Apologies to Bertrand
Russell for borrowing the title of his famous book.
In this context using
the statement “why I’m not a Christian” must be y seen loosely. And no specific
reference to the Christian mentality needs to be surmised or is intended. On
the contrary it is a statement against the general venality of the ilk that professes and pedal Christianity, Hinduism and Islam-the the religions that most affect our
daily life in India. In fact, it is with references to organised religions.
I have wondered why
the symbol of the cross is the lynchpin of Christianity. The cross-shaped
sign, represented in its simplest form by a crossing of two lines at right
angles, predates in both East and West, introducing
Christianity. It goes back to a very remote period of human civilization- to
the pagan era… It is supposed to have been used not just for its ornamental
value, but also with religious significance and as a tool of torture.
During the early days
of Christianity the cross may have been rare in Christian iconography. And it
is also considered that the instrument on which Jesus died was in fact a
solitary-beamed stake widely used for torture and impaling.
But why must the
Christian establishment which zealously nurtured and evangelised their version
of the story of Jesus Christ has the figure said to be of Christ on the
cross? Now one can see why. The Powers that rule and tender the flock need the agony and humiliation of Jesus
on the cross to ensure that the flock mind their way as desired by the powers
that rule the Christian world. A perfect scape goatish ploy. To paraphrase
Christoper Hitchens, ‘the repulsive idea of vicarious redemption’. This was what Hitchens said, “I find something repulsive about the idea of
vicarious redemption. I would not throw my numberless sins onto a scapegoat and
expect them to pass from me; we rightly sneer at the barbaric societies that
practice this unpleasantness in its literal form. There's no moral value in the
vicarious gesture, anyway. As Thomas Paine pointed out, you may if you wish to take
on a man's debt, or even to take his place in prison. That would be
self-sacrificing. But you may not assume his actual crimes as if they were your
own; you did not commit them and might have died rather than do
so; for another, this impossible action would rob him of individual
responsibility. So the entire apparatus of absolution and forgiveness strikes me
as positively immoral, while the concept of revealed truth degrades the concept
of the free intelligence by purportedly relieving us of the hard task of working out
the ethical principles for ourselves.”
I also see it to be more out of sadistic
pleasure and disregard for the sufferer (Jesus), that his image is
perpetually on the cross even though the official version claims that he was
brought down from the cross, entombed, and thence resurrected. Would we Indians
sit back and enjoy if Shaheed Bagat Singh’s memorabilia were to depict him hung
on the hangman’s pole with a noose around his neck, or a Gandhi shot and lying in
the pool of his blood?
It is said that in Christianity
the cross reminds Christians of God’s act of love, Christ’s sacrifice at
Calvary—”the son of God who washes away the sins of the world.” And that the
cross also reminds Christians of Jesus’ victory over death, since it is
believed that through his death and resurrection he conquered death itself and
salvaged the world. They venerate it not as a material object seen in isolation
but as the symbol of the sacrifice, by which Christ saved them, as the
instrument of Christ’s triumph.
And this is hypocrisy,
selfishness, and utter disregard for another man’s agony. To have his figure on
the cross perpetually is abhorrence. And all this after being
remorseless for not defending him in the kangaroo trial that the priests
successfully managed. This is the definite way to disrespect a man who perhaps
with the knowledge gained during his journeys to the orient stood against
everything that now Christians practice in his name. And the principle and idea
of vicarious redemption trumped by the Church are the most macabre piece of an idea
ever invented.
That brings me to the
most art of “hypocrisy” practised by the church and the laity.
Shashi Tharoor in his
book on Mrs. Indira Gandhi has wryly commented on the twenty point programe
(thamasha) she dangled. He wrote, “Even the good lord had only ten points”!
But even the ten points that the Lord himself crafted have always been
relegated to the sophisticated occasions of the holy mass.
