“In addition to serving as an explanation for the creation of our universe, our world, and ourselves, God became the ultimate enforcer of rules, the final arbiter of moral dilemmas, and the pinnacle object of commitment.” (57) -- Michael Shermer
Then they will follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. They will be my people, and I will be their God. (Ezekiel 11:20)
While religion can provide a undisputed alpha for a people to follow, there is a problem that comes with the nature of a supernatural being. Namely, “he” resides “up there.” Above. In the heavens. You can’t see him as being “right here,” part of the group. And as the saying goes, “When the cat is away, the mouse will play.”
When your alpha is remote, how might he or she be capable of influencing individual behavior and adequately rule a group? For one, you can make vision uni-directional. No, you cannot see him. But he can see you. He is always watching. He knows everything. In the next section I’ll address this scenario. In this section, however, I’ll discuss a second way a physically absent alpha can exert control on his group. In brief, like a parent who leaves a to-do list for children when leaving the house—admonishing the youth that these things must get done, perhaps with stated repercussions if they do or don't—a god can dictate rules for his people. Or call them laws.
“Because of Moses’ traditional role in what was, in actual fact, a set of laws that developed slowly over the centuries, the whole is termed the ‘Mosaic law’ or, more simply still, ‘the Law.’ The Hebrew word for the first five books is ‘Torah,’ which is the Hebrew word for ‘law.’” (58)
One might call Moses the first administrative assistant to Yahweh. He dictated laws delivered from above. And much of the Old Testament is, in fact, about laws: about when to apply them, and what happens if you violate them. “Deuteronomy” means second law; in the Pentateuch, the first five books of the OT, (the Torah) there is mention of over six hundred laws.(59) Or call them commandments. Rules. Decrees about how to behave to keep your god’s favor, and, not incidentally, to help maintain social cohesion. Rules help people to not only know what to do, but what to expect.
I remember your ancient laws, O LORD, and I find comfort in them. (Psalms 119:52)
Many of the rules in the Bible may seem arbitrary at first blush. Consider Exodus 17:10:
I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
Rules can serve many functions: for helping people get along, for establishing and maintaining group identity, and for propping up the status of the alpha via symbolism.
Any astute reader of the Bible will notice that the “New Covenant” Jesus presents is much less law-like than what we find in the older texts. As Elaine Pagels pointed out in her book, The Origin of Satan: “Whereas Moses’ law prohibits murder, Jesus’ ‘new Torah’ prohibits anger, insults, and name calling; where Moses’ law prohibits adultery, Jesus prohibits lust.”(60) In a sense, this seems like stroke of spiritual genius, turning from behavior to the feeling states that can precede and precipitate it. Yet this turn may have been out of necessity. Jesus preached in more of a cultural crossroads that already has established law. There was Roman law “on the books” and members of Jewish churches had their own sets of laws. So as not to usurp or violate pre-existing laws, and to prevent both alienating individuals in other groups he may otherwise be able to recruit and inciting the wrath of these other groups by stepping on their toes, Jesus went more abstract. Rather than concretely outlining how individuals must “clean up their act,” Jesus instructed his followers and crowds of prospective followers to “purify their hearts.”
Oh sure, there may have been some Carl Rogers-type humanism behind his ways. But we mustn’t forget how strongly our social environment will influence our psychology.
[A]nd whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (Romans 13:9)
In their paper, “Belief in Moralizing Gods,” published in the journal, Evolution and Human Behavior, Frans L. Roes and Michel Raymond present the case that a type of god, namely one that cares about the behavior of his people—a “moralizing god”—likely serves as a social tool. And tools are invented and employed where a need exists. They write:
“In the case of hostile neighbouring societies, this means cooperation for defensive reasons and, in that of recurring droughts, the maintenance of irrigation networks and restraint in water usage. Cooperation between large numbers of people invariable means moral rules regulating relations between them and prescribing what is right and what is wrong, and with these recurring threats, the moral rules should be imposed with authority. How better than by a moralizing god?” (61)
The god-concept can be a very useful tool for a number of reasons. As Roes and Raymond point out, 1)a god has a potentially unlimited lifespan, 2) because the rules come from a god, group members are more likely to perceive them as impartial, and 3) “Belief in these gods signals acceptance of the rules.”(62) Given a large social group, with little individual knowledge of one another, that last reason could be tremendously helpful. Want to know what rules a person lives by? Determine what god they accept as their leader.
