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”.
