ARE RIGHT-WING JUDEO-CHRISTIAN AMERICANS CORRECT WHEN THEY CONTEND THAT MONOTHEISTIC FUNDAMENTALISM IS GOOD, WHEREAS POLYTHEISTIC YOGA IS EVIL?

PREFATORY NOTE: The reader will understand this essay's theme better if s/he takes a few minutes to read Dr. Mel Seeholtz's 6-22-06 Online Journal essay, "Beware The Yoga Demon! The Christian Right's Fear Of Self-Realization And Spirituality," at this URL: http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_930.shtml

Dr. Seeholtz's main point is that "They're still at it. Those paranoid Christian fundamentalists are attacking yoga again." Evidently he thinks the main difference between the American Fundamentalist Right and Western Polytheistic Yoga boils down to their incompatible belief systems concerning homosexuality: the former tend to demonize homosexuals; whereas the latter tend to support gay-and-lesbian rights. Realistically, this is a gross oversimplification, for their differences run much deeper, and his decision to focus on this less-important wedge issue possibly reflects his own personal struggles. Nevertheless, he is correct when he states that the American Fundamentalist Right fears yogic self-realization and transcendental spirituality.

IS FUNDAMENTALIST JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY FULLY MONOTHEISTIC?

A seemingly-trivial mistranslation reveals one of the deeper issues behind the American Right's simpletonian debate about "monotheistic goodness" versus "polytheistic evil." Dr. Seeholtz quotes the right-wing televangelist Pat Robertson as having written, in defense of Judeo-Christianity, that the true name of "God is Elohim", whereas the Islamic name "Allah" refers to a false "moon god." Therefore, Pat Robertson is asserting that Judeo-Christianity's "Elohim" is authentically monotheistic, whereas Islam's "Allah" is merely the latest clone of some much older polytheistic god (e.g., probably Hinduism's Shiva, who is often depicted wearing a crescent moon on his forehead).

However, we need to take a closer look at Pat Robertson's assertion that "God is Elohim." The Hebrew word "Elohim" is plural, and it literally means the "GODS"; whereas the Hebrew word "Elohe" is singular, and it literally means "GOD." Hence, a literally accurate translation of his monotheistic assertion that the true name of God is "Elohim" would yield the polytheistic assertion that the true name of God is "Gods."

Has Pat Robertson ignorantly, or conveniently, mistranslated the Hebrew word "elohim"? Insofar as fundamentalists like Robertson adhere to the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy -- which asserts that every word of the Bible is literally true -- they should be translating every word of scripture as literally as possible. If they know enough Hebrew to ensure the accuracy of their scriptural translations, that militates toward the conclusion that this is a convenient mistranslation. Are they trying to hide something significant from us when they mistranslate the word "elohim"? Yes, they're hiding something that makes the early Hebrews much more like polytheistic Hindu yogis!

When read in the original Hebrew, the opening verses of the Bible's Book of Genesis consistently use the plural word "Elohim" (lit. "GODS"), and not the singular word "Elohe" (lit. "GOD"), when referring to the Divine. Therefore, if Genesis 1:1 were accurately translated from Hebrew into English, it would have to read as follows: "In the beginning, the GODS created the heavens and the earth." Furthermore, the Book of Exodus tells us that the Hebrews carried their "HOUSEHOLD GODS" with them as they were departing from Egypt. What conclusions can we draw from this scriptural evidence?

A literal translation of the Old Testament strongly indicates that: (1) the Hebrews were POLYTHEISTS for centuries after Genesis had been written; and (2) the Hebrews evolved into their doctrine of MONOTHEISM at a much later date. In short, the Hebrews were still practicing polytheism when much of the Pentateuch -- the first 5 books of the Bible -- was being written.

Of course, this raises some troubling questions for the Religious Right's fundamentalist scholars: How can every word of the Bible be "literally true" if the Old Testament's opening verses assert the doctrine of polytheism, and the doctrine of monotheism only evolved much later? If the Book of Genesis asserts a polytheistic Hebrew worldview that's similar to the polytheistic Hindu worldview, aren't those verses intrinsically false according their own criteria (i.e., that monotheism is good and true, whereas polytheism is false and evil)? And if those Old Testament verses are false, doesn't that invalidate "biblical inerrancy"?

