From: ingles@crane.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: The Canaanites(was Re: Achilles heels for religion?)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 16:38:50 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor


In article <1992Apr09.215101.19999@watson.ibm.com>, strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
> In article <4327@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk>, martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman) writes:
> |> In article <1992Apr06.210827.25916@watson.ibm.com>, strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
> |> > 
> |> > The Canaanites (the mythical ones described in
> |> > the story, not necessarily the real ones) are
> |> > described as being a people of depraved but
> |> > attractive *practices*, not merely beliefs.
> |> > That they fall before the Israelites is expressed
> |> > via God causing them to lose.  There are episodes
> |> > where some from among them appreciate the
> |> > righteousness of the Israelites and help the
> |> > cause.  
> |> > 
> |> I don't doubt your sincerity in believing this to be an alternative
> |> explanation, particularly in the light of your mistrust of holy
> |> wars that you explain later, but this still sounds exactly like
> |> the bible quote, and is morally abhorrent to an atheist in
> |> exactly the same way, and demonstrates why using a religious
> |> book of rules as your source of morality is dangerous in
> |> exactly the same way. The passage is still saying that the
> |> jews massacred a bunch but that was ok because they were
> |> not jews, doesn't it? Its only when you define righteousness
> |> in terms of relious dogma that this sort of act becomes
> |> acceptable, and that's why I don't find religious dogma
> |> acceptable as a source of morality.
> 
> I reread my posting, and I don't think I made myself as
> clear as I should have.
> 
> I shouldn't have used the term "holy war" without a disclaimer.
> The disclaimer is that the (mythical) Canaanite war was not a holy war
> in the sense that that term is used today.  The Torah version of
> the story is not that the Canaanites were driven off the land
> by the Jews for not being Jews.  They were driven off "by God",
> not by military might.

 "God" working through the Jews, no?

>  And their sins were not that they
> didn't accept religious dogma (the whole idea of religious
> dogma came much later), but that they did barbarous things
> like burn their children as sacrifice or force their
> daughters to be temple goddesses and submit to what today
> would be called "non-consensual sexual practices".  The image
> you should have of "depraved" practices was *not* failure
> to wear tfillin but burning children at public orgies.

 Ah, but doesn't it say that these self-same children in so
much danger were in fact killed along with the adults by the
Jews?

> And the stories don't describe real Canaanites but symbolic
> Canaanites designed to (a) teach a lesson about righteousness,
> (b) serve as a myth of how our nation showed up in this land ---
> a once-in-history event.  They're not supposed to be
> generalized to allow *us* to judge some other nation
> whose land we want as unrighteous and to wipe them out.

 How does one ensure that the meaning "not supposed to be"
gleaned from the text is not in fact gleaned?

> I'm glad you used the word "morally abhorrent" in your post
> because although we may disagree as to which things fit
> in this class, we seem to agree that there is such a class.
> Other responses to my post seem to imply that some posters
> believe that there is no such class.

 Well, sort of. *I* think someone could be very moral and
still engage in human and even child sacrifice. Remember,
in such things it's generally held that the gods *demand*
these sacrifices, and failure to pay up will bring doom to
the whole tribe.
 So a priest could easily regret *having* to kill a child, but
still do it because they believe it's *necessary.*
 Mind you, I's still try to stop a child sacrifice. But I
wouldn't necessarily hate the people trying to do it.

> Now let me clarify my "mistrust" of holy wars.  I was vastly
> too wishy-washy in my posting before.  What I teach my children
> is that the whole idea of a holy war is barbaric and pernicious.
> That wars with a completely different objective are sold
> to the gullible masses as "holy wars".  That overshallow
> reading of passages in the Bible like the book of Joshua
> make us susceptible to this kind of manipulation. 

 Good. :->

> We don't teach the passage in Joshua in isolation.  Joshua
> is in the Prophets.  It's history written in the usual
> gloating style of the victors.  (For a modern example,
> go to a library archive and read the New York Times
> account of the Dresden bombing the day after it occurred.
> "A beam to light the way for General Zhukov's troops, ...")
> Elsewhere in the Prophets it is clear that the Israelites
> did not in fact kill the Canaanites down to the last man.
> And in the Torah it is taught that the unrighteous nations
> will decay of their own accord --- their crops won't grow,
> they'll be timid in battle, etc.  

 Okay, cool. But it seems to me that literature with such
obvious problems and even the occasional contradiction
(did and didn't kill to last man, etc.) is not an ideal
literature to teach morals from...

> One other point in your post I'd like to comment on.
> You make it sound as if the "source" of morality
> is the holy book.  The reasoning sounds a bit
> inverted to me.  It's not that the commandments
> are righteous because they're in the book;  they're
> in the book because the Jews viewed them as
> righteous.  Over time they became etched in
> tradition and became "God's law".  So today the
> Orthodox Jew will say that thus-and-so is right
> because the Torah says so.  But unless you
> take the story of Moses and the burning bush
> literally, the laws are the writings of
> our ancestors' attempt to intuit "God's law".

 It still seems to me that, just as "holy wars" are sold
to the "gullible masses" as being "God's will," calling
moral laws "God's will" could lead to a misapprehension
of the nature of morals on the part of the "masses."
 Why not say, "This is right because it works, and here's
why..."? I mean, sure, saying "It's God's Law" could be
used as a shorthand for that, but it's also *much* more
subject to misinterpretation...

> Rob Strom, strom@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7641

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@caen.engin.umich.edu || Michigan. Yet.