RELIGIONS IN WAR

No monotheistic religion teaches toleration of other religions, even if they worship the same God. While those who hold their disparate beliefs lightly and with reservation, may live together in apparent harmony, those driven to believe strongly and devoutly cannot.

It would appear that religions become more openly conflicting whenever peoples fearfully turn to their religions for support, in what they, rightly or wrongly, personally believe to be perilous times. They then begin to adhere to, and more vigorously espouse, the more fundamental tenets or teachings of their religion. Since their God, or perhaps more accurately the one who is considered the prime representative and the focus of their religion, has taught that all other religions are false, defense of their religion and, with the exception of Judaism, the desire to seek converts increases, with the object of making their religion universal. Its adherents, as demonstrated in the past and the present, may become increasingly defensive, aggressive, and violent in their activities.

There are those who have said: "All religions are equal", but if each teaches that all others are false and one religion is true, then all others must be false and can hardly enjoy an equal status. Equality among religions can thus be possible, but only if all are false.

There are those who have said, "We all worship the same God". This may seem to be the case if we consider only Muslim, Christian and Jewish faiths, since there is a considerable sharing of origin, beginning with Abraham, and they revere many of the same historical territories. This is particularly true of Christians and Jews since they have similar Old Testament roots. All three differ sharply in certain teachings, and most particularly in prescribing a pathway to heaven and eternal life. To the Christian, a belief in Jesus, as the Son of God, is the only way. To the Muslim, Islam, in accordance with the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad is the only way, with Jesus recognized as a lesser prophet. Judaism is the precedent religion, from which the other two were developed, and while it included a Messiah as an expectation, Judaism did not recognize Jesus as such, nor did it accept the teachings of Muhammad as revelations from God.

The largely Eastern group that follows the teaching of Gautama Buddha, does not focus its belief on Gods, or any supreme Being. Buddhism, which was an offshoot of the Hindu religion, is concerned instead with successive planes of existence, achievable according to thought and deed, and gained through transmigration of the soul in a series of rebirths. This might be related somewhat to the Western concepts of Heaven and Hell, if the two were earthbound, joined, and then divided into a continuous series ranging from the depths of one to the height of the other, and made achievable by multiple life opportunities. Accepting that suffering is inherent in life, Nirvana, the highest Buddhist level, is said to be a transcendent state, free from craving, suffering and sorrow. It is considered indescribable in finite terms and whether the "purified soul" that attains it continues to exist, is left as an indeterminate. Most Westerners think of Buddhist teachings as chiefly related to the much-publicized, introspective practice of meditation. However, the absence of a God in Buddhism has permitted some Buddhists to find a simultaneous acceptance of Christianity at least superficially compatible. This was notable in Hong Kong where pressure to accept Christian names and Western ways has been strong.

Zen is sometimes called the greatest of the "non-religions", although it is also said to function within the framework of Buddhist teaching. It is especially concerned with the value of meditation as a means of achieving enlightenment, as well as prescribing a way of life. Zen appears to value the power of intuitive knowledge over learning and logic. A transcendental wisdom, obtained in meditation, is said to liberate the mind and provide a state that frees it of fear or care about gain, pleasure, victory or defeat. Zen seems to have little need for perpetuating defenses or aggressive persuasions and seems able to thrive on appeal alone.

Most religions do have many things in common. Perhaps the most basic element, with the exception of Buddhism and related beliefs, is that believers can expect to gain some personal control of their existence through the process of supplication or prayer. If a believer can demonstrate sufficient strength of belief by devotedly following what they believe to be their "God's will", they will be rewarded in material, as well as spiritual ways, and their pleas will be heard and heeded.

Most people feel comfortable with their own religious and political attitudes however they were formed. They generally feel them to be supported by fact, as they feel that they know the facts, and tend to behave accordingly. Even those who achieve a more secular attitude tend to follow the traditions and practices of the religion prevalent in their own group culture. Few will expend the necessary effort, but those who genuinely desire to know the truth in religious matters, should become familiar with the texts that represent the foundations of each religion, not merely condensations or interpretations, including mine.

