http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1222-06.htm
Published on Monday, December 22, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
Everybody Wants to Claim God is on their Side
by Heather Gray
It appears that everyone these days wants to claim that God is somehow
involved in their war or massacre or similar plans. George Bush says
God guides him… Ariel Sharon says the same… Tony Blair has similar
sentiments. Hitler said God was with him when he invaded west European
countries to protect and free them from the scourge of British
influence. Recently U.S. Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin has
received a slew of criticism for his comments at a religious group in
Oregon, saying "radical Islamists hate the United States 'because
we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are
Judeo-Christian. And the enemy is a guy named Satan'". Saddam Hussein
says God is on his side. With all these folks claiming God must be on
their side, I thought, heck, I'd like get in on the act and have my
say as well. And anyway, given this is the season when the Christians
in the world reflect upon the birth of Jesus, God, and the importance
of religion generally, it seemed vital to review some history
regarding all of this - it might even have some relevance to what the
US is doing today in the Middle East.
Representatives from all three religions that claim their origins from
Abraham - Judaism, Christianity, Islam - are touting God, seemingly
regardless of what they do…regardless of how violent or ruthless they
might be. As scholar Karen Armstrong has wisely noted in one of her
recent books, there is and has been a "Battle for God" among the
fundamentalists of all three religions.
In her book "Holy War: The Crusades and their Impact on Today's World"
Armstrong notes that after September 11, 2001 when Bush launched his
campaign against international terrorism he made reference to a
"crusade" in this effort which was, of course, alarming to the Muslim
world…and rightly so. She continues by saying that if you really want
to understand what's happening you have to have a "triple vision" -
you have to attempt to understand the origins and history of all three
of these religions.
Armstrong says that the Crusaders were not a fringe group in Europe.
She says that they were "central" to forging the Western identity,
which remains today. It was on November 25, 1095 that Pope Urban made
the devastating call for the first crusade against Islam. Armstrong
notes that "Before the Crusaders arrived in Jerusalem in July 1099 and
savagely butchered some 40,000 of its Jewish and Muslim inhabitants,
Jews, Christians and Muslims had lived together there under Islamic
rule in relative harmony for 460 years." When the Muslim Saladin
reclaimed Jerusalem in 1187, the conditions had been radically altered
by the European crusaders in which the suspicions between the three
religious groups had become intensified and which made harmony all the
more difficult to achieve. The legacy of all this is clearly
problematic up to the present day.
But what I find intriguing about Christian churches is the lack of
historical perspective. It is likely that church leaders don't want
the masses apprised of this history as it might challenge the church's
considerable influence and control in some circles. The controversy
and scandals surrounding the distribution of the Dead Sea scrolls from
Qumran and the Nag Hammadi scrolls from Upper Egypt, which were found
in the 1940's, is a case in point. In their book the "Dead Sea Scrolls
Deception" Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh describe the attempts on
the part of the Catholic Church, in particular, to prevent the
distribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls to scholars throughout the world.
Elaine Pagels, author of "The Gnostic Gospels", describes how the
suppression of the Nag Hammadi scrolls was due to scholarly jealousies
and a vast array of political issues.
The recent scholarship based on the Dead Sea scrolls and the Nag
Hammadi scrolls adds much to our understanding of the political,
social and religious climate in Palestine 2000 years ago. Jesus was
born during the Roman occupation of Palestine. As skilled occupiers,
the imperial Romans attempted to control virtually every aspect of
Jewish life to serve the interests of the empire and prevent dissent.
The most corrupting Roman influence, of course, was the control over
the Jewish faith and the Roman selection of puppet priests of the
Temple in Jerusalem who would bow to Rome (today we might call them
"Uncle Tom" priests). Rome also appointed Jewish puppets to head the
civil society, such as Herod, and hired individuals to quell the
resistance to Roman rule. Paul (or Saul, as he was known, prior to his
awakening on the road to Damascus after the crucifixion of Jesus) was
one of those hired by Rome to persecute individuals in the resistance
movement.
In their book "The Messianic Legacy", scholars Michael Baigent,
Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln describe the fierce resistance against
Rome and Jesus' possible affiliation with the Zealots (or those with a
"zeal" for adherence to Jewish law) whose "position was
straightforward enough. No Jew should pay tribute to Rome. No Jew
should acknowledge the Roman emperor as his master….The patriotic and
religious duty of every Jew was to fight for the… reinstatement of a
rightful ruler presiding over the Kingdom of Israel." They go on to
say that "whatever Jesus' association with the Zealots….There is no
question but that the Roman's perceived Jesus as a military and
political figure…Crucifixion was a penalty reserved for transgressions
against Roman law, and Rome would not have bothered to crucify a man
preaching a purely spiritual message, or a message of peace…." Jesus
was also touted as being from the House of David - Jewish royal blood
- which might also have been threatening to Roman rulers.
In her book on the crusades Armstrong writes, " It is not clear what
Jesus intended to do about the Romans, but eventually he was arrested
by the authorities and the governor Pontius Pilate sentenced him to
die by the Roman punishment of crucifixion, which might indicate that
he was worried about Jesus' political activities."
