The above article proves that John Shakspear (as he spelled his name), then an official in the borough of Statford upon Avon, was a dedicated Catholic who defied the dictates of the new Protestant regime in England. Rather than destroy the artwork in the church, he had whitewash painted over. This evidence helps to prove my contentions about John, and then William, in my upcoming novel “The Shakespeares and the Crown”.
Posts Tagged ‘Christianity’
One reader who very kindly responded to my posts on “What is Truth” a few weeks ago brought out some very interesting suppositions contradicting my assertion that there was no such thing as a “universal truth”. For an in-depth explanation of this, please read those two blogs.
A quick refresher from those blogs: There are certain facts, that is, things that can be proven over and over under all circumstances, but I claimed that “the truth” is what you believe it to be, simply because your personal truths are the guiding principles in your life.
Here is her comment: “The pursuit of/yearning for love is a universal truth. The desire to know a higher being/consciousness is a universal feeling and therefore truth; that fear motivates one way and love motivates another way is a universal truth; the desire for security is a universal truth; the need for self-esteem is a universal truth; that men/people will ignore wisdom to carve out their own flawed philosophies is a universal truth.”
In my first response, I only dealt with the topics of love, fear/love motivation, security, and self-esteem. Because that “higher being” topic, and the last comment about “wisdom”, were much more involved and subjective, I said I would write an answer in another posting. Here it is.
A Higher Being/Consciousness vs Philosophy
While there can are many definitions of this, I’m going to try to simplify it a bit so that this article can actually get finished. I absolutely concede that all monotheisms (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) are searching for a “higher being”, as are all polytheisms (although, to my knowledge, the only strong polytheism still in practice is Hinduism, with Shinto, Taoism, etc., comprising very small populations).
One of the problems westerners have in conceptualizing Eastern life philosophies (as opposed to such Western philosophies as existentialism, nihilism, and others that are blatantly atheistic) is that they assume (incorrectly) that all Eastern philosophies are religions. In fact, all of their definitions and texts list Confucianism and Buddhism as religions, when they are nothing of the sort.
Confucius taught that when societies operate under laws, people are punished by authorities after having committed illegal activities. People generally conform to the laws, often without necessarily understanding the rationale behind them. He promoted a different way: to internalize behaviors so that actions are controlled beforehand. Because relationships are central to Confucianism—particular duties arise from one’s particular situation in relation to others—people will then behave properly because they wish to avoid feeling shame and want to avoid losing face. In theory, the result is a reduction in the number of coercive laws required for smooth functioning of the society. “Social harmony — the great goal of Confucianism — therefore results in part from every individual knowing his or her place in the social order, and playing his or her part well.”
You will notice this is actually a philosophy of social behavior, having nothing to do with a being more supreme than the head of state, and nothing to do with a world consciousness. While Confucianism does not necessarily negate religion, most adherents do not find religion necessary to attain this “proper” behavior toward others.
But Confucianists are a pretty small group, so let’s move on to Buddhism. According to buddhanet.net, the generally agreed minimum number of Buddhists is estimated at around 350 million (6% of the world’s population). The numbers range up to 1.5 billion. By any reckoning, that’s a significant amount. So what is Buddhism?
Between 563 B.C. and 483 B.C. a man named Siddhartha Gautama lived who taught that life is suffering, and that we must each find our way to ultimate enlightenment, at which time we will also become a Buddha. While it’s difficult to summarize Buddhism succinctly, moral conduct is an important part of the beliefs because it promotes harmony with all living things. Karma, a concept that states that a person’s actions have consequences over him/her in the future, is an intrinsic part of this morality. A person’s basic essence (the “soul” for you monotheists) can experience either rebirth or reincarnation (not the same), which gives a person the opportunity for attaining enlightenment through meditation, loving kindness and compassion towards all human beings.
Note two important factors: nowhere is a supreme being/consciousness mentioned. The first Buddha was a man; he never claimed to be a god or even a prophet. Further, every human has the potential to become a Buddha. Second, there is no heaven, hell, or life other than on this planet. The phrase “one with the universe” is very literal, in that every little dust mote is a particle of all others, which is a very scientific concept, not one given much credence by any monotheism. While Buddhists chant, perform meditation, and do other activities that Westerners perceive as religious, they are actually contemplating their own flaws, attempting to focus on what they personally need to do to improve themselves as a person. Yes, they often do these things in a group with a ritual, but the same could be said about political parties, social organizations, and even sports enthusiasts. That doesn’t make those things a religion. Well, with the possible exception of the Green Party, but that’s another story. If there is a “supreme being/consciousness” in Buddhism, it is the potential enlightenment each person might achieve for themselves, with the ultimate goal of reaching such perfection that will make them into a Buddha.
Is “The Search” Universal?
In my personal studies of religion and philosophy, it was this belief in the potential enlightenment of each individual—including myself—that attracted me to Buddhism. As I cannot accept the concept of rebirth or reincarnation of the “life essence” within each person, however, I ultimately rejected that philosophy as well. However, I was not searching for a god, I was searching for a way to make myself a better person.
Therefore, I will give you all the monotheists and polytheists. I will even give you most of the agnostics—after all, being “in doubt” means the person is searching for something. Many agnostics say they are “spiritual” (which often means some flavor of pantheism), although they don’t subscribe to any formal religion. However, I suspect a lot of people who identify as agnostic are hedging their bets, and many who identify as theistic don’t want the social stigma (especially in the United States) of admitting they are atheists.