Fundamentalist evangelical scholars will typically try to salvage their Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy through tricky answers, like this intellectually-dishonest rationalization: (1) they knowingly mistranslate the Hebrew word "elohim" to mean "The Supreme Creator God"; (2) they attempt to explain away this intentional misinterpretation by interpolating the much later Christian Doctrine of the Holy Trinity into the Old Testament's Book of Genesis; which (3) allows them to disingenuously claim that the ancient Hebrew author of Genesis was somehow using the plural word "elohim" as an anticipatory acknowledgment of the Trinitarian Godhead's Three Personalities -- Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

So . . . let's get this straight: according to the fundamentalists, the author of Genesis didn't mean to use the word that he in fact repeatedly wrote, "gods"; rather, he meant to use a concept that he'd never heard of and didn't write, 'The Holy Trinity.' If you buy that cockamamie explanation, then have I got a deal for you: I happen to own a bridge to New York City that's worth millions of dollars, and I'm willing to sell it to you right now for just $10,000.00 in cash! Of course, the intellectually-honest explanation is that the early Hebrews were polytheists, just like the Hindu yogis."

ARE THE MONOTHEISTIC RELIGIONS OF THE MIDDLE EAST 100% "GOOD" WHEN THEY'RE VIEWED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF COMPARATIVE RELIGION?

To fully refute the fundamentalists' not-so-clever obfuscations, we must consider Middle Eastern monotheism from the enlightening perspective of comparative religion.

As we have already seen, the original Hebrew polytheism gradually evolved into Hebrew monotheism. Then another transition took place: God gave the Hebrews His Decalogue; following which, their man-made legalism swallowed His revealed religion. They gradually embedded His simple revelation-based legal code in an elaborate man-made system of rules and ritual observances. Indeed, their priestly caste's lawmakers created and recorded more than six hundred rules (e.g., see the Biblical Books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy).

So what is the difference between the Hebrew religion and their legal code? Not much! The Hebrew elders created an elaborate system of rituals and rules that went well beyond the simple elegance of the Decalogue. For the Hebrew elders were not so much priests as they were judges who ran a theocracy; and the Hebrew system of rituals and rules was not so much a revealed religion as it was a man-made legal system.

At this point it would be helpful for us to distinguish between "religion" and "religiosity." The English word "religion" was derived from the Latin root word "re-ligio", which literally means "to bind back to the ultimate source." Thus, monotheistic religions should have a firsthand experiential component; they should bind their practitioners back to a personal encounter with the ultimate source, the Living Transcendent God.

However, the Hebrews created a theocratic alliance of religion with the state. In their system, the "ultimate source" was not a transcendental reality but rather the human power to enforce the state's laws. Theocracy invariably destroys religion's spiritual insights by enslaving them to the state's power-driven agenda. Wherever one finds theocracy, one also finds that authentic religion's transcendent truths have been replaced by religiosity's sanctimoniously-hypocritical rules and pietistic rituals. Hence, the correct word to define Hebrew theocracy would have to be "RELIGIOSITY."

Let us now compare the Middle East's three monotheistic religions -- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Christianity arose in the Jewish cultural context as a REFORM movement: the teachings of Jesus Christ in the Synoptic Gospels clearly superseded Judaism's tribalism, legalism, literalism, and bellicosity. It is noteworthy that the Essenes, who were Judaism's first spiritual radicals, were in significant respects far closer to Jesus Christ's reforms than to Hebrew religiosity. Interestingly, the Templars claimed that Jesus WAS an Essene, as Dan Brown correctly notes in "The DaVinci Code."

Among the three monotheistic religions of the Middle East, only authentic CHRISTIANITY spawned a dynamic "liberal" culture, partly because it was supra-national, multi-cultural and trans-racial. And partly because authentic Christianity asserted that salvation does NOT come from a traditional culture's rigid religiosity (i.e., outward observance of man-made rules and rituals), but rather from one's personal faith-relationship with a loving redeemer God who progressively guides us toward inwardly-real righteousness.