In "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln describe how it
was highly likely Jesus was married. Speculation from both the New
Testament Gospels and recent scroll analysis is that the most likely
person to have married Jesus would have been Mary Magdalene. What is
most fascinating, however, is the speculation that Jesus and Mary had
a child. This issue has received national attention lately with Dan
Brown's recent and popular fiction "The Da Vinci Code". Brown refers
to the speculation of Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene and the
historical European response to this.
After the crucifixion of Jesus, the family of Jesus was also probably
vulnerable to Roman persecution and was forced to leave Palestine.
Baigent et al say that it is likely that Mary sailed across the
Mediterranean into southern Europe and ultimately the family (or their
descendants) settled in southern France and that a secret society
evolved around the family for its protection - the best known being
the Prieure de Sion. The alleged grand masters of the Prieure de Sion
have been documented since 1188 and include renowned individuals such
as Leonardo Da Vinci, Isaac Newton, Victor Hugo and Claude Debussy.
Scholars indicate that the society is still in existence today. "Holy
Blood, Holy Grail" refers to the possibility that the "holy grail" was
never a cup from the Last Supper, for example, or any other jewels
from the time of Jesus, but rather the "holy grail" referred to the
"holy blood" from the family of Jesus.
For hundreds of years, given the dictatorial and prosecutorial reach
of the Roman Catholic Church, anyone challenging church doctrine was
vulnerable. Exceptional secrecy, therefore, was paramount to protect
members of the society. Interestingly, in spite of the secrecy,
Leonard Da Vinci's painting of the "Last Supper" depicts a strikingly
female looking figure to Jesus' right. Many indicate that this is Da
Vinci's rendition of Mary Magdalene.
Did Jesus intend to start a new religion? This is highly unlikely. It
appears that he was primarily concerned about the corrupting influence
of Rome on his fellow Jews. Armstrong notes that Jesus "began his
mission in Galilee…and attracted a large following. He seems to have
devoted himself particularly to converting the poor and the "sinners"
of Israel, who either collaborated with the Romans or did not observe
the 'Torah'". Baigent et al acknowledge that Jesus was, of course, a
devout Jew and to suggest that another religion be created to rival
Judaism would be blasphemous. Jesus, however, while clearly seeking
reforms within Judaism, was anxious to see his religion purified and
devoid of the alien and demeaning influence of Rome. Witness his anger
at the moneychangers in the Temple. Armstrong infers that Jesus
probably occupied the Temple for one week prior to his arrest by the
Romans. Clearly, the Romans did not appreciate his defiant action. Nor
was Jesus' leadership likely appreciated by the Jewish leaders who
were cooperating with Rome, as they probably also felt threatened by
his actions - threats that could upset or diminish their collaborative
relationship with Roman officials.
It is well known that today's Christianity was largely the creation of
Paul who never knew Jesus. Paul did this even in spite of the harsh
criticism of this effort by the followers of Jesus. James, who some
refer to as Jesus' brother, likely led the movement in Palestine after
Jesus death. He was one of the primary critics of Paul's activities
and, in fact, had recalled Paul to Jerusalem after receiving letters
from him about his work in Tarsus (now in Turkey).
The above is but a brief summary of the important scholarship around
the life and challenges faced by Jesus and others 2000 years ago and
some of the subsequent consequences of religious conflicts. As with
those who resisted Roman rule at the time of Jesus, the fact remains
that throughout human history whenever people are treaty unjustly,
invariably they react and resist the efforts to control and abuse
them. Some recent examples are the South African movement against the
apartheid system; the civil rights movement in the United States
against white supremacy; the movement in the Philippines to resist US
interference in Philippine sovereignty; the Palestinian movement to
end the occupation and abuse by Israel; the growing resistance on the
part of Iraqi's to end the US occupation. The list goes on and on.
With reference to Bush, Blair, Sharon, Hitler, Boykin, Hussein above,
most of the imperialists throughout history have had some kind of
religious justification for their oppressive behavior with rhetoric
such as "we'll save them, we'll free them, we'll bring them
civilization, we'll bring them religion". Clearly, oppressors have not
bothered to ask those they are oppressing whether they have a desire
to be the recipients of this arrogant mission. Invariably, the
religious justification is a disguise of the real motivation for
oppression, which is usually economic gain and/or access to resources.
On the other side of the coin, the oppressed also usually have a
religious justification for their resistance to persecution.
Interestingly, Jews, Christians and Muslims, whether they are the
oppressors or the oppressed, all worship the same God. To say this is
a convoluted situation is an understatement. Regarding Jesus, however,
the question remains, would he have been on the side of the apartheid
state, the white supremacists in America, the U.S. abusers in the
Philippines, Israeli occupiers and abusers of Palestinians, and the US
imperialists and occupiers now in Iraq? What do you think?
Heather Gray is the producer of "Just Peace" on WRFG-Atlanta 89.3 FM
covering local, regional,
.
|
