Where is God?

I have no argument with people who believe in Evolution or alternatively in Creation – I am firmly of the opinion that both can exist alongside each other. Why not? There is only one God, as far I know, and if He made everything (everything from amoeba to plants to animals and us humans) who are we to argue over how He arranged for this wondrous feat to occur?

What I have difficulty in understanding is why whole-hearted believers in “the Book” – be it the Koran, Bible, the Torah or Vedic scriptures - opt so vigorously for one OR the other belief. We just do not know (and are unlikely ever to find out) what He was thinking about at the time.

And does it really matter? We are all here, on this small planet circling an averaged sized sun which is part of a very ordinary galaxy in an unimaginably large universe.

So I ask the question posed by the title of this post – “Where is God?”

If as I believe nothing (repeat nothing) can exist without His knowledge – because He is omnipotent – then everything (repeat everything) has his imprint and is therefore a part of God’s plan. You, me, the trees, the flowers, fish, birds, insects, galaxies – everything is here because He wished it to be so. 

So God is everything.

To fight over who believes what; to kill someone who does not hold to your particular belief system; to start a war to impose your particular form of religious belief on others is insane! To me it gives the lie to their belief in God. To them God is their special God – not your God, not my God and certainly not one over-arching Supreme Being.

And, of course, only they know what their particular, special God wants, therefore they have to enforce this on others. Is this because He tells them to?

All this leads to other important questions that each of us need to answer – “Who am I? Who or What made the universe? What is my relationship to the Who or What?”

So, where is God?

The Australian version of Democracy

It is difficult to gauge how democracy is travelling in “democratic” countries. I speak particularly about Australia (where I live) which is touted as one of the strongest democracies in the world.

That I (and my wife) are pensioners (I am 73 and retired only one working day before my 72^nd birthday) and have no income other than the Government provided Age Pension, is incidental to my concerns.

My concerns are about what it is we are forced to vote for (on pain of a penalty for NOT voting).

For those who may be unaware of this curious fact, Australia has compulsory voting –whether you like any of the candidates or not, whether you like their policies or not, whether you like it or not, you have to vote – or face a fine for NOT voting.

I personally am not sure that compulsory voting is actually democratic, but this again is incidental to my concerns.

My concerns are about what we are told (promised?) prior to an election but then are told after the election that what was said is not going happen; that these promises were not “core promises”. What is a “core promise” pray tell? Why bother to say something (“read my lips”) but then conveniently forget or ignore or use “weasel words” to deny that it was said at all?  Surely a promise is a promise in any language?

My concern is about what it is that we are actually forced to vote for – a lie? Is this an example of being a good role model? Is this how leaders are supposed to behave? Is this an open, accountable and “mature Government”? Is this a Government that can be trusted?

Trust takes a long time to develop but can be lost in an instant. To understand what I am getting at it may help to recall what Confucius had to say about this some twenty-five centuries ago:

 “If you govern the people by laws, and keep them in order by penalties, they will avoid the penalties, yet lose their sense of shame. But if you govern them by your moral excellence, and keep them in order by your dutiful conduct, they will retain their sense of shame, and also live up to this standard.”

In light of the astounding lack of trust and moral leadership shown - and admitted – by many leaders (political, business and religious or in fact any position with monetary significance), I truly believe that it is time for everyone to stop, even take a step back and look, I mean really examine, their actions and see whether they make any sense. For example, just look at the corruption, the appalling moral and ethical short comings exposed by the various commissions of enquiry currently underway in Australia (into child sexual abuse and into corrupt union activities). Think about the financial scandals in England and the USA (LIBOR, Wall Street and “banks too big to fail”); the International Olympic games organization (athletes and performance enhancing drugs and also bribes being paid to officials); the International Football Federation (“ditto”); international cycling (“ditto”); international pharmaceutical companies (using corrupt methods to enhance sales of products with doubtful efficacy); using children as slave labour to produce low priced garments - the list just goes on and on and on!   