There are many divisions and sub-divisions of the major Beliefs, and more are generated as time passes. In addition to these are many beliefs that have less representation in the world populations and are little known. However, if we pay attention to recorded history, we must recognize that major religions have a way of fading into the realm of Mythology, and minor religions a way of becoming very major.

Major polytheistic religions of the past such as those of the Greeks, Romans and Norse, had less resistance to the energetic spreading of Christianity because they already worshipped more than one God, and adding one more to an already lengthy list seemed relatively inoffensive. Eventually, they were convinced that acceptance of the new God demanded rejection of the old and the old ones were gradually displaced in their culture.

In general, the Gods of such older polytheistic cultures were characterized as relatively humanoid, and less ethereal, than the single God concepts described in monotheisms. The older Gods were said to consort with and mate with mortals, and to often produce half-gods. Mortals felt capable of defying such Gods and were also said to sometimes be, at least temporarily, successful in tricking them to get what they wanted.

No major religion can currently be said to be truly polytheistic, unless we include Taoism. Although Hinduism may be thought of in this way by many, it is very complex, has many variations and no view can thus be considered precise. Hinduism, once typically worshipful of many Gods, has evolved in most areas into a quasi-monotheism, wherein all minor deities are believed to be subsidiary aspects and an integral part of the major deity, a God such as Vishnu or his incarnation, Krishna. In this respect, the division of the godhead may seem to resemble Christianity, where there is also a division in the form of the father, the son, and a nebulous spirit, the Holy Ghost, a trinity represented as one. The Hindus are said to be the most tolerant of other religions. This may be explained by a quotation from the Bhagavad Gita where Krishna says, Whatever god a man worships, it is I who answers the prayer."

While selflessness and humility are considered to be virtues in the majority of religions, nearly all eventually find reason to surround their leaders with evidence of riches, while many of the adherents suffer the pangs of poverty. For sake of argument, It might be said that achieving true humility would be a dangerous source of true pride which could thus destroy it. Of course, penance for such pride in one's humility could be done to restore the balance, unless such pride in one's ability to restore the balance again worked to destroy it.

Obsessively circular concerns such as this can occupy a zealot's thoughts to the exclusion of all else and they can become a victim of their own naturally prideful propensity, but only because the religion has succeeded in making this natural quality of personal pride seem to be a perversity. Pride in one's religion however, as superior to all others, is perfectly acceptable. A religion's need for pride in itself and humility in its followers is suspect of being little else than a subjugation ploy. Between the excesses of boastfulness and abject humility, modesty would seem to be a more reasonable posture.

Many peoples have suffered persecution for their religious beliefs. The Jews in particular have suffered repeated persecution for all of recorded history. In their case, their struggle for survival as a people led to religious dictates, which can be largely but not completely found in the published words of the Torah and Talmud, and which have proven historically and collectively to be both beneficial and hazardous to the followers.

Many consider Judaism, in most levels or degrees of adherence, to be a racially based religion, including the Jews themselves. They have strongly resisted intermarriage, have seldom if ever considered converts to be true Jews and recognize many positions in their hierarchy as legacies. As a rule, they do not send missionaries to convert others to their belief, because their religion is believed to be intended only for the extended family of their group. Their religion is fairly unique in this respect among major beliefs. However, the longer Jews reside in an area, the more they seem to resemble the general populace.

While many Gentiles still think of the Jews as typically having the physical characteristics associated with middle eastern, desert-dwelling peoples, the group now includes many from eastern Europe who are fair-skinned, blonde, and blue-eyed. Being "anti-Jew" is therefore much less Anti-Semitic than it once might have been. This is not necessarily a new development, merely a more visible one, due to massive immigrations.

An unusual circumstance has resulted in an exception to the general rules of Judaic exclusivity. According to a report in the February 22, 2002. issue of "Forward", a group of conservative Rabbis conducted a formal conversion of about half of the six-hundred blacks in a community of Uganda, who have been practicing Jewish rituals independently of the Jewish world since 1919. Some who were not converted at the time of the formality were told "they needed to study more" and some older blacks, who refused conversion, said that "They had been living as Jews for virtually their entire lives."