Of course, in terms of actual belief and behavior, it is more complicated than that. For example, the rules a religious person ascribes to tends to govern their behavior when within group. Outside of the group, not so much.(59) Which is not surprising, as social psychology 101 will inform us. But it does highlight the fact that at least originally, religion evolved as a social tool. It isn’t as personal as modern minds have us suppose.
---
(57) Shermer, M. The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule, Times Books, New York, 2004, p.47
(58) Asimov, I., Asimov’s Guide to the Bible: The Old and New Testaments, Wing Books, New York, 1969, p.17
(59) Dennett, D., Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, Viking, New York, 2006, p.335
(60) Pagels, E., The Origin of Satan, Vintage, New York, 1995, p. 82
(61) Roes, F. L. & Raymond, R., “Belief in Moralizing Gods,” Evolution and Human Behavior, Vol. 24(2), 2003.
(62) Roes, F. L., and Raymond, M., March 2003, Pages 126?135.
(63) Wilson, D.S. Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, 2002, p. 180
It is God who judges: He brings one down, he exalts another. (Psalms 75:7)
“The word ‘judge’ is here used in the sense of ‘ruler’ since in early cultures, the chief function of a tribal ruler in peacetime was that of judging disputes and reaching, it was to be hoped, some just decision. This had the crucial purpose of preventing internal feuds and disputes that would weaken the entire population in the face of some always waiting outer enemy.” (47) -Isaac Asimov
Alphas are not just bullies. They can bring benefits to all members of a group. Sure, some dominants can be invariably despotic, but others are not at all. Most individuals at the top likely have traits of both, or at least the potential to manifest them, depending on the circumstances.
A major benefit an alpha can bring to a group is taking on the role of adjudicator.Two squabbling individuals can cause ripples of unrest through the group. If left to the group to resolve, besides being very inefficient, schisms may form based on blood and favors owed, possibly resulting in a widening of the conflict, perhaps to the breaking point.
A single judge, meanwhile, one preferable above and beyond all individuals, could more efficiently arbitrate conflicts, better keeping the dispute neatly circumscribed. This type of arbitration is more likely to result in a ruling both acceptable and heeded.
The "preferably above and beyond" characteristic of a judge is important. These characteristics play a prominent role in the Bible. The greatest judge is definitely above, with power and status beyond dispute. Who could question a ruling either made or prescribed and thus sanctioned by the Almighty? The greatest judge would also be beyond exclusive ties to individuals in the group, thus would be capable of showing impartiality. (In the Old Testament the almighty does favor one group, his chosen, and thus does display favoritism for them over the other nations. An imagined great alpha could only be as perfectly impartial as could the person breathing life into it.)
Even among otherwise highly despotic chimpanzees, this phenomenon of alpha-as-conflict-mediator can be observed. As Frans de Waal has written:
“If top-ranking individuals can be so problematic, why have them at all? Well, to settling disputes, for one. Instead of having everybody take sides, what better way to handle the situation than by investing authority in a single person, council of elders, or a government to serve the greater good by keeping order and finding solutions to disagreements?”(48)
As previously mentioned, violent disputes are more likely to break out among primates of similar status. You might say, when the question of who should defer does not have a clear answer. The truth is, primate hierarchies are not single-file 'pecking orders' with each member always subordinate to those above, dominant to those below. There are many factors involved, including the resource contested, the presence or absence of allies, etc.
The primatology alliance of Toshisada Nishida and Kazuhiko Hosaka wrote this in their article about alliances among chimpanzees:
“Only the highest two and the lowest three ranks were unequivocal.” (49)
In the Bible verse opening this section, we read of a judge adjusting the positions--or more importantly, the aspirations--of two parties at odds. In this case he equalizes the contestants, sending the message that neither has won, or lost. Status is a resource, and by taking that out of the equation--making parties equal or establishing on as clearly superior to the other--peace can be more readily achieved.