And then as a further Australian example, I was told in a letter (dated  9^th January 2014) from Malcolm Turnbull ( the Australian Minister for Communications) that, and I quote:-

“I would like to take this opportunity to assure you the Government does not have any current plans to privatise or reduce the ABC’s funding. The Government understands the significant relationship the ABC has with the Australian public and is committed to maintaining its quality, performance and efficiency.”

The ABC is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, which is owned and fully funded by the government - but three months later Turnbull cuts hundreds of millions of dollars from their budget allocation (possibly out of spite – the ABC, in the past, has dared to criticize the current government).

And we HAVE to vote for these people? Please!!

I believed Prime Minister, Tony Abbott when he said, before the recent general election, that there would be no changes to the Aged Pension or to Medicare, but there are changes. In light of the 2014 Budget cuts are these the words of a trustworthy man? All the cuts to health and education, and the reductions to benefits and allowances are, ostensibly, designed to “improve the economy” and balance the budget.

The trouble is the “Economy” is not some esoteric, alien “thing” somewhere out there. Without people there would be no economy – the economy IS people, the citizens of this country. The Prime Minister (Tony Abbott) and Treasurer (Joe Hockey) may well “balance the budget”- the Federal Budget - and help the “economy”, but they cannot ignore what the States do because they affect the “economy” as well. We are supposed to be the Commonwealth of Australia after all. But if they, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister, hand-ball the hard work to the States (funding health and education) why do we need a Federal Government – or if you prefer why have State Governments? Having both, singing from different hymn books, does not serve.

If people have less money to spend (because of the afore mentioned budget constraints) how is the economy supposed to grow? It is worth repeating that the economy is made up from people – more money and confidence and it grows; less money and less confidence and it contracts.      

Who do we trust? No wonder there is a rise in the number of independents and micro-parties – if we HAVE to vote might as well vote for something or someone novel.

It is worth asking what we ACTUALLY vote for – what politicians SAY they will do or what they ACTUALLY do – which is discovered only after the event?

And Australians are penalised for not voting. Democracy indeed!

Religion, injustice and “honour”.

It was Blaise Pascal (1623- 1662) who wrote the much quoted lines, “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”

It seems very strange, in fact bizarre, that religion, which should guide followers to behave better often does the reverse. I know that local custom, social mores and tribal “law” often dictate how any person is supposed to act or behave, but many of those who follow entrenched local customs and tribal laws are from ostensibly, deeply religious societies.

There is no indication that any particular faith or belief system is more or less prone to committing “evil” than any other. Catholics, Protestants, Hindus, Muslims, Jews and Buddhists all seem to resort to violence and “evil” in the defence or promotion of their particular brand of religion.

Before I continue I would like to point out that any “evil” perpetrated in the name of God is almost always committed by those who believe totally in the dogma of their faith, in the absolute truth of the written word as printed in their particular “book”, be it the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the Dharma or the Vedic texts.  

In this regard I wish to state very clearly that I am NOT anti-religion. I am not anti any belief in God – I believe in God.  What I am against is any, repeat any, injustice and all activities or behaviours which cause harm to people, whether or not it is perpetrated in the name of God.  

I was thinking particularly of the recent case in Sudan where a woman (apparently Christian) has been accused of apostasy and sentenced to death unless she recants her Christianity and declares herself a Muslim (her father was apparently Muslim). It seems that a male calling himself her “brother” agrees she should die – he says he cannot say anything else without offending God.

Quite how a belief in God can offend Him, defeats me. Surely a Christian concept of God is no less valid than a Muslim concept of God? As far as I know (please prove me wrong) there is only one God who is called by many names such as Allah, or Krishna or Brahma or the Creator. Does it really matter what name is used? He, She, It is still the same God!

Then there are the many instances of “honour killing” reported in India, Pakistan and the Middle East generally. There are also disturbing reports of such killings or severe injuries including rape from countries as diverse as Australia, the United Kingdom, America and Canada. These crimes, and they are crimes, are almost exclusively committed by either Muslims or Hindus.  These crimes are mainly against women to, purportedly, restore family “honour”.

