Thoughts on growing up with belief and the development of belief in society

Early Days

My parents weren’t greatly religious. They were both born of large families in rural Welsh and
Cumberland communities at the beginning of the 20th Century when it was the ‘done’ thing to
attend a church or chapel on Sundays, dressed in their ‘Sunday best.’ Religion was something one
never spoke about … one simply attended church on Sundays as a member of your community. It
had nothing to do with belief of anything.

My earliest memories include Sunday attendance at church and chapel. They include my Father
making the time pass by handing out mints to the family and even to neighboring pews. They
include my Mother’s concern that she attended the church with the best choral singing and even
of her moving when the choirmaster moved. They include my own reluctance to do more than to
obey my parents, to be forced to wear my best long trousers and to spend my time in the pew
skimming through the hymnal to find composers for every letter from A to Z in sequence while
the preacher droned on.

My sister and I were never encouraged to do more than attend that one weekly service, whereas
how we behaved and what we ate were constantly monitored. Sunday school was not for us, so
we never got more than peripheral instruction in religious stories or lessons. I was allowed to stop
going to chapel when I insisted on taking a book. It was so much the better that my sister and I
could come to our own beliefs later in life.

In college, church and religion did not exist although, in my postgraduate years, in the US, I met
a girl who was faintly religious. Together, we attended a different church each Sunday to test the
waters and I continued that practice for a while after leaving the area. I even found one church, in
San Bernadino, California, that struck my fancy. It taught only those things upon which great
religions agreed and, therefore, it honored some of the teachings of Christ, Buddha, Mohammed,
and others equally. Other dictates in each religion, the church ignored. “Turn the other Cheek”
was, for example, not compatible with an “Eye for an Eye” so neither had a bearing. However, as
far as I know there was only that single church that sought a common ground. There was, indeed,
very little common ground between the churches that I visited.

As I grew older, I learned what great religions had truly done for the world … not much that was
positive but a great deal that was negative. I learned of the Christian Crusades against the
Muslims and others who displeased the Pope. I learned of the persecution of Jews for their
presumed part in the plague and for their usury. I learned of the wars initiated by German
bishops; of the intolerance of the Lutherans and Calvinists; of the Nazi adherence to Prussian
perfection and Tibetan mysticism; of the Holocaust against Jews and Gypsies; and of the 21st
Century right-wing Christian Bush-crusades against Muslim unbelievers. Religions, driven by
their fanatics, have been responsible for the majority of wars and most of the agonies of
‘civilization.’

I also learned of the finer divisions of intolerance within religions … Shi’ite versus Sunni versus
Khawarij; Methodist versus Lutheran versus White Supremacist; Protestant versus Roman
Catholic; Haryana, Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhists; Baptist sects and all the finer sub-
divisions that showed that any god, if a god existed, was not a forgiving or tolerant ‘god.’ It was
an individual intolerant ‘god.’

I came to the conclusion that none of it mattered one jot. ‘Religion’ was the home of the
intolerant and that, instead, one should rely on thought, logic and understanding. That, inevitably,

1
led to the conclusion that the concept of ‘god’ was a myth constructed as a placebo for the poorly
educated.

My first family of children was raised on the basis that my son and daughter would make up their
own minds when they were of age. They are intelligent. Now that they have reached their forties,
neither is religious, nor do they attend any house of worship. My second family of two girls is
more of a problem. They attend a nominally Roman Catholic school and have grandparents and
relatives that still pay some small obeisance to Catholicism and its church. Hopefully, they will
also make up their own minds because Roman Catholicism has become merely a historic symbol
in northern Belgium. The church is an artistic relic. Priests rarely disturb its precincts.

Extremism

Do not be misled. Despite the decline of orthodox Western religions, the world today is not
devoid of ‘religions’. It is rife with extreme opinions, ranging from beliefs that some sects are so
‘right’ that others should be destroyed; to the sanctity of animal life above that of human life; to a
dedication to revert society to that of ideal ‘green’ society; to the continuing inferiority of women
and to the belief that a white skin is preferable to a black one. There are even more extreme ideas
… all religions to their believers, and unfortunately, there are always people who have little else
to do in this world than to force their ideas upon others.

Does this seem curiously familiar … does this sound, in each case, like the Crusaders’ cry of
“Convert to Christianity or be damned?” For example, the slogan used by PETA, an organization,
which believes that animals deserve PETA’s own idea of ethical treatment, “Meat is Murder,”
shows similar Crusading bigotry. They certainly don’t want a member to equivocate: “Well, OK,
meat is murder, except for pork. I like pork.”

These new ‘opinions’ are the new ‘religions’ of the third millennium. They are based on theses
that followers are expected to accept and follow without question. They include such beliefs that
dictate that a true follower of Allah or Jehovah be guided by an Imam or a Rabbi; that a cow
should not be milked because of animal pain; that anyone following Muhammad is more (or less)
worthy than anyone following Yeshua bin Jozef; that one should not step on a worm; that global
warming is attributable to human behavior; and, generically, that my opinion is worthier than
yours.