For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." (Luke 18:14)
Alpha chimpanzees can fill the role of social referee by mitigating conflict. Sometimes they will "back" the weak against the strong. Other times, to step between more evenly matched others.(50) Of course, some are better at this than others. Among primate leaders, the Biblical King Solomon was had a reputation for wisely mediating resolving disputes. As has also been noted about a significantly hairier 'lord' of a chimpanzee social group. In the words of de Waal--
“As alpha, Luit seemed to place himself above the conflicting parties, his intercessions aimed at the restoration of peace rather than at aiding his friends.”(51)
As among chimpanzees, the existence of an human alpha can bring positive things to subordinates. Reflecting this theme, we find many Biblical verses about how a great judge in the sky, a supernatural Luit, mediates conflicts. Sometimes generally, sometimes more specifically.
Honest scales and balances are from the LORD; all the weights in the bag are of his making. (Proverbs 16:11) & The LORD detests differing weights, and dishonest scales do not please him. (Proverbs 20:23)
Casting the lot settles disputes and keeps strong opponents apart. (Proverbs 18:18)
Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body. (Ephesians 4:25)
If you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins." (Mark 11:25)
If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:39)
A greatest alpha to adjudicate conflict and help keep a collection of family groups in harmony? Brilliant. Necessity as the mother of invention? In this case, the mother gave birth to a grand father. Group need will bear solutions. Religion is one. Not a perfect one, and one largely if not fully outmoded today, but religion does offer solutions to many a social need.
---
(47) Asimov, I., Asimov’s Guide to the Bible: The Old and New Testaments, Wing Books, New York, 1969, p.230
(48) de Waal, F. Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are, New York, Riverhead Books, 2005, p. 77
(49) Nishida, T., and Hosaka, K., “Coalition strategies among adult male chimpanzees of the Mahale Mountains, Tanzania” in McGrew, W. C. , Marchant, L. F. & Nishida, T., Great Ape Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1996, p.118
(50) de Waal, F., 2005, p. 77
(51) de Waal, F. , 2005, p.78
“Silverback gorillas use pig grunts to stop fights, and dominant chimpanzees routinely pacify the quarrels of subordinates.” (40) - Christopher Boehm
Where you find clever, aspiring and ultimately selfish social primates, you will also find episodes of discord and conflict. In ancient communities with a size sufficient to dilute and confuse family bonds—neighbors unrelated to one another—what could be done to keep personal disputes from escalating into something more serious, something that could disturb and harm the entire community and potentially ripping it apart?
“Sure, your family’s elder, your grandfather, says the cattle belongs to you because you found it. But my grandfather says it belongs to me because it is the offspring of my cow.”
Wouldn’t it be nice if an entire community could share a grandfather? Wouldn't it be handy to have an elder of undisputed authority and free of family bias to fill the role of social referee? Before books and legal systems and agencies to enforce the rules, what could a community do?
Enter religion. In a god one acquires a truly great grandfather, an agent capable of filling the role of mediator, judge and corrections officer rolled into one. Of course, you can’t see him. But he has his spokesmen, and they know his rules and values; "grandfather" speaks to them, and his words are right there: contained in mysterious marks on a roll of parchment.
A god is a judge beyond reproach, distant enough from individuals to be impartial, but with vested interest in the group. In this light, we can see how an imagined alpha can bring benefit to a group. A god is an invention that can help squelch squabbles, mediate conflict, and manage contested resources—just as, to some degree, a primate alpha can.
Squabble Squelcher
As Jimoh left adolescence and matured, the females in his group began acknowledging his superiority. From lowest ranking to high, they bowed down to him, simultaneously vocalizing their deference. Eventually, even the highest ranking female bowed before the greatness that was Jimoh. Among the males, his status likewise increased. He eventually took on a "control role." An alert individual, Jimoh was often observed quickly "breaking up the smallest squabbles before they [would] get out of hand.”(41)
Jimoh was a chimpanzee. And while he was an exceptional individual within his group, you could not say that his type was not unique for all groups primates, that he was one-of-a-kind. Consider these anecdotes about other primate ‘masters’:
“Luit’s leadership was a significant improvement. Remarkable peace and playfulness reigned, even among the older females, who normally never gallop around uttering the throaty chimpanzee laugh. Luit took the so-called control role, acting as arbitrator in disputes with great authority and impartiality.”(42)
“Compared to Spickles and other rhesus leaders I know, Mephisto takes a more central position. While dominant rhesus males stay pretty much out of female affairs, Mephisto breaks up disputes among females and never fails to protect youngsters in need.... After major disputes Mephisto is always groomed by some of the antagonists, often of both sides. Everyone recognizes his influence.”(43)
When his father-in-law saw all that Moses was doing for the people, he said, “What is this you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge, while all these people stand around you from morning till evening?” (Exodus 18:14)
In a primate community, an alpha can exert maximum social control: as arbitrator, mediator, judge. With one present, conflicts can be mitigated if not outright prevented. For human primates a behavioral sensitivity to “who is in the room,” begins early. Developmental psychologist Jerome Kagan has noted,
"Each person remains continually sensitive to the presence of individuals who are more potent than self, whether the source of the potency is size, intellectual talent, strength, beauty, wealth, status, or endurance. When there are a large number of these more potent individuals, the child or adult may inhibit initiations that might be implemented if the more powerful persons were absent."(44)
In terms of religion, many new readers of the Bible—at least those that venture beyond the more warm-and-fuzzy passages—might be surprised by the inclusion of fear as a central component to the spiritual life. What? Isn’t that contradictory? Well, no. It depends on what kind of deity you worship.