How “honour” is restored by killing or injuring one of God’s creations (generally a woman) defies my imagination. This is a barbaric tribal practice used to reinforce, or protect, male dominance and power and also as a means of control.

Such practices have no place in any society today.

PS: an update 24/06/14 - the woman I mentioned has been released and will not now be executed. Apparently the authorities bowed to the international outcry. About time too, I say!

PTSD and those who suffer.

That people suffer the after effects of traumatic events is indisputable and very unfortunate for those experiencing the emotional and mental upheaval – whether or not they have had it diagnosed as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Yet this condition – PTSD - was “created” by the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) only in their1980 third revision – DSM III. Prior to this date – while people certainly suffered – it was not categorized as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Traumatic and highly stressful experiences rob us of our belief that we can keep ourselves safe in the world and we wait anxiously for the next traumatic event and react nervously to every unexpected sound –compounding our fearful expectations. Whatever our traumatic experience it is important to remember that such events, though terrible, evoke responses that are ordinary human responses to extraordinary circumstances. Everyone going through such an “out of normal” and fearful experience needs comfort and support, just as we all need comfort and support when, for instance, we are injured, lose a close friend or someone we love. But to categorize our ordinary reactions to this fear or grief as a “mental disorder” both diminishes and demeans our experience. We have had this experience, which is outside our normal expectations, and we react by trying to master our memory of the event and the emotions that are evoked. The mind will often attempt to ‘retreat’ from unpleasant life circumstances. It will do so in the only way it can, by going to a place of refuge and shutting off the ‘hurt’. This can manifest in many ways – as ‘depression’, as apparently delusional thoughts or neurotic behaviour. Such reactions far from being an “illness” are but a desperate attempt to preserve our concept of self, our identity, which is in danger of being overwhelmed.

Since humans first evolved millions of people would have experienced highly stressful or traumatic events. People in antiquity, as far as I understand history, would have suffered the after effects of the trauma experienced in battles and ever present likelihood of being captured and taken into slavery. Similarly in their daily experiences with the natural world of their times – wild animal, floods, earthquakes, droughts, starvation and such like would have tested the resilience of the strongest characters.  

With the winding down of the military activities in Afghanistan many military personnel are arriving home with emotional and psychological scars which need to be healed. Assistance is available for those who wish to take advantage of what is offered.

What happens, however, to those Iraqis, Afghans or Sri Lankans who were caught in the middle – between government military and the Taliban, supporters of Al-Qaeda or militants fighting for their cause? Those people who lost their livelihood, family members or were themselves severely injured by Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) or who suffered revenge attacks because they happen to support the “wrong” side – what support do they get? Do they cry? Do they dull the pain with opium? Do they get drunk?

As in most wars it is women and children who bear the brunt of trauma; in all countries it is women and children who endure the effects of violence and abuse of any kind. What support do they get from anyone – anyone at all? What is of great concern about any traumatic event is the long term health effects, even generational health effects it may have on people – possibly even those not yet born.  

Drugs, except in the very short term, generally don’t help and are not a “cure” for PTSD. In any event the side effects of antidepressants and antipsychotics are quite severe. Furthermore to suggest chemicals can address the distressing flash-backs, the recurring memories and recollections, the guilt, the “what if …” or the “if only…” is plain wrong. All chemicals do is to help dull the pain and put a brake on the expression of any emotional response – they have the effect of “dumbing down” the sufferer. This may be good – in the very short term – to give a person time to gain strength but let it be known that there is no known test for a “chemical imbalance” in the brain. Let it be known, also, that no one knows how to measure the “chemical balance” for any person’s brain or to determine what such a “balance” should be.

What is needed is counselling and as much love and emotional support that the PTSD sufferer can get – and time, and sleep, that “knits the ravelled sleeve of care” (Shakespeare – Macbeth).