Nevertheless, there are a lot of people in the world who openly state they are atheists. In fact, in many countries they are the majority! Look at these figures: http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html
It’s very difficult to estimate, but combined I would say at least 15 percent of the world’s population are openly not hunting for any supreme being/consciousness. Never mind that any child born into a religious household is instantly indoctrinated into that religion and only emerges from that life-long submersion if they are of a very strong mind and willing to do a lot of “seeking” (see my blog on Holy Smoke). But let’s just use that conservative figure.
On March 12, 2012, the US Census Bureau estimated that the world population exceeded 7 billion. That would mean more than a billion (1.05) people are in no way deistic. The search for a supreme being is a “Universal Truth”?
On a somewhat separate note, I find it highly ironic that these two major Eastern philosophies, which are truly founded on the concept of “moral” behavior in the sense of society, have never as an organized force waged war. They have never used any form of force to convert others to their beliefs. On the other hand, every single monotheism has a history rife with physical coercion. (While Judaism never to my knowledge forced conversion, since escaping bondage in Egypt they have never shrunk from killing those of other cultures and faiths. They still have a pretty damn good military force.) Therefore, being a highly religious person does not necessarily make one a “good” person, in the sense of being tolerant, considerate and compassionate to other members of the human race.
Ignoring “The Truth”
The second point I wanted to address was her comment that “men/people will ignore wisdom to carve out their own flawed philosophies is a universal truth”. This is an argument that goes back at least to the Persian Empire before Greece became united, when the Persians claimed that their religion was “the truth”, and all other people ignored this truth because they were not wise enough to recognize the obvious. To sum it up: “I know the TRUTH, and if you don’t believe me you’re an idiot!” This is almost too smug, self-serving and ludicrous to address. But I will.
How do they know the truth? Because their holy book (Torah, Bible, Qur’an) tells them what the truth is. Never mind the book was written by the hand of mere mortals. They were all “inspired” by god, weren’t they? In the case of the Prophet Joseph Smith, a resurrected Moroni visited Smith and kindly delivered engraved plates to him (The Book of Mormon), which he simply had to copy before they made their way back up to heaven. And every single one of the books is the absolute truth.
But, because I’m a little skeptical about this divine inspiration—or at least which version to believe—and am indeed searching for my own “flawed philosophy” based on truly being kind and considerate of others rather than killing them in the name of god for being unbelievers, this makes me stupid. Okay, I can live with that.
I believe in the theory of evolution because there is a tremendous amount of scientific evidence in support of it, and more comes in every day. It’s still a theory. Every single religion throughout the history of Mankind has developed a creation myth for both the universe and for man. Yet there is not one shred of evidence, in spite of every religion looking for that proof, which supports creationism.
Who is being wise here, and who is ignoring wisdom (i.e., logic based on evidence) in order to cling to their terribly flawed beliefs?
I was watching a movie the other night called “Holy Smoke”. A young Australian woman (Kate Winslet) travels to India with a friend. Ruth (notice the nice OT name?) attends a religious ceremony, becomes enthralled with the spirituality, and decides to stay with the guru in a “spiritual marriage”. Alerted by the friend, her good Christian mother contacts an Australian anti-cult psychotherapist. Ruth’s mother travels to India where she psychologically blackmails her daughter to follow her home. Back in Australia, the girl is taken to a remote farm where a hired “deprogrammer”, Harvey Keitel, waits to begin “exit counseling”, as he calls it.
Naturally, this got me thinking: where had she been programmed? She traveled to India with a friend as a holiday, and chose to attend the service. At the age of 20, she knowingly studied this religion and chose to become an initiate.
But I actually know where she got programmed. It is the same with all monotheisms. Within days of her birth, without her knowledge or consent, a child will undergo indoctrination; the specifics will only change according to the religion.
With Christian sects, the rituals vary. In Catholicism, naming and christening follow within a few days after birth. While most Protestant sects postpone baptism, the baby dedication is a challenge to parents and grandparents to raise the child to serve God. God parents are appointed, certificates accompany the naming ceremony, bibles are often placed in the hand of the child, crosses, prayer books, etc.
With Judaism, naming ceremonies and ritual baths are also prevalent. Jewish boys undergo a brit milah (covenantal circumcision ceremony) on the eighth day after birth, or a brit bat (covenant ceremony for girls) where they are named. These “welcoming acts” involve scripture readings, prayers, songs, etc. and may include candle lighting, footwashing, or being wrapped in a tallit as part of the rituals.
In Islam, immediately after the new-born baby is bathed, the Adhan is recited in the right ear of the baby, and the Iqamah in the left ear. Shortly after, the sunnah is fulfilled: a date or some other sweet is applied to the child’s palate. While this is done so that the child may easily suck milk from the breast of its mother, a “pious and God-fearing scholar or a venerable saint may be invited to do Tahneek”; thus, it is a religious ceremony. The hair on the head of the new-born must be shaved (Aqeeqah) on the seventh day. The child is then named, and then comes the sacrifice: two goats on behalf of a boy and one goat for a girl, or their equivalent. Some Muslims believe that circumcision is obligatory, others that it is a sunnah.
In all cases, throughout their infancy the children are taken to the church, synagogue or mosque constantly where they are subjected to prayers, religious music, sermons, and the teachings of whatever holy book is used by that religion. There are more ceremonies as they get older. The dangers of lack of faith or other “evils” are carefully described to them.
What would any of these religions think of some professional “deprogrammer” kidnapping and psychologically badgering their children out of the indoctrinations they had to undergo from the first day of their lives? In the movie (and in real life), Ruth chose to adopt the religious beliefs of the Indian guru out of the full consciousness of an adult. Do they ever consider the irony–or hypocrisy–of their actions?
Therefore, which of these groups are really the brainwashers and coercers? Which of these groups are really dangerous to the mental health of young children?