In passages such as Psalms 111:10 we see the connection:
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding.
What is wise about fearing your leader, your god? First, on a personal level, you will avoid wrath consequences for stepping out of line. Just as high-ranking chimpanzees will quell within-group conflict by making threat displays (45)—in effect telling the others to “chill” or there will be hell to pay—the god of the Bible will threaten natural disaster, invasion by foreigners, personal calamity, hellfire.
On a group level, it is wise to fear the lord, for with him "in the room" of your consciousness (it is believed/felt) then you are less likely act selfishly and cause social unrest in your community; you are less likely to spoil group cohesion.
In a section of my book, The Naked Bible, I argued that although there are many verses in the Bible that contain both the concepts of love and god/lord, fifty percent or less of these are clearly about a god loving his people. The Bible god also demands to be loved.(46) Spiritual love can be both from and for a god. But when it comes to fear—that is a fully one way emotion. The Bible is unambiguous about this point: if fear belongs in the spiritual life, it is of a people fearing their god.
Why do bad things happen? Because you do bad things. So behave.
This happened [the murder of his family] because of the sins Jeroboam had committed and had caused Israel to commit, and because he aroused the anger of the LORD, the God of Israel. (1 Kings 15:30)
In recent times, television evangelist Pat Robertson has gained notoriety by claiming that select natural calamities such as hurricane Katrina, and the earthquake that devastated Haiti, were caused by people behaving badly. And a god's response.
A god is the most powerful agent recognized by members of a religious group. Like a parent pulling squabbling children apart, or threatening them not to begin in first place, a most high alpha can bring greater peace to you and your group by diminishing disturbances to it. As the following few verses exemplify:
Let the trees of the forest sing, let them sing for joy before the LORD, for he comes to judge the earth. (1 Chronicles 16:33)
"Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before him, he will die. (Ezekiel 3:20)
May the LORD judge between you and me. And may the LORD avenge the wrongs you have done to me, but my hand will not touch you. (1 Samuel 24:12)
He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore. (Isaiah 2:4)
---
(40) Boehm, C., Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, p. 155
(41) de Waal, F. B. M., “Conflict as negotiation,” in McGrew, W. C. , Marchant, L. F. & Nishida, T., Great Ape Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1996, p. 167
(42) de Waal, F., Peacemaking Among Primates, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989, p. 64
(43) de Waal, F., 1989, p.156
(44) Kagan, J., The Nature of the Child, Basic Books, New York, 1984, p.274
(45) Boehm, C., Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, p.26
(46) Bernardin, A., The Naked Bible, CreateSpace, 2010, ch. 15, “The Myth of the Loving God.”
Give up all varieties of religiousness and just surrender unto me; and in return I shall protect you from all sinful reactions. Therefore, you have nothing to fear. (28)
Imagine a large family gathered around a table for a holiday meal. Parents, children, aunts and uncles, grandparents. Were a number of the participants outspoken atheists and others outspoken believers in a god, or, alternatively, were a number outspoken liberals with others conservative, and you have a recipe for verbal discord. When members of a group believe different things, and feel strongly about them, harmony is difficult to maintain. Even among family.
The above quote is from a religious text, but not the Bible. That teaching from the Hindu deity Krishna could have been from any number of prophets. Join my group and you shall be better off. My religion is so true it is not a religion, it is The Way.
