50 Things You're Not Supposed To Know: Religion

by Daniele Bolelli

  But this is not the John Locke we will be playing with today. The John Locke we are concerned with here is the 17th century English philosopher considered by most to be one of the giants of the Enlightenment, a key inspirational figure for the American Revolution, and a paladin of freedom.

  His freedom-loving attitude wasn't only applied to politics but also extended to religion. Back in his day, when Catholics and Protestants disagreed (that is to say, always), they didn't do so by engaging in sophisticated discussions but by bashing each other's heads with axes. Writing on the heels of the religious wars that drowned Europe in bloodshed, Locke penned A Letter Concerning Toleration, a seminal essay about the novel idea that perhaps allowing multiple religious viewpoints to exist was a healthy thing to do: a true foundational stone on which the idea of religious toleration was built.

  Considering his devotion to freedom in general, and religious freedom in particular, it is perhaps interesting to notice that Locke placed some very clear limits on it. Among those he was suspicious of were atheists for he believed that, by not recognizing any superior authority, they could not be trusted to keep oaths and promises. Later in life, however, Locke began to doubt his initial position and wondered if atheists couldn't also be tolerated after all.

  But there were others that Locke just couldn't bring himself to stomach. “Papists—he wrote—are not to enjoy the benefit of toleration, because, where they have power, they think themselves bound to deny it to others. For it is unreasonable that any should have free benefit of their religion who do not acknowledge it as a principle of theirs that nobody ought to persecute or molest another because he dissents from him in religion.”

  Here is Locke's paradox. Precisely because he cherished freedom, he refused to extend it to anyone looking for an opportunity to oppress others. To those who complained that freedom should be given to all, Locke replied that Catholics didn't deserve this privilege because of the “cruelty of their own principles and practices.” These were the days when Catholicism was still powerful enough that popes regularly tried to enforce their own ideology as law in all countries under the authority of Catholic rulers. And in Locke's mind, this kind of totalitarian, proto-fascist mentality marked Catholicism as an enemy of freedom. Only those religions that accepted to tolerate other viewpoints were in turn worthy of being tolerated.

  Without a doubt, then, Locke would be quite disturbed by the modern policies enacted by many Western European countries that, in the name of multiculturalism and good liberal values, have allowed in their midst the growth of forms of fundamentalism yearning for their destruction. All these people who are supposedly the champions of individual freedoms and minority rights, but who somehow manage to be relatively silent about religious ideologies hating both, would puzzle Locke. Is choosing to