Man and God.

Oh boy!! This is an intensely personal and a highly emotive issue but it needs to be talked about – openly. So here goes!!

First up let me state, clearly, that I am not a follower of any particular religion or faith. Nominally an Anglican or Church of England – I was baptised as one – there are beliefs held by Buddhism and Sufism that I find satisfying and meaningful, just as I enjoy some of the hymns associated with the English Church and I find the the ideas and language of the King James Bible quite wonderful. Likewise certain aspects of the Kabbalah (an ancient Jewish spiritual tradition) and the Hindu beliefs about life and spirituality I also find comforting. So I suppose I could be called an “all sorts” – and possibly be despised as such, even condemned by some for blasphemy and as an apostate.

No matter! What I have found is that all these different forms of belief have one goal – to direct a follower to God, no matter what God is called; God, Allah, Krishna, Brahma, Yahweh, the Absolute – there is only One God. So I really don’t believe it matters much HOW you believe as long as you DO believe. And how you believe is your personal choice, once you have reached an age when you can reflect, reason and choose accordingly.

What got me onto all this are three things: firstly, the recent resignation or abdication of the (now former) Pope – Benedict XVI. Secondly, the long running scandal – affecting ALL religions – relating to the physical and sexual abuse, by those entrusted with their welfare, of children and women. Thirdly, the apparent secularisation of the Western countries (by this I mean the more developed countries of the world) and the corollary of falling church attendances.  

Now, I am not claiming that these three are directly linked in any way, it is just that the three go together. I’ll explain why:-

Trust is one of the most fragile of human feelings. And trust is a feeling – not an emotion – it is a gut feeling. Trust usually takes a long time to develop but can be lost in a split second. In the current environment how can trust be engendered when government officials, lawyers, accountants and clergy have been known to abuse their positions for personal gain? How can trust be engendered or maintained particularly when the clergy, imams, rabbis, priests – call them what you will – of any religious order abuse the very people they have been entrusted to protect, to educate and to lead on a spiritual journey to God?

Of a certainty only a minority of clergy are abusers – there are many very fine men and women helping many people. But I wonder if it is the system, the environment, that is the baleful influence and not as the saying goes, “that one bad apple can spoil the barrel” but the “barrel” itself that is bad?

When people, particularly young people place themselves in the hands of someone they view as “superior”; someone who is supposed to be a spiritual and life  “guide”; someone who directs them on a weekly basis; someone who influences that least understood and most delicate of human attributes – spirituality, then almost unlimited “power” is given to that guide. Unconsciously this transference of “power” to influence and control a person’s thoughts and actions may damage both.

 When a priest, imam or rabbi (as an example) is given this influence over a young person (for example), there is now scope for, shall we say, “ungodly” activities. When young men are influenced to blow themselves up and kill as many “unbelievers” (Christian westerners) as they can; when strict adherence to the letter of the Bible, Koran or Torah is demanded as a requirement to “belong” in a particular society or group; when “believers” are controlled to the extent that they are discouraged from socialising with those not of their “faith” then something is out of kilter. When Christians and Muslims kill Jews; when Jews isolate Muslims from their land and Holy places; when Muslims burn Christian churches; when Christians burn Mosques; when Hindus burn the places of worship of both Muslims and Christians; when Christians categorize all Muslims as potential terrorists; when Muslims consider all non-Muslims as unacceptable to God and legitimate targets for punishment (a jihad or “holy” war); when women are considered secondary citizens and denied basic human rights (by ALL religions); when people are harmed in any way and when there is injustice in any form, a crime is committed and trust is broken.

Why then should anyone believe in the “sanctity” of any particular faith or religious cause again?

Certainly with the Christian Churches, and the Catholic Church is the biggest one, I believe that the “system” is corrupt and broken. It is the current, broken, system that encourages priestly influence and authority over parishioners for money and “power” – the Catholic Church is an immensely powerful and wealthy organization.

The religious people involved in these crimes are showing themselves as diminished beings unworthy of trust. Knowledge of any abuse spreads like effluent through a community and many people, naturally, turn away from any such toxic influences lest they become poisoned. Church attendances therefore fall.

There is little sign of  humility and adherence to the commandments that Jesus gave to his followers (King James Bible - Matthew 22.37 and 39):

“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” and,

“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”.