We may think that “the way” religions teach are about the explicitly stated goal: enhanced spirituality, enlightenment, heaven. But implicit in such teachings is the goal of group harmony. You will be a better person, you will feel more peace . . . Your community will be better off. More godly. And peaceful. So follow me and my way.
As I have previously argued, an ideally egalitarian group is actually not the most stable and peaceful type of group in practice. Those that do better tend to at least have a virtual leader to follow in the form of a sacred book or political manifesto. Without something to maintain order, particularly beyond blood relations, human behavior is far too dynamic and opportunistic to make peaceful relations a natural state.
Somewhat ironically, research tells that intra-group aggressive behavior is more likely to occur when individuals are of equal and near-equal status. Studies into bullying, for example, find that this type of behavior is significantly more likely to be engaged in by individuals in the fat of a status bell curve, not at the extremes.(29) Roger Gould put it in his aptly titled book, Collision of Wills: How Ambiguity About Social Rank Breeds Conflict:
“Conflict, including violent conflict, is particularly likely to occur in relations that are explicitly symmetrical, such as ‘friend’ or ‘sibling.’”(30)
Social conflict among friends and family? An anonymous stranger bumps your elbow while dining in a restaurant, and your response to his reflex response “oops, sorry,” is likely to be a quick smile and wave of your hand. No problem. Your slightly younger brother does the same and you may actually respond more heatedly. Perhaps you pause a moment—did he intend that?—before giving a smile and poking fun at his clumsiness.
Many people consider the sentiment expressed in the following Bible verse to be the essence of Jesus’ message:
Whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (Romans 13:9-10)
What is the meaning of that message? Be nice? While the overt meaning is one thing, the implicit can be something moderately different. In the above we read an explicit command to “love thy neighbor,” and the explanation that love is good because it does no harm. It fulfills the law, which is a god’s will. Implicit in the message, I propose, we find more subliminal messages, such as: 1) to love is to accept, whatever a person’s status, high and low, 2) to harm is to disturb, and 3) by disturbing an individual you will likely generate ripples of unrest in the community at large, so do your part and behave.
Another key teaching is expressed as “love and honor your family.” But loving your husbands and wives and children does not mean treating as equals. Same goes with loving your neighbors.
For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:33-35)
Find your place and accept it. Accept the place of others. Order will be maintained. Order is good. It helps a social group function harmoniously, which is beneficial the group, which means it brings benefits to individuals of the group. But not equally.
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. (Colossians 3:22)(31)
Order Starts at the Top
To our democratic values the idea of respecting a leader can, at times, seem to be at odds with modernism. And yet the instinct is still there, even if dormant. Recall the political landscape early in this century, post 9/11 and during the invasion of Iraq. We were indirectly instructed that during uncertain times, particularly times of war, we must stick together. We must follow our leader; we must show our allegiance by way of flying flags and not speaking in open opposition.(32)
Still, it is a social reality that though hierarchical positioning is born of struggle, once an order is set there is less need for struggle. Which can generate this seeming paradox: people of lowly status behaving in ways to preserve the status-quo. Although positions within a hierarchy are initially set by way of contest (unless culturally determined), there can be a trade-off. “Obviously, those lower on the scale would have preferred to be higher, but they settle for the next best thing, which is to be left in peace.”(33)
Once an order is set, those with a less advantaged position may in fact protect it, for it is “the next best thing.” Those in positions of advantage would naturally protect it. One way to protect a given social order is to sanctify it. When religion and politics do mix, it is often the case of religion being used to support a given order. Don’t change, that goes against what our god wants.
In ancient Egypt, kings were gods themselves. They had their own divine authority on their side. Later, at the right hand of kings we find high-priests giving consent, we find kingdoms expressing allegiance to one religion or another, to one god, perhaps to one prophet. This is who we are; we must act together to preserve our group.
It times past, gods gave rulers legitimacy.(34) Although this is not fully true in my home-nation today, the United States, try electing an atheist as president. Here in Florida it wasn’t long ago that members of a city counsel walked out on an atheist as he gave the opening convocation. Why? Because they refused to listen to someone who didn’t ‘believe in a supreme being.’(35) Which is a telling choice of words. Human beings apparently still carry the feeling that social order best comes from above. Why? Because that is where greater strength resides. And it seems that even the person at the top of a social order can use support from above. To legitimize and stabilize his/her position. From below, many desire a president who bows down to a god. Otherwise, how could we trust him? How could our order be assured?
