Story 2a - In the Brilliance of a Night
"Certainly, they didn't aim to protect the woman," I replied. "They wanted to kill her. Nor would her husband and family have benefited by her death, as they would have suffered a great loss. Nor would society have benefited from it," I said to
Steve. "Society doesn't benefit from murdering one another. I suppose, only the scribes and the Pharisees stood to benefit by it."
"Why?" Steve asked.
"Because, this cruelty increased their power."
"How so?" Steve demanded to know.
I felt like being interrogated to the deepest level of my being.
"Take your time," Steve counseled, "this is important. This goes very deep."
"I suppose they had to protect the grassroots platform of their own power," I said to Steve.
He reached across the table and congratulated me with a great big smile. "Their interpretation of the marriage bond was largely centered on property rights," he explained. "A husband owned his wife as property. She was deemed to be his property in as much as the rulers of that society owned the people. The people were the property of the church, so to speak. The rulers realized that the idea of people being owned as property had to be established at the very grassroots level of society for this notion to be effective as an instrument for maintaining power over society on a feudal basis. It had to be rooted in the ground, so to
speak. This was required in order that it could serve as a foundation for the entire hierarchical power structure. This structure supported the status of all feudal rulers. Everything rested on this foundation. It legitimized the power that the church had assumed over the people, which literally owned the lives of its subjects as the cruel law amply illustrates. It also legitimized the self-assumed rights of kings and emperors, who claimed to own the whole society to do with as they pleased. And this worked. The people complied willingly."
Steve said, "This means, that the rulers of the empires couldn't possibly allow the foundation of their power to become eroded, certainly not at the grassroots level. The slightest challenging of the notion of people being owned as property, especially at the grassroots level, had to be regarded by the rulers as an act of the highest form of treason that they were obliged to meet with the death penalty. This harsh penalty reflected the severity of the danger that an expanding sense of unity represents to the feudal system. They imposed the death sentence to protect their own illegitimate status, even while they were spouting out Moses' law, 'thou shalt not kill.' They even found it necessary to put the blame on Moses, for dishing out this cruelty. Evidently, their blaming Moses served to obscure the real issue, as nobody would question Moses. This gave their political cruelty the desired legitimacy."
"Still, the Decalogue forbids adultery, doesn't it?" I replied to Steve.
Steve shook his head. "Axioms, axioms, axioms!" said Steve. "People blabber out slogans without being aware of what they mean. Adultery, democracy, these words are used so loosely. They have become twisted into stereotyped images. In the West, democracy has become the rule of the rich who are able to finance their own servants into positions of power in order to protect their looting enterprises. The concept of democracy has been adulterated, it has become corrupted. It no longer signifies the rule of the people by the people, that the original idea stands for."
Steve laughed. "Just try to stand for election for President in our country, on a platform that is not approved by the establishment. Just try it, and you'll get shot down. You will most likely be killed before your name even get onto the ballot. That's what it means to adulterate the idea of democracy. You introduce elements that have nothing to do with the original idea. It's like a gas station that mixes diesel oil with gasoline and sells that adulterated stuff as high grate fuel. It means that you take an idea and twist it and distort it, to make it suitable for your agenda. Often the outcome is such a gross perversion of the original concept that its underlying idea becomes totally lost. That's what it means to adulterate. The very concept of marriage has been adulterated, Peter. It has been grossly
adulterated, but it has been adulterated by the priests. not the people."