50 Things You're Not Supposed To Know: Religion

by Daniele Bolelli

  Some argue Hitler's professions of faith are not to be believed since supposedly in his private statements he didn't seem too fond of Christianity. And maybe they are right … but the outright dismissing of any connection between Nazism and Christianity is just a bit over-simplistic.

  29 BUDDHIST FUNDAMENTALISM?!?

  It would seem like a safe bet to assume Buddhism should be immune to sudden attacks of rabid fundamentalism. Buddha, after all, was the first to state that people shouldn't get overly hung up on his teachings. In the parable of the raft, Buddha had argued his teachings were no different than a raft whose purpose is to carry one across a river. Once you have made your crossing, it doesn't do anybody any good to keep holding on to the raft for the rest of your life, or to worship it as a sacred icon. The raft is just a means to an end—something to carry you from place A to place B. And perhaps you don't even have to use the damn raft in the first place. Maybe you can figure out another way to reach your destination.

  Given this unambiguous, all-out attack on dogma, it would seem like fundamentalism could not possibly find any space within Buddhism where to lay its eggs. And, for the most part, this has been the case. But fundamentalism is a crafty beast. And the words and intentions of a founder sometimes have preciously little to do with the religions named after them. Jesus's endless tirades against accumulation of wealth and those in favor of loving one's enemies didn't prevent much of Christianity from becoming infatuated with wealth and war. So, should we really be that surprised to catch Buddhism secretly making out with fundamentalism?

  In the 1200s, a young Japanese monk named Zennichimaro grew disillusioned with the forms of Buddhism to which he was exposed, and decided most of the words attributed to Buddha were worthless junk. Only a single composition, the Lotus Sutra, was true and worthy of being revered. After changing his name to Nichiren, he went on the attack. All forms of Buddhism other than his own—he proclaimed—were nothing but heresy. And the only sensible thing to do in the face of heresy was to squash it—with violence, if necessary.

  What happened to the parable of the raft? What about Buddhist nonviolence? Nichiren was clearly not a big fan of these concepts. Killing heretics—according to him—was not murder, but self-defense against the poisoning of Buddha's teachings. Over and over, he petitioned military rulers inviting them to impose throughout the land the “only true and correct form of Buddhism”—which is to say, his own. All others should be eliminated. When authorities showed themselves less than enthusiastic about heeding his call, he tried his hand at scare tactics by predicting that failure to impose his views as a state religion would result in famine and war. When even the fear card didn't deliver the desired results, he proclaimed he was the reincarnation of a bodhisatva, or, alternatively, of Buddha himself. And yet, local authorities remained unimpressed. They actually quickly grew annoyed with Nichiren and his fundamentalist dreams, and banished him on a couple of occasions. As a result, Nichiren's brand of Buddhist fundamentalism never had the muscle to back up its theology. But what if Nichiren had been able to find a receptive ear among a particularly powerful warlord? What if the powers that be had actually taken him seriously and followed his theocratic advice? Then, perhaps, Buddhism may have followed the fashion trends of Western religions, and witch hunts and inquisitions would have been launched in the name of Buddha.

  30 FREE SPEECH AND ITS ENEMIES

  The cast competing for the role of best supporting villain in our story is star-studded. Among the contenders we have the Vatican, Yale University, a few thousand Muslims foaming at the mouth, Bill Clinton, and the TV network Comedy Central.

  Back in 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten decided it was a good idea to initiate a debate about censorship and Islam by inviting several cartoonists to draw caricatures of Muhammad—something that is very much a taboo for faithful Muslims.

  How do you say, “when the shit hits the fan” in Danish? I’m not quite sure whether they even have this lovely expression in Denmark, but the second the cartoons were published Danish society quickly became acquainted with its meaning. With their usual coolness and inclination for civil debates, fundamentalist Muslims across the globe went nuts. Danish embassies were set on fire in Iran, Syria and Lebanon. Over 100 people were killed in demonstrations around the world. Groups of clerics demanded the death penalty for those editors who had dared to republish the cartoons within Muslim nations. Multiple (luckily failed) bombings were attempted in various strategic spots throughout Europe. A guy broke into the house of one of the cartoonists to express his disapproval with an axe and a knife (the cartoonist and his five-year-old granddaughter managed to barricade themselves until the arrival of the police).

  Sharks bite. Fundamentalists love bloodshed. No big surprises so far. More shocking, however, is the way in which many people in the Western world responded to this explosion of rabid intolerance. While hardly anyone justified the violence, plenty were those who made apologies for it by placing the blame on the cartoonists who had “provoked” bombs and arson. In a great show of fundamentalist solidarity, the Vatican promptly declared, “The right to freedom of thought and expression, sanctioned by the Declaration of the Rights of Man, cannot imply the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers.”

  Excuse me? According to the Vatican, apparently, freedom of expression is sacred as long as it doesn't touch on religious controversies. In other words, secular society has no right to offend religious sensibilities. You have an absolute right to say what you want—the reasoning goes—unless, of course, you say something that bothers us, in which case we should throw you in jail. Mmmhhh … yeah, a truly heart-warming show of dedication to basic freedoms.