With religion can come an order-stabilizing mythology coupled with rituals, practices and taught values that help chill the pot of potential social and cultural change.(36) As Jane Goodall has noted: “In the natural habitat the hierarchy, the patterning of all the different relationships within the chimpanzee society, is never static.”(37)
Once a social order is achieved, it will change unless something stabilizes it. It seems both chimpanzees and humans have similar ways to do this. Consider these parallel declarations, one from each world:
“The male hierarchy is heavily formalized, that is, males frequently communicate their status to one another. Among such fierce competitors, formalization is a requirement for relaxed relationships.”(38)
Then the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite: "Have you noticed how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled himself, I will not bring this disaster in his day, but I will bring it on his house in the days of his son."
The first is from de Waal, F. Peacemaking Among Primates … The second, 1 Kings 21:28-29)
What can religion do to stabilize the more substantially numbered base of an order? For one, put the fear of the alpha in them. As previously mentioned, primate alphas are better behaved when their position goes uncontested. Order at the middle and bottom influence what happens at the top. So don’t tick off the big guy of there could be hell to pay. Somewhat humorously, Pat Robertson, a human primate from our own times is fond of blaming disasters of all sorts on human beings behaving badly, on not following “the Lord’s” way. Judging by the earthquake, or tsunami, or sickly economy, all that liberal, free-lance behavior must be angering him.
Religion also provides daily and weekly individual reminders of who to keep at the top of the social order how to behave to maintain the peace. Likely as important as the individual acts are the social gatherings and rituals that can help attenuate conflict and keep strong relationships that extend beyond the home. Prayer, Bible readings, cleansing rituals,(29) Sunday services, religions holidays—without these, believers fear, allegiance to the heavenly order will falter. And chaos will descend to earth. Or maybe it will simply roil up from within.
If society is an engine, religion is a means of governing that engine: of keeping it from idling too high, of keeping it from sputtering to a dysfunctional stop.
---
(28)Prabhupada, A.C. Bhaktivedanta, Bhagavad Gita As It Is, Collier Books, NY, 1972
(29) UC Davis study finds popular students — but not the most popular — more likely to torment peers, http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=9749
(30)Gould, R. V. Collision of Wills: How Ambiguity About Social Rank Breeds Conflict, University of Chicago, Chicago, 2003, p. 66
(31) The origin of the word lord includes these meanings: “master of a household, ruler, superior” & “one who guards the loaves.” From “Lord,” Online Etymology Dictionary,
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=lord&searchmode=none
(32) This sentiment was nicely summarized by Ann Coulter’s 2004 book, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism. Her hyper-nationalistic stance continues follow-up books such as this title from 2011—Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America. Her primary message seems to be, “If you aren’t with us, you are evil,” a threat.
(33) de Waal, F. Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are, New York, Riverhead Books, 2005, p. 61
(34) Jaynes, J., The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, HoughtonMifflin, New York, 1976, p.227
(35) http://www.tampabay.com/news/article1063285.ece
(36) Gould, R. V. Collision of Wills: How Ambiguity About Social Rank Breeds Conflict, University of Chicago, Chicago, 2003, p. 109
(37) Goodall, J. The Chimpanzees of the Gombe: Patterns of Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986, p. 410
(38) de Waal, F. Peacemaking Among Primates, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989, p.52
(39) Wilkinson, R.H., The Complete Gods and Godesses of Ancient Egypt; Thames & Hudson, NY, 2003
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus. (Romans 1:1)
For an optimally stable social group, an order must be set and honored over time. The first step is to identify the individual as belonging to the group. Some religions insist that group members do this via public rituals and oaths and/or maintaining a specific 'look': cutting their hair or beard, or not, by wearing a turban or yarmulke, etc. Groups and subgroups will encourage members to fly flags or otherwise display signs of membership, both graphic and behavioral.
Once identified as "one of us," further ordering may be necessary. Even in the smallest of groups, it is helpful to have a default adjudicator when conflict arises. Two members arrive at the same prize simultaneously, who gets it?