These religions are ‘supported’ by writings such as the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, the Book of
Mormon, Mein Kamp, the Greenpeace manifesto and PETA action statements. There is very little
difference between any of these manifestos. Believe what I believe or be damned.

We can all create our own religions on that basis.

A Religion

In the United States, a religion is defined, like it or not, by its tax status. Religions, confirmed by
the Internal Revenue Service, do not have to pay certain taxes, including taxes on property. In
California, religions arise, therefore, on the slightest of pretexts. One church named the Holy
Turtle Church gives its priest tax-free status for his property. The Church is on the Internet
Facebook under ‘Organizations – Religious’. Their honest description says, “We might actually
have "services" from time to time, but this is mostly for people who love Turtles and believe this
really should be a Religion.”

Others are not so benign. The manifesto of the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas is direct: “We
believe -- and vigorously preach -- the 5 Points of Calvinism! Anyone preaching otherwise is a

2
Hell-bound false prophet, a messenger of Satan, to whom we say, ‘Anathema Maranatha!’ and,
‘Let him be accursed of God!’”

The pastor of another church in Florida is sponsoring a “Burn the Quran” Day in 2010 and says:
"We believe that Islam is of the devil, that it's causing billions of people to go to hell, it is a
deceptive religion, it is a violent religion and that is proven many, many times."

Forgiveness is no part of the belief system of religious fanatics.

While these are American examples, the same extreme sects with the same extreme beliefs and
manifestos exist in all religions from Christian to Muslim to Hindu throughout the world and,
especially, in the Middle East.

Buddhism

With this introduction it is difficult to know what to make of Buddhism.

The Buddhist religion is fundamentally different from others since it consists simply of the
teachings of one person, Siddhārtha Gautama, who did not feel a need to provide an authority for
what he taught. Abraham needed Yahweh, Yeshua bin Jozef needed God, and Muhammed
needed Allah as authorities for their teachings, and those who listened variously interpreted these
deities as being caring, if one followed the teachings, or threatening, if one didn’t. The deity was,
at the same time, the carrot and the stick.

Gautauma, who lived sometime between 400 and 600 B.C., is known as Buddha … the
enlightened one … and following his death his followers defined the religion to include others
before him. However, Gautama used his own authority to teach and, knowing human frailties,
even warned his followers not to deify him after he died. Unfortunately this message has been
ignored and statues of Gautama abound and are worshipped.

Yet fundamentally, in Buddhism, the students simply have to follow Gautama’s words. They
were pretty simple to follow by the people of 400 BC and they should be even clearer today.

The four Noble Truths that Gautama taught are that: Life leads to suffering, suffering is caused by
wanting things, one will be happy once one stopped wanting things, so follow the teachings of
Gautauma through eight stages to achieve this end. The eight stages of the recommended path
include: looking at things realistically; developing an intention to do better; speaking, acting and
living in a caring manner; and making an effort to improve whilst concentrating on the path to
happiness.

It’s tough to object to those instructions. Nowhere do they say that alternative teachings are
wrong or that there is a God to follow or to obey. Life is in your own hands.

Sounds reasonable.

However, as in all religions, extremist followers have deformed Buddhism … by worshipping

Gautama as a deity and by building temples where none are required; by defining meditation
(‘concentrating on the path to happiness’) as a substitute for work so that begging for food is
acceptable and by taking ‘caring’ to such an extreme that one should not kill a worm during road
works (especially road works to which one objects!). Tibetans Buddhists even created a national
government, an army and a military-style police. No wonder that their secular religion attracted
the admiration of Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler.

3
Of course, one believes what one wishes and sometimes joins a community of like-believers.
There’s not much wrong with that except that along the line there are always those who, having
chosen their favorite flavor of ice cream, want to force it on everyone else willy-nilly. This leads
from simple support campaigns to violence, to murder and to war.

As an atheist, the secular roots of Buddhism seem admirable instruction for anyone who needs a
path to follow in their lives. It is responsible: Life is in your own hands, and it does not depend on
an indefinable, a god, and that inevitable competition between gods: My Way is better than your
Way. I was more than a little attracted to the path of Buddhism.

However, I realized that one should beware the Buddhist extremists who inhabit Pearl Street in
Boulder, Colorado, and who live in the Potalla Palace in Lhasa.

Creativity

Having expressed some favor towards Buddhism I found that the principal problem with
Buddhism, apart from its misuse, is that it has no creative element.

The recommended life of looking at things realistically, trying to do better in avoiding avarice
and greed, and helping others, is passive: a meditating monk is an apt symbol. In all of the
Buddha’s rules and steps to Nirvana nothing is created other than rounds of meditation and
prayers. That may give personal relaxation and peace but it is totally inward looking. Spinning a
prayer wheel is not a positive statement.