In the New Testament
version Jesus has commented on the Ten Commandments. He in fact condensed it to
a nutshell that is far more powerful than the version in the Judah-exodus
version. Jesus thus said, “you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart,
and with all your soul, and with your entire mind.” This is the greatest and
first commandment. And a second “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” On
these two commandments hang the teachings and preaching’s of Christ. Which the
holy see and the holier than thou Christians quote like the devil who quotes
the scripture for his end.
From this, it should be
clear that Christ did not differentiate or create a distinction between
Christian God, Jewish God, or a Pagan God. He exhorted to love your God and not
this God or that God. Now, what do the so-called practitioners of Christian
faith do? They divide God and human hearts by race, ethnicity, country, and
region. They even created a Catholic God, a Protestant god, an Adventist god,
and so on a so forth. Here in India in the heartland of Christianity- Kerala they
smashed the father, son and the holy ghost into smithereens that they now have a
Roman Catholic house of God, an orthodox, a Marthoma, Cananites, Malankara, an evangelist, a
Presbyterian, not being enough a Pentecostal, etc . And to add up to these agonisingly clownish exercise,
they, not so long ago in Kerala even fought a pitched battle inside a church.
Many Christian dioceses refuse to solemnise wedlock if one candidate is
from a different denomination. They use baptism and Holy Communion as tools to
harness the flock and forced wearing of blinkers. Fear is instilled into the
mind right from an early age to confirm and confirm without questions lest
ill will befall. The uncertainty and the inherent insecurity of life are
exploited by the Church.
It is in all certainty
perversion and anti-Christ in every sense when the salesmen of god (the
priests) and even the zealous practitioners throw vituperation at other
religions that coexist. Is it their lack of understanding of Jesus himself or
is it plain intolerance? When you look back into history the cruelest form of
evangelisation, (let alone the Holy inquisition) was perpetrated by the gospel
preaching mariners who sailed into the new world and into the dark African
continent. The brutality and pain the native Indian populace met at the hands
of missionaries in the Americas is well documented. Negating the holocaust and
refusing to bat an eyelid against the systematic persecution of Jews by the
Nazis is again another fact of history that every Christian must see
abhorrently. The Vatican was canoodling the fascist and Hitler. The extent to
which the Holy See opposed various scientific discoveries, inventions and
explorations is again another example of negating every truth that is
inconvenient.
Proselytisation has
been used as a weapon and tool to increase the numbers in the flock. It is no
secret that financial and various other enticements have always been a means of
coercion and lure to convert the ignorant and poor. I fail to understand why
conversions must ever be necessary to economically uplift a person or group? If
as Jesus said love your God it is apparent that the God he refers to is not
“jealous” nor is he the person who wields the sword. Certainly not the jealous
and vindictive god of the Old Testament. It can be Mother Nature herself. And
as he exhorted love thy neighbor like your love self and then quid-pro-quo in
the form of conversion and gratification is not necessary. A true Christian
must love all things that the “good lord created”. The true Christian must be
the one who is at peace in a Church, a mosque, a temple, or any other place of
worship and sanctity. He doesn’t have to identify with the frenzied imploring
that happens in these places of worship. He doesn’t have to be identified with
the medallion of Christ on the cross dangling around his neck,
Then we have the
hypocritical variety amongst practitioners. This clan is in my opinion more
dangerous. Unfortunately, we have them in our midst of plenty. They pray,
observe the holy Eucharist, confess, and throw thick note wads as philanthropy.
And they profess sacrifice, abhorrence of material wellbeing, and so forth. Such
people don’t realise that the word sacrifice is loosely used and they cannot
let go of their possessions. If they say they have given everything away, that is a
lie. One who has given everything away I’m sure will at a later point in time
extract the maximum pound of flesh. Their religion or kinship will not deter
them…
Does this make the
followers of Islam or Hinduism (as is now practiced in India) a better class apart?
The answer is no. Religion as is professed and practiced today is the bane of
mankind. It is dangerous than opium and kills more.