With larger groups, maintaining order becomes even more difficult. What provides the incentive to stay together in some seemingly ad-hoc combination of people? When two groups merge, how do they establish a new identity without wrecking their previously valued own? It can be difficult.
One method may be to name names of members to the group and put it in the group's sacred record. "This is who we are."
In Exodus we see how the "Twelve Tribes of Israel" are recognized as independent entities yet part of the same over-arching-family.
Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said. He got up early the next morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain and set up twelve stone pillars representing the twelve tribes of Israel. (Exodus: 24:4)
In the book of Numbers we find page after page of not just tallies of fighting-corp units, but name after name identifying the sub-group.
. . . from Dan, Ahiezer son of Ammishaddai;
from Asher, Pagiel son of Okran . . .These were the men appointed from the community, the leaders of their ancestral tribes. They were the heads of the clans of Israel.
On this continent, in U.S. history the combining of the 13 colonies could not be accomplished by gathering them all as sub-sets of the same religion. It wouldn't have worked. Sure, they were all Christian. But not just Christian. Each colony had one or a few denominations that its members belonged to. Religions tend to schism and splinter over time and particularly when they reach a size that is amoeba-like in its ability and perhaps need to break into more efficient units. In the early Americas, plural, many had escaped persecution for 'being of' their particular brand of Christianity. Some colonies did designate a singular church as the official religion of its people--Massachusetts being Congregational, New York, Anglican. Other colonies had a few recognized denominations with none officially designated.
What do all the old settlements remaining today have at their center but a church. Visit any of hundreds of old town squares and you will see a church right there, its spire rising high above the trees. Churches were the heart of a town's social and political life.
For the 13 colonies became one nation, forming one meta-group, it wasn't easy. The identification of mutual enemy (King George), however, made the forming of a mutual "us" easier. Even then, many colonists wanted to stay loyal to the king. Others didn't want to lose their separate identity and ways. But negotiations eventually succeeded. Yet nearly 250 years later state houses fly both their own flag and the flag of the nation.
Speaking of flags, on Columbus day in 1892, a pledge was published.
"I pledge of allegiance to my flag and the Republic for which it stands - One nation indivisible - with liberty and justice for all."
A few generations later the pledge was amended in a couple telling ways.
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." (1954)[emphasis added]
I see in those changes a switch in focus from supporting the notion of "our group"--our republic consisting of many states--to that of our nation, one among many nations. Following two world wars, the globe seemed a smaller place. Furthermore, in the Cold War days U.S. citizens had a distinct "them" to be concerned about. Those godless communists. This, I speculate, resulting in a heightened desire to clarify and declare a unified "us." Under God.
Many today prefer the "under god" version (none, it seem, have a problem with the "of the U.S.A" part), perhaps because it makes the point that though we each may be members of sub-group Christian religions, we all follow the same supernatural leader. Thus, we are one people. And they are distinctly different. Whether they be communists or those Muslim followers of the wrong religion. Remove the threats provided by a them and notions of us lose currency.
On a personal note, a decade plus ago, upon relocating to Florida, my wife and were I surprised by how many members of our new community asked us relative strangers, "What church do you go to?" (For us, the center of the loose-knit community consisted not of a church but of the rec park and its tennis courts.) Appended to the customary, "What do you do for work?" and "Do you have any children?" came the religion question, sometimes as, "Have you found a church yet?" with an invitation to attend theirs. For me, this was quite peculiar. I had not once encountered that smallish-town question when living as an adult in my previous smallish towns in two other states--New Mexico and Vermont.
Neither had I spotted so many cars on streets with antennas flying the banners of its owner's country of origin. It is no coincidence that Florida is much more of a melting pot with higher immigration levels than either New Mexico or Vermont.
People tend to be interested in their social identity. So we have family crests, college banners, team jerseys. Interestingly, the origin of the family crest, or coat of arms, was for battlefield identification of ally or foe. Are you one of us?
It seems to me that religions can serve as a way of establishing and maintaining a super-group, with a god serving as the most high leader, an agent that individuals from many families, tribes, and villages can identify with and rally around. Then, when it comes to sub-group dynamics, the question of which group is dominant or may soon dominate, becomes less pressing. For there is one already established dominant. And no earthly group can overthrow the supernatural. So there is order at the top, without threat of overthrow, and a reason to feel that we are one people. Whew.
---
(27) "Coat of Arms," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms
Recent Comments