Persecution of the Jews always seems to have been initiated more by the collective practices of this religiously identifiable group, than by the physical or mental characteristics of their members, except where such characteristics could be immediately related to the practices of the group. In the usual historical scenario leading to a Jewish persecution, it would appear that the practices regarding trade interaction with other peoples that beneficially promoted the survival of the group, as it existed separably within a larger nationalistic grouping, were continued to the extreme and beyond the time of their usefulness. At this stage they became the basis for Jewish rejection, near demise and typically led to an eventual expulsion of Jews from each country of residence. Now, when there seems to be a general, worldwide increase in religious fervor, the attitude toward the Jew in Israel, and the larger number that reside in America, is a reaction to the perceived integration of their religious, business and political agendas - as demonstrated by their relating of business practices and their military activity and influence.

There is the old maxim: "If you can't beat them, join them". Perhaps this is useful advice and a possible solution in most other instances, but when the very capable followers of Judaism appear to prevail in a society, Gentiles generally cannot join them, and only have the choice of resistance or capitulation. In such instances, it appears as though a covert war of attrition has continuously existed between Jew and Gentile, fueled by past injustices, but is one of which Gentiles only seem to become aware at rare intervals. Unfortunately, Gentile awareness typically occurs late in the conflict. Gentile reactions are then relatively crude and eventually culminate in abuses and physical violence. This is eventually followed by apologetic contrition, guilty over-compensation for misdeeds, a Gentile state of diminishing awareness and a repetition of the sequence.

No view of religion should ignore the fact that there are those who are without a religion. There are the Atheists, who may vary widely in their reasons and reasoning. Among them are those semi-non-believers who call themselves Agnostics. The latter appear to often be nervous non-believers who are afraid they may be wrong, or self-admitting Atheists who seek to soften an announcement of heresy to associates. This may be similar to the voters who are decided, but who state that they haven't decided, when asked how they will vote. They don't want to alienate anyone. However, both may also have a reality based fear that they may suffer the intolerance their associates' religions or political views may demand. The premise of a religion or political position may be doubted, but we cannot deny the very real power of organized religion and political influence.

The Humanists are one of the more identifiable groups who may be called non-believers, who typically reject the supernatural explanations typical of a religion. Humanism has taken many forms since its inception during the Renaissance in Western Europe, but may be generally characterized as assigning primary importance to the affairs and pursuits of mankind and as having the belief that all philosophical understanding stems from human activity.

It may seem somewhat contradictory, but a true Atheist should be particularly tolerant of religious belief and practice. It should hardly be offensive to an Atheist if those about them wish to worship a God, or Gods. They should be able to recognize the needs of others which may not be as their own, and support the right to make personal choices. They should even feel free to participate, at least superficially, in the religious activities of those who recognize a God, or other religious basis, for their way of life. Although a little discomfort may be felt when they restrain a desire to express their position, no harm is done. They have no deity of their own that could possibly be offended.

Of course, out of a sense of honesty and integrity, they really should stop short of participating to the point of falsely appearing to personally validate a religion.

Not all people who profess to be Atheists, are Atheists in the truest sense.

Some persons profess disbelief, or denial of a divine presence, as a reaction to a perceived world injustice or calamity which they feel could not have been permitted by a just God. These are people who have, rather reasonably, decided that any omnipotent power willing to take credit for the good should accept responsibility for the bad. This is rejection not disbelief. On a smaller, more personal scale, some who profess to be Atheists may simply be engaging in a little more personal, spiteful demonstration against their deity, due to a disappointing lack of response to an especially fervent and needful prayer.

True Atheists are simply people who are satisfied with a view of reality that doesn't need to include the concept of a deity to answer unanswered questions or promises of supernatural assistance and a life after death, to achieve peace-of-mind.

Some professed Atheists seem to feel driven to convince others that their lack of theistic belief is the true way of life. In this respect they are treating their belief like a religion. This is a dangerous practice. The tendency to believe in mystical powers and explanations is a well-established human characteristic. Atheists generally feel that theirs is a particularly enlightened path. However, It is hoped that such enlightenment will help them to avoid using their personal views to take away a reassuring belief that others may desperately need, simply because they have come to feel personally comfortable with it. Atheism is best found independently by the questioning individual, not forced upon the unprepared as the result of convincing argument. The latter is a most unkind approach that could produce an unresolvable internal conflict in many people, throughout the world.