There are not many clearer directions that this, are there? So why don’t Christians churches follow them?

Remember Jesus also said (King James Bible, Matthew 6.21):

"For where your treasure is, there will be your heart also".

Comparing the USA and Buridan’s ass (donkey).

Buridan's ass refers to a hypothetical situation wherein an ass (a donkey) that is equally hungry and thirsty is placed precisely midway between a bale of hay and a bucket of water. Since the paradox assumes the donkey will always go to whichever is closer, it will die of both hunger and thirst since it cannot make any rational decision to choose one over the other. The paradox is named after the 14th century French philosopher Jean Buridan. A variation of the paradox substitutes the hay and water with two identical piles of hay; the donkey, now unable to choose between the two, dies of hunger.

Compare and consider the following:-

The US economy: the US congress cannot collectively decide whether to reduce the country’s level of debt by raising taxes on the very wealthy or by cutting the cost of welfare that will harm the less wealthy and under-privileged – so it does nothing and the level of debt continues to increase!

US gun control: the US congress cannot (or will not) collectively decide to reduce access to high-powered weapons. One side refuses point blank (excuse the pun) to contemplate ANY regulation or law that limits gun ownership. The other wants significant restrictions placed on gun ownership. Therefore collectively they do nothing – and people continue to die from gun related violence!

I believe that the US Congress is in the position of Buridan’s donkey – the congressmen and women cannot make up their collective mind between doing what is best for the country of America or doing what is best for them to preserve their positions in the congress. They are precisely in the middle between these two positions - so they do nothing.

It is to be hoped, sincerely, that intelligent people can and will make statesman like decisions to do the best for all concerned.  I believe the rest of the world finds it hard to believe that the (self- appointed) leading country in the world – it has the most powerful economy in the world and presumes to hold the moral high ground – cannot get its own house (of congress) in order.

So nothing is done and the level of debt increase and people continue to get shot – talk of Buridan’s donkey or ass (if you prefer)!!

Unintended consequences.

Added Feb23,2018:- I obviously have (partial) ability to foretell. Not boasting, mind!

The effects of the proposal to cut or reduce the printing of newspapers in Australia and the corollary of encouraging the use of electronic formats will have many consequences, mostly unintended.

For instance there will be a reduced requirement for wood pulp (to make newsprint). This will certainly help the conservationists cause. Alternatively it may encourage exports of newsprint, of pulp or woodchips, to make up the shortfall in revenue. But then there may be more employment opportunities for those who work in the electronic media industry! There is a possibility, of course, that the drive to increase readership of electronic media and cut costs will result in more “out sourcing” of jobs to lower cost countries such as India. This, if it occurs, will not help anyone in Australia.

Then what about the countless “news agencies” in Australia? They will either cease to exist or have to change and sell something else. What about the various sawmills and pulping plants in and around the country and the people employed by them? And then what about the vehicles delivering the wood chips to make the pulp from which newsprint is made? What about those who deliver the finished product – newspapers?

This is not just a “game” of hypotheticals, it affect real people. No one can foresee the future or the effects of any changes in plans or policies. This is why it is so important to ALWAYS consider people first (the ethical and moral considerations of the effects of any actions or activities) and not, first, the financial impact on the “bottom line”. To consider the “economy” or money before people puts the “cart before the horse” and will result in unnecessary anguish and hardship.

I know it sounds trite but happiness results – always - from helping people, not from making money. By all means use the money you have made to help people. To do so is good policy.

Remember that money is a useful medium of exchange invented by people. Individuals, people, you and I, normally work to earn it to exchange for goods or services they may need. Money does not create people or work or innovation or any goods. Only people can do this.

People “make” the economy, not the other way round. Without people there would be no commerce and industry and no “economy”. Commerce and industry are for the benefit of people; people are not items on some economic game board to be moved around for the benefit the commerce and industry. The Russian Soviet Republic tried this and failed spectacularly.

I know the old saying is that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” but it is essential to, always, have the welfare of people as pre-eminent - to act, always, with this consideration foremost in one’s mind. This is the ethical and moral way. Acting not for me but for all, will go some way to avoiding unintended, and possibly unpleasant, consequences.

In the case of newspaper publishing organisations, cutting staff to save costs will reduce the quality of the publications and the resulting bad publicity will reach a tipping point beyond which the organisations will spiral down towards total failure.