me.  Revere me.  Kneel before me.  Tell me how great I am!  THAT is the only reason you exist.”  In effect, the protagonist of the Koran says of mankind: “I created them so that they would submit to me and routinely remind me that I’m awesome.  I will reward those who play along; and punish those who don’t oblige me.”  Super-beings, it would seem, would be above such demands.}

{41  Apparently, the Creator Of The Universe expects us to spend our lives GROVELING.  That is to say: He would have us tripping over ourselves to appease him.  We lowly humans need to constantly remind this cosmic overlord how great he is–and must do so for OUR OWN good, not for his gratification.  But why is this?  Because, we are told, in order to TRULY appreciate him, we need to constantly remind OURSELVES, several times daily.  And what better way than to demonstrate our fealty to him in overt (ritualistic) ways?  Of course, this makes no sense (lest we suppose this super-being subscribes to some high-octane version of neuro-linguistic programming; and assumes we are all suffering from a daily bout of senility).  To fully appreciate X, we hardly need to incessantly re-assert X’s virtues day in and day out.}

{42 For more on this topic, see Susan Jacoby’s “Freethinkers” and Charles Freeman’s “The Closing Of The Western Mind”.}

{43 Meanwhile, Occident-fetishists decry a bogeyman dubbed “Cultural Marxism”.  This term of disparagement is nonsensical; as a Marxian critique is an economic critique.  Such ideals have nothing to do with moral relativism, “identity politics”, or any of the other hobgoblins that right-wing polemicists associate with the nefarious “Left”.  As an epithet, “cultural Marxism” attempts to tie Marxian ideas (which are democratic) to illiberalism (which is fascistic); caricaturing social democracy as a gateway to a politburo…thereby putting us all on a path that leads to the gulag.  Such blathering is so bonkers, it’s enough to take one’s breath away. This queer locution has a telling genealogy. It actually began as “cultural Bolshevism”: a term used in Nazi propaganda to slander Germany’s (actual) socialists.  We might bear in mind that the quintessential anti-totalitarian writer of the 20th century, George Orwell, was a socialist; which tells us much of what one might want to know about those who attempt to link Marxian thought with tyrannical regimes.  For more on misapprehensions of Marx, see Appendix 4 of my essay, “The Long History of Legal Codes”.}

{44 When the Babylonian scribes penned the Torah during the Exilic period, the notion of being made in god’s image (as crudely expressed in Genesis 9:6) was nothing new. This tenet had been articulated far more eloquently in the Vedic tradition, via the principle of “purusavada”. The idea that we are all “one with the divine” (that each of us has inherent value) was expressed in the four “Maha-vakyas” (core mantras). First: “Prajna[nam] Brahma[n]” (insight is predicated on the universal consciousness). Second: “Ayam Atma[n] Brahma[n]” (each self is part of the universal consciousness). Third: “Aham Brahma Asmi” (I am part of the universal consciousness). Fourth: “Tat [alt. Sat] Tvam Asi” (all of existence is embodied in you). In the 6th century B.C., Pythagoras of Samos articulated the idea in his “Chrysa Epe” [“Golden Verses”], in which he implored: “Take heart; all of mankind is divinity.”  Later, the Roman philosopher, Cicero posited the “divina mens” (divine mind) that pervaded all humanity.  In this view, mankind was guided by the “numen” (divine will).}

{45  The disjunctive genealogy of Marx’s surname is based on his father’s name-change.  He went from Heschel ben Mordec[h]ai to Heinrich Marx (though he often went by “Henry”).  It was not uncommon for European Jews to alter their names at the time.  Karl’s paternal grandfather, Mordec[h]ai ha-Levi was the chief rabbi of Trier; and it’s anyone’s guess the circumstances with which Henry was forced to contend as he came of age—as a Rhineland Jew—in the late 18th century.}

{46  Regrettably, the association of Jews with fiduciary mendacity was—and continues to be—a common trope in anti-Semitic circles; but this was—and still is—beside the point.  When Jews engage in financial malfeasance, it’s STILL wrong.  Avarice is avarice, irrespective of the perpetrator. Exempting someone from moral judgement simply because he / she happens to be Jewish is absurd. The key is to not base the indictment on ethnicity. To accuse someone of anti-Semitism simply because the object of their indictment happens to be Jewish is downright perfidious.}

APPENDIX:

When it comes to progress, a hidebound commitment to conventional thinking typically hamstrings our ability to consider revolutionary new ways of doing things.  Seeing as how we are creatures of habit, and considering the formidable power of memetic inertia, conventional thinking tends to only dissipate over time.  It is worth recalling the sage words of Thomas Paine in “Common Sense”: “Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor.  A long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.  But the tumult soon subsides.  Time makes more converts than reason.”

But what of reputedly “secular” tyranny?  As with North Korea’s “Juche” (in present-day North Korea), movements like Stalinism and Maoism (cults of personality in the context of Soviet-style “communism”) are–erroneously–held up as exemplars of secularity.  This is not only false; it is the opposite of the case.  In each of these regimes, the most virulent cult activity was operative.  They serve as a reminder that cult activity flourishes in illiberal environs; and so is bound to thrive in the midst of a despotic reign (see my essay: “The Different Faces Of Fascism”).

A regime of highly-concentrated power and top-down control (as well as a mechanism for groupthink and the promulgation of some repertoire of dogmas) fuels the cultic pathos.  With a program of systematically-enforced compliance / conformity already in place, a society is primed for religious fundamentalism–be it a traditional religion or a novel one.  Juche, Stalinism, and Maoism are illustrative.  Though the “religion” of such regimes was not of the conventional sort (their objects of deification were not celestial entities), they were effectively totalitarian theocracies.  (Stalin believed in a god; its name was Stalin.  Mao believed in a god; its name was Mao.  And “Choson” STILL DO believe in a god; its name is Il-Sung of the Kim family.)

In each case, it is important to recognize WHY and HOW such regimes were iniquitous.  Certain features made them antithetical to civil society; and thus devastating to the commonweal.  As it turns out, those features are hallmarks of cult activity.

Some religious apologists are tempted to conclude from these 20th-century outrages: “SEE?  Look what happens when people aren’t sufficiently religious [viz. the Abrahamic Faith]!”  The conclusion they draw is equally daft: “We should therefore embrace some combination of OUR OWN (Judeo-Christian) fundamentalism; and–in doing so–espouse what we see as the antithesis of absolutist socialism: anarcho-capitalism.”  This completely miss the point.  It’s as if one were to consider the horrors of the Khmer Rouge and conclude: “If only Pol Pot had been more religious!”

As it turns out, neither tribalism nor institutionalized dogmatism play any role in the creation of civil society.  Universal principles categorically transcend any/all culture; as they are not social constructs.  That is: They are “sub specie aeternitatis”, not products of historical accident; which means that they are not subject to social forces in the way that social / psychical constructs are.

As discussed, such universals are accessible to us via what John Rawls dubbed “reflective equilibrium”: a process by which all reasonable people deliberate in an honest forum; and–as disinterested interlocutors–eventually converge on a verdict.  Such consensus is inevitable so long as everyone is being REASONABLE.  They key is for interlocutors to not be addled with bias.  Rawls proposed that any vested interests can be nullified from an “original position” by assessing socio-economic policy through a “veil of ignorance” (of one’s own socio-economic status).

I explore this matter further in my essay on “The Long History Of Legal Codes”.