If our histories have represented him accurately, there was a great philosopher and teacher who could arguably be the most sincere intellectual of all time. Kung Fu-tzu, or Confucius, was not a religious leader, although his followers succeeded in creating Confucianism, which included a quasi-religion based on a reverence for his teachings. His philosophical principles of moral and social reform still influence thinking in a large part of the world after 2500 years. He did not oppose religious belief in his time, but his teachings carefully avoided matters regarding a "spirit world" or "life-after-death". Confucius stressed values of skepticism and scientific inquiry, and those of moral and social reform.

There appears to be no ready remedy that might eliminate international religious-based frictions and the seemingly related wars. We most often tend to believe what we have been taught to believe in childhood. However, acquainting ourselves with the beliefs of others may at the very least help us to understand the differences and personally subject their importance to our own thoughtful analysis. It will need the cooperation of major factions to succeed, but perhaps a comparative view can lead us to find out why such differences have been given such recently hazardous importance and be able to give the protective animosities our religions use to perpetuate themselves, less reactivated expression. If we can still tolerate our differences in both religious and religiously related traditions but learn to take the defensive part of them a bit less seriously, we may all be able to survive both the present and the immediate future. Perhaps we will not be forced to subject any religious promises of an after-life to the final test of a premature personal experience.

Our religions have been inextricably woven into the ideologies and politics of the nations, but we may yet be able to make them less vulnerable to political use. Perhaps we can each succeed in personally viewing other forms of worship as misguided without seeking to interfere with them, simultaneously acknowledging what we consider wrong and the right of others to be wrong, even when they may be portrayed as perpetuating human suffering. But if we succeed, can we endure seeming crass and uncaring? Can we then take refuge from conscience in the thought that we are being rightfully respectful of the sovereign rights of other nations? Too often, aid to a deprived people merely enriches the coffers of a depraved leadership. Can we feel good about ourselves, knowing our generosity has failed in its purpose? Still, there is the matter of recognizing sovereignty as we would have ours recognized. Perhaps our modes of aid need to be more creatively designed for greater effectiveness. It is perhaps a jaded view, but it seems more than curious that human rights conditions, which may have existed for centuries and for varied and complex reasons, suddenly become much more deplorable and worthy of concern when needed to bolster aggressive causes.

The past few hundred years have seen worldwide social as well as technological changes. In the 18th century, the founding fathers of the United States of America made provision for the separation of the powers of church and state to avoid prior abuses that were felt to result from their combination. This was not a rejection of religion, only of its previously misused power to control national policies. The founding fathers made many references to their mutually recognized God in the documents that initially defined the new government. In a 20th century evolvement of more complete separation, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, as a reflection of its Marxist communism, became the first major government to become openly secular.

When we seek to sift information and assess the hazards of peril in troubled times, we should remember the following truism which is not stated frequently enough: "The first casualty of war is truth". The fact is that truth dies long before the first shot is fired and during the campaign that is waged to prepare the people for war. War is never so factually glorious as we are led to envision. The loss of sons and daughters can seldom be justified by any possible result of war. Except for the earliest of conflicts in which we were either admittedly taking the property of others or simply seeking to retain our own, and following someone who physically led us into battle, war seldom, if ever, has been fought for stated reasons or resulted in the betterment of individuals who sacrificed to obtain a victory. The social sophistications of more developed societies have increasingly made motivations more readily disguised, personal risk in leadership negligible, leadership responsibility more diffuse, and the spoils of war less recognizably traceable. While the enemies of the state are clearly listed, the ever-present beneficiaries of war often rest in a secure obscurity.

In our many miscellaneous ponderings, we should make note of the fact that the members of human society have always seemed to have designated functions. This factor should be taken into account when we confer responsibilities. Those who fashion weapons of war have no power to control them, once they are completed. Those who learn the lessons of history and are familiar with our most costly errors have only advisory influence to prevent their repetition in our future. Those who gain insight into the realm of human behavior may achieve a position to apply it, but seldom do so to the advantage of society.