My early life was based on a reasonable ethic that taught that stealing and destruction were
wrong, privacy was to be respected, one obeyed one’s parents and helped others, one didn’t waste
and so on. However, my sister and I were also encouraged to be productive, to work. We were
implicitly shown that creation was something to be developed through music and singing,
through growing plants and raising animals, through writing and drawing and through learning in
reading and travel. Thus, the way we lived was a background to what we did. Most religions,
including Buddhism, are the opposite; they concentrate on the ‘how’ rather than the ‘what.’ If you
show virtue, they seem to say, it doesn’t matter what you do.

Creativity? Roman Catholicism cultivated finery and an appreciation for sculpture, images and
glass to illustrate Catholicism; Reformation Protestantism destroyed all that in favor of praying
but accidently created new art for private spaces … although they probably would not take that as
credit. Some tribal religions cultivate dance and others decoration. Welsh churches and those in
southern states encourage choral singing. However, these bits of creativity are usually directed
inwards to the religion. No church encourages secular painting.

Indeed, on reflection, I know of no religion that encourages creativity for anything more than to
celebrate itself. This fact alone makes most religions irrelevant to society because however
‘good’ society is, it cannot grow without ‘creativity.’ Instead it would decay.

With all the evil done by religions, with their ingrown passions and inadvertent encouragement of
extremes, with their lack of emphasis on growth of the mind, of psyche and of society, one cannot
be surprised that most religions are dying out in thoughtful societies.

The Church’s View

Searching the Internet for a connection between religion and creativity is revealing. The first nine
of ten links offered are for a Creationist Church. It is a White Separatist church dedicated to to a
racist religion. One link of the ten, from the church of Latter Day Saints, actually discusses what

4
we were looking for.

They say: “God’s purpose for the artist is to inspire, to give us visions of ourselves that we might
not otherwise see, to make us better than we would have been. The world is better for the arts
and righteous artists in it. In the quest to achieve greatness in artistic pursuits—whether in
painting, dance, music, drama, film, sculpture, or the written word—we should always seek first
to achieve God’s purposes. “All great art is the expression of man’s delight in God’s work, not
his own,” said John Ruskin, the great nineteenth-century English art critic.”

The clue to this piece is the use of the phrases “righteous artists” and “man’s delight in God’s
work, not his own.” It refers to creation only for the church’s purpose, not to creation of arts and
sciences themselves.

Furthermore, ‘inspiration’ is not enough.

Children are very good judges of ‘inspiration.’ When shown pretty flowers they want to pick
them and investigate the petals, when shown a beautiful book they want to turn the pages and
read it, when shown a pencil they want to use it … inspiration is not enough, full-scale interactive
participation is what they ask. Religions aren’t willing to make that additional step unless the
product is for the church.

The Buddhist religion took another slant: “The Buddhist traditions of art and science offer their
services of ethical reform, meditational development, and scientific knowledge and critical
wisdom without demanding denominational allegiance, blind faith or mere obedience on the part
of people who might be in need of those services.” However, here there is no mention to scientific
search or the creation of new wisdom.

Moreover, in my experience in Japan and Tibet, there is little sign of any “Buddhist tradition in
art or in science” beyond temple decorations. A search for ‘Buddhist science’ on the website
dedicated to a discussion of this issue gave ‘no results.’ Indeed some ‘science’ might have
assisted the native Tibetans who, in 1987, still used 13th Century wooden plows and still carved
animal carcasses amongst the flies on the roadside for sale of the meat.

On reflection my favor towards Buddhism evaporated quickly enough.

My Creed

So, what would form my idea of a life premise? By what standards do I judge religions?

My ideas would start with the following:

o You are your own person and your beliefs are entirely your own. Don’t let others tamper
with them. Don’t follow some false god.

o Tolerance is important … the variety of minds bring all kinds of firm beliefs … the only
one’s that concern you are your own.

o Don’t harm others. Despite your natural animal instincts to compete or take revenge,
recognize that others have needs and different capabilities. Of two paths, choose the one
with least impact on others.

o Pay attention to creation and to moving on (anyone who stagnates slides backward).
Don’t be content with the status quo … it is not a sign of contentment.

5
o Pay attention to beauty: in nature, in art and music, and in writing, and during that
attention, try to add to beauty. One note of your own, even if discordant, is worth a
thousand pieces of others’ harmony because it contains personal creation.

o Be aware of contentment. It is natural to want more but it is also a great relief to abandon
an ambition and to turn to something new. The important thing is to turn to something
new.

o Learn from other’s mistakes.

o Remember that beliefs have nothing to do with churches, mosques, temples, chapels or
meeting halls or to popes, bishops, priests, imams, rabbis, or preachers. They are merely
the constructs of religion.

o Beware false science or definitive opinions. Question and investigate the motives of those
who provide definitive conclusions.

I have to admit that I don’t always follow these points but I would like to think that I do for
the most part.

© 2010 John Graham