When Islam kills in
the name of God, it ceases to be a religion of love and compassion. The day the
golden temple was stacked with weapons of destruction it ceased in all respects
to be a sanctified place, it was no more the place of God.
If persecution and
agony is inflicted on a Hindu or a Jew, is by no extent a lesser injustice
than when inflicted on a Muslim. Pain and blood is unique amongst all
biological creatures and it doesn’t differentiate between a Muslim and a Hindu.
Injustices have always existed and have been inflicted on the hapless
irrespective of religion, race, and color.
Now talking about
islamophobia, it is not a phobia; it is for real. If innocent Muslims are
at the receiving end, it is because of the religion prefers to be marooned in
the 7 the century tribal mindset. They have neither the courage nor the will to
unite against murder, rape, and pillage, neither within their community nor outside.
It is beyond a godly mind to devise fairy tales to lure and mesmerise the
gullible and pack them off as human bombs with the promise of paradise in the
afterlife. Islamic culture which gave forth many contributions to the field of
learning has now been catapulted and constricted into the web of obscurantism
and has now become a religion that refuses the right of a person to think. When
places of learning are razed to the ground and girls terrorised from attending
schools, it is Islam losing ground as a faith of salvation and is being
increasingly corroded by bigotry. The sectarian antipathy amongst Muslims-
Shites and Sunnis for example is again a clear fact that religion cannot bind
people. Faith in fact becomes the fire-spewing dragon when it is practised
outside one’s soul.
The faith that was
unique to India has also been hijacked by the fire swallowing, ash painted,
naked and semi naked thrisul brandishing bigots in saffron
attire. Religion and political parasites in a mould become a pernicious
syndicate. Hinduism from what I could learn from various readings was a way of
life of the people of Hindustan. The uniqueness of Hinduism with its pantheon
of Gods and Goddesses is the fact that one could be in union with any god or
goddesses and be at peace with the rest without inviting the wrath of the other
members of the pantheon. ‘Hindu Gods are not jealous, unlike the god of Moses”.
However, with the spread of the Aryan civilisation the caste system came into
existence and thence the economic and social discrimination. Which has
now grown into a mammoth proportion where it could lead to the demise of a
‘wonderful way of life!”
However, it was only in
India that a Jew, Christian, Muslim, a Buddhist, or even agonistic could express
himself without fear. It was in India that St Thomas could build the house of
God or in Kerala where the first Muslim mosque was built in 639AD ( the
Cheraman Masjid in Kodungalloor). And the Jewish synagogue from the earliest
centuries still survives in peace in Cochin. Tolerance, compassion and respect
for an alien faith are effervescent in our culture. Nowhere else in the world
but only in Kerala that Jews could live without the fear of persecution.
Ram and Krishna are
not historical figures. They are mythical and central to the legends and lore of India. And to raze down an unattended Masjid was also never in line with the
life stories of neither Ram nor Krishna. Quid pro quo to correct acts of injustice
is not wisdom.
When Hindus speak in
anguish about the erosion of their values one must look around and see the values
that they refer to. Those values are splashed daily in the pages of our
dailies, and on the television channels- rape, murder, corruption, intolerance,
apathy to poor and the marginalised, desecration of Nature and on and on.
Another factor that
has been used literally as a tool of submission and silencing of expressive
voices is the law and fatwa’s on blasphemy. One’s faith must indeed be very
fragile and brittle that it would tremble at the slightest and distant
criticism or perceived threat. How else can one explain the frenzy and
vociferous cacophony that arise at the publication of a book or caricature? In
what way will movie on the life of widowed Hindu woman by the Ganga denigrate
Hindusim? This reminds me of the words of the French philosopher and thinker
Voltaire,” I detest what you say but I’m prepared to die for your right to say
that”.
What would possibly
denigrate and tarnish faith and belief in God is the way faith itself is
practiced.
The soul has been
lost!
As J.F.Kennedy said,
“religion must be as private as one's toothbrush”.