We are "self-described" as an intelligent species. Perhaps this is because there are those among us who have shown us the way to control the forces of nature to provide for our needs and desires. While the creative ability to devise the means of such control within the species may be one way to define our intelligence, that of the species must also include the ability to quickly recognize and employ such means, once they are devised, since individual creative achievement means little in isolation. Wisdom is a part of our intelligent ability to foresee consequence; the part we apply when we are able to make choices.

In the long-term measure of our intelligence. wisdom will be the most critical factor, but like achieved means to control natural forces, individual achievements of wisdom mean little in isolation. The more widely distributed intelligence of the species must be applied to recognize them and to give them effective value.

Intelligence may be compared to a light source that can more distinctly reveal what we attempt to perceive. However, this power of illumination we possess appears to be capable of both variable and arbitrary direction. We use it to subject some areas of our lives to a painfully detailed scrutiny while we strain to see others in a dimly reflected light that enables us to see only shadowy shapes that we can feel free to give imaginary form. Sometimes we all just forget to turn the light on.

There are many words that automatically invoke a supportive reaction. "Freedom" and "Human Rights" have many interpretations when put to any test of meaning. The point of view seems to give them a range from unbridled licentiousness to the freedom and right to do as we are told. In general, we can see that most freedoms and rights, which we are said to possess, are potentialities we enjoy knowing about but can seldom employ, much like free tickets when we can't get to the theatre.

The virtues of mutual generosity are manifold and many times credited to the presence of religions. Such generosity has pulled us together as we travel through the void on our own little piece of firmament. The warm feeling we get from helping those who need help is reward enough, but perhaps we should want a bit more; the feeling that our help will have an effect that lasts beyond the moment. Generosity is so often portrayed in material terms and as unilateral. But we can be generous with anything we have to give, even if it is only a no less real, sincerity of gratitude that includes the restraint of not asking for more. If we can give material help, we need to be grateful for the good fortune that gives us both the capacity and the opportunity to help.

The destitute are said to possess rights as human beings which circumstance has not seemed willing to recognize. In the exercise of generosity, that seeks to rectify what is seen as a wrongful situation, the needy are frequently found to be much less kind and considerate in receiving, than their benefactors were in giving; not even gracious enough to thank them. Perhaps long periods of deprivation and past experiences with aborted assistance have made them suspect our motives, perhaps they feel that it is a just due that was too long in coming, perhaps it only reflects their nature, but resentment is often the response to assistance and hatred can follow, if assistance is not continued. When such help is given, with good intentions, our expectations of gratitude should be minimal and long-range effects of the recipients' betterment should be a prime consideration. We preach responsibility. yet we too often act to relieve others of that burden without regard for the detrimental consequences.

We have many motivations for what we do in and with our lives. The power of empathy is a wonderful human quality, but over-appreciation of another point of view can be hazardous, especially if it is accurate. If we overly appreciate the plight of a hungry tiger, we may become its unwitting or even willing lunch. Empathy is informational and instructional and may help us to see and understand ourselves as well as others with greater clarity, but we are not being more than justifiably selfish in primarily assessing the values of our reality from our own vantage point.

We humans often profess to seek the "purpose of life". The religious may find it in the revelations and dictates that accompany their belief in supreme beings. For the Atheist, It may be simply said to be any purpose mankind may personally wish to assign to it. However long we may persist, if we follow the pattern of evidential history as we know it, we and our purposes, however they are determined, can look forward to eventual extinction. Many enduring species, perhaps with equal purpose, relative to their ability to be self-aware and conceive purpose, have preceded us and many more may follow us. If we do not successfully survive the immediate future, perhaps we can only wishfully and finally hope that our successors will be intelligent enough to fully appreciate our fossil evidence, the artifacts we leave them and learn from both our existence and demise. Perhaps, it is because of our human ability to care about such things, that we will include this hope; the hope that they will have more effective wisdom and use that wisdom to resist development of our mutually destructive urgings.

Lawrence Edward Bodkin, Sr.