  A few years earlier, the Vatican had taken the same stance after the publication of Salman Rushdie's very controversial The Satanic Verses. When the Ayatollah Khomeini, one of the modern MVPs of Islamic fundamentalism, sentenced Rushdie to death for his writings, the Vatican—along with several Protestant and Jewish organizations—reacted with outrage … against Rushdie. He had himself to blame for his blasphemy—they commented. Rather than condemning Khomeini's display of religious fascism, the archbishop of Canterbury demanded that the British government expand and enforce more strictly blasphemy laws.

  Ok, so it turns out that behind a facade of respect for democracy many Western religious leaders are still the same wannabe book-burners as their ancestors. But surely this unsavory tendency doesn't extend to secular society, right? Here comes Bill Clinton. Yes, the fundamentalist violence was bad—he admitted when questioned about it. But then he went on to save his harshest criticisms for the cartoonists themselves who were guilty of creating “these totally outrageous cartoons against Islam.”

  In a similar vein, demonstrating the bravery for which the academic world is known, Yale University Press decided to publish a book on this controversy entitled The Cartoons that Shook the World without including the cartoons themselves! Why? Because Islamic fundamentalists may get upset, and react violently …

  Following the exact same script, the bosses at Comedy Central censored multiple episodes of South Park that featured Muhammad. Now, South Park is notorious for making outrageous statements about everything and everyone, so why this sudden love for censorship? When you make fun of other religions they don't bomb you—Comedy Central figured—Muslims do. So let's not mess with those guys.

  The lesson we draw from these sordid stories are: A.) Plenty of religious figures in the West are just as allergic to freedom of speech as Islamic fundamentalists; B.) If someone offends you, react with overwhelming violence, and no one will dare offend you anymore.

  31 SAINT AUGUSTINE LOVED HOOKERS

  Most people alive today probably don't know that their worldview has been influenced by a mildly psychotic North African who lived about 1600 years ago.

  Few individuals, in fact, have had a bigger impact on the development of Christianity than Saint Augustine. Many of his interpretations and personal preferenc
es have become articles of faith for Catholics, Protestants and members of the Orthodox Church alike. His ideas have dramatically affected even quite a few secular philosophies. And so this is how one man's weird idiosyncrasies have seeped into the subconscious of the Western world.

  Most regrettable is Augustine's imprint on Christian attitudes about sex. The man was just obsessed with sex, but not in a good way: his instinctual passion for old fashioned, sweaty, animal sex clashed with the ultra strict standards created by Saint Paul and endorsed by Augustine himself. His own attraction to sex repulsed him and, in perfect schizophrenic fashion, made him hate himself. He pretty much wrote the textbook on Catholic guilt. He famously begged God to grant him chastity, but rushed to add “not yet.” Early on, he had plenty of sex wherever he could get it, but then repented in the classic “I was a horrible sinner and a sorry excuse for a human being, but God forgave me” style. Had they been around back then, shrinks would have shed tears of joy at the thought of having him as a patient. He was so weird and disturbed as to provide material for decades of therapy. But rather than making a good shrink happy, Augustine's rants ended up transforming Western culture.

  Injecting a monstrous dose of guilt into the consciousness of millions of people, Augustine preached that celibacy was the absolute ideal. Sex within marriage for procreation could be tolerated, since kids—according to him—were the “only worthy fruit of sexual intercourse.” Not only anyone who had sex outside of marriage bought him or herself a ticket straight to hell, but even sex for pleasure within marriage was to be condemned. The sex drive itself, for Augustine, was the proof that we live in a fallen, sinful world.

  Ah, Augustine, you sick old bastard …

  In light of this morbid and super-severe view of sex, it may come as a surprise to find out that Augustine fully supported legal prostitution.

  Mmhh, try again? Yup, the same sexophobic freak who had a fit at the thought of sex for fun was a big fan of prostitution. His logic—I use the word loosely—went something like this: the easy availability of hookers would save good Christian virgins from falling prey to the seductions of sex-crazed men. If they could satisfy their “bestial desires” with professional prostitutes, sinful men would leave innocent Christian girls alone. Building on this idea, Augustine argued that without prostitution, society would collapse due to excessive lust.

  And so, faithfully following Augustine's lead, most European cities regulated red lights districts and brothels for many centuries. Just a little less than a thousand years after Augustine, another pillar of the Church, Saint Thomas Aquinas agreed with his verdict: legal prostitution was a necessary evil to be preserved. Sadly, in a stroke of particularly bad judgment, many Western nations moved away from regulated prostitution long before they abandoned Augustine's brand of sexual guilt.

  Next time you run into a hooker, remember: she is performing a humanitarian service. She is a social worker, if you will, or some sort of a missionary. Saint Augustine says so.