THE MONOTHEISTIC RELIGIONS OF ISLAM AND JUDAISM SHARE FOUR MAJOR FLAWS.

Contrastingly, the other monotheistic religions of the Middle East -- ISLAM AND JUDAISM -- spawned static "traditional" cultures that SHARE FOUR VIRTUALLY-IDENTICAL FLAWS. These flaws render their truth-claims incompatible, and lead directly to their long history of mutual hatred:

1) both are extremely TRIBALISTIC (i.e., their religions are a form of ethnocentric self-celebration because they deem either the Arab tribes or the Hebrew tribes to be God's only "Chosen People", and thus our planet's master race, who have been uniquely charged with redeeming all of human history by either converting everyone who is outside of their tribe or destroying them);

2) both are extremely LEGALISTIC (i.e., their priestly caste does not so much maintain a religion as govern a primitive legal system that consists of manmade rules, rituals, and punishments, and in which righteousness can be obtained only through one's outward show of pietistic observances, like praying five times daily while facing Mecca, or wearing one's yarmulke and phylactery while scrupulously keeping the kosher dietary laws);

3) both are extremely LITERALISTIC (i.e., they believe their tribal God is a stern lawmaker who quite literally bestowed upon them "The World's Only Perfect Culture To Preserve The Eternally-Correct Rules" -- namely, the Shari'a law and the Mosaic law -- and perpetual custody over "The World's Only Sacred Lands" -- namely, "The Land Of Milk And Honey," plus their "Holy Cities" of Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem);

4) both are extremely BELLICOSE (e.g., they contain the intolerant, vindictive, genocidal doctrine of "Holy War" [or "Jihad"], as evidenced by numerous Old Testament passages like Exodus 22:20 ["You must kill those who sacrifice to or worship another god."], Deuteronomy 13:6-10 ["Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own."], Deuteronomy 13:12-16 ["Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you."], Deuteronomy 17:2-7 ["Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own."], Deuteronomy 17:12-13 ["Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest."], Deuteronomy 18:20 ["Kill any false prophets."], and as evidenced by strikingly similar passages in the Qu'ran).

In short, Islam and Judaism are remarkably similar, but ultimately incompatible, because they are both TRIBALISTIC-LEGALISTIC-LITERALISTIC-BELLICOSE RELIGIONS. Their tragic commitment to tribalism destined them, from the very beginning, to engage in the bloody conflict that we are still witnessing today in the Mideast.

THE AMERICAN FUNDAMENTALIST RIGHT HAS BACKSLID INTO THE SAME FLAWS.

Sadly, we have joined them as co-jihadists, and certainly not as peacemakers. By now it is obvious that the supposedly "good" Monotheistic Right's devolution into tribalistic-legalistic-literalistic-bellicose religiosity was the driving force that propelled Americans into that bloody conflict. Moreover, the Right has revived the theocratic doctrine of "Holy War" (a.k.a. the "Bush Doctrine of Preemptive War"), and used it to transform our nation into an idolatrous False Messiah who "converts the heathen" through lethal force. Furthermore, the backsliding Right's "Holy War" doctrine flatly contradicts the teachings of the Prince ofPeace, Jesus Christ, in the Synoptic Gospels. Meanwhile, the supposedly "evil" Western polytheistic yogis are neither waging aggressive war nor committing massacres, but rather peacefully pursuing transcendental self-realization.

Therefore, when we consider the titular question from the enlightened perspective of comparative religion, we must conclude that that the American Right is dead wrong in its self-serving belief that monotheistic fundamentalism is "good," whereas polytheistic yoga is "evil" -- that is, unless fascist spin-doctors like Ann Coulter have successfully inverted the original meaning of these words such that "evil is good" and "good is evil."

-JOE AMERICAN

-###-

June 26, 2006 By: Joe American. FINAL NOTE TO THE READER: If you agree with this essay, please forward it to your friends, relatives and colleagues!