  32 BIBLE PORN

  Back in their day, British Puritans hated the loose morals promoted by the plays performed at the London Theatre. Similarly, modern day religious conservatives always thunder against the corrupting influence of Hollywood, and its passion for sex and violence. Apparently, their God—just like the Puritan God—is allergic to boobs and murder.

  But wait … is He really? Sometimes, all of this self-righteous outrage makes me wonder if these people ever really read the Bible. If you are looking for sex and extreme violence, the Bible is your friend, for it delivers much more than the average Hollywood flick. Hell … many biblical tales would make Hollywood producers blush, hug their teddy bears and hide under a blanket. Don't believe me? Ok, man, then settle down as I spin for you a few stories taken straight up from the Holy Book.

  Genesis 19 offers us a plate full of rape, incest and intrigue. The one and only God is about to wipe out the very naughty cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, but His conscience forces him to send two angels to warn Lot, the only righteous man in town, to get out before all hell breaks loose. As the two angels are hanging out at Lot's place, a crowd of wannabe rapists gather outside of his home demanding that Lot delivers the angelic pair so they can all have sex with them. Lot, being the righteous man that he was pleads with them to reconsider and makes them a counteroffer: I have two virgin daughters in my home. How about you all rape them instead? The angels, however, save the day by kicking the crowd's collective ass, forcing them to give up.

  But wait … don't worry … Lot's story is about to get—if at all possible—even more perverted. After Lot and his daughters escaped, and Sodom and Gomorrah are turned to dust, they wander through the desert without seeing a living soul. Worrying that perhaps all of humanity has already been squashed, and they'll never be able to find husbands, Lot's daughters promptly decide to save the human race by getting their father drunk, having sex with him while he is passed out and getting pregnant … Do Hollywood screenwriters really seem that bad now?

  Judges 19 gives us a near carbon copy of this story—except worse. This time, we have a Jewish man and his concubine traveling across Israel and being taken in as guests by some old man. A crowd quickly arrives with the usual demand: give us this stranger so we can rape him. Reading from Lot's script, the old man reasons with them by offering instead the man's concubine and his own virgin daughter. This time, however, no angels are there to save the day, so the traveler throws his concubine in the street, where the mob quickly forgets about him, since they are too busy raping her to death.

  Rape seems to be one of the Bible's favorite topics since we find it again in the story of Dinah (whose rape leads to a nice genocidal war), in the tale of one of King David's sons raping his own sister (2 Samuel 13) and in Deuteronomy 21 which lays down the rules for legitimately raping war captives (i.e. it seems that God doesn't approve of rape as soon as you capture your enemies’ women. First, you have to let them mourn their relatives you have slaughtered, and only then you can rape them …). Oh … I almost forgot … in one of the weirdest biblical rape scenes, one of King David's sons claims his father's throne (and displays considerable stamina) by raping all of David's concubines on a rooftop in sight of all of Jerusalem (2 Samuel 16).

  What about Tamar? The poor girl is Judah's daughter-in-law, but her first husband dies before she can get pregnant. Judah dutifully sends her his second son in marriage, but he quickly dies as well. At this point, Judah has decided that this broad brings bad luck, so he refuses to marry her to his third son. But crafty little Tamar will not be denied an heir from the house of Judah. Covering herself with veils, she meets Judah on the road where she poses as a hooker. The old man doesn't recognize her, but decides that a hooker is just what he needs so he has sex with her in exchange for a goat (I’m not making it up …) and so Tamar finally manages to get pregnant courtesy of her father-in-law.

  Damn … I’m running out of space and I haven't even touched on the innumerable examples of extreme violence in the Bible, and have barely scratched the surface of biblical sex. I should really talk about Phinehas who skewers together on the tip of a spear a Jewish prince and his wife while they are having sex. Or perhaps I should discuss the patriarch Abraham who marries his own half sister, but this doesn't prevent him from having sex with a slave girl. Or … I guess there's no time for any of them here for we need to mention the best sex tale of the whole Bible: the Song of Solomon (a.k.a. the Song of Songs). Unlike all the previous S & M stories that present sex in an ugly, disturbing light, here we have a series of super-explicit erotic poems that celebrate the joys of sex, even outside of marriage. Better yet, some of the poems are from the point of view of a woman who enjoys her lover as much he enjoys her. Line after line, these unnamed lovers get lost in the magic of tongues, moans, muscles and breasts, and forget all about the stupid rules established by some old, dried up priests.

  Do I need to go on? When it comes to very explicit sex, the Bible clearly kicks Hollywood's ass any day of th
e week.

  33 ONE BRIDE FOR FIVE BROTHERS

  Even in the most liberal and permissive society, any woman regularly having sex with five men would be, at the very least, an object of endless gossip. In societies driven by religious fundamentalism, she would probably have a bull's eye on her as the whole village gathers to stone her to death. Most religions, in fact, are quick to make plenty of exceptions to their super-strict sexual customs for men only. In the most classic of patriarchal double standards, the same license is never granted to women. This is why it's quite a bit surprising that Hinduism—not exactly a tradition that can be accused of feminism—praises as models of virtues two women whose sexual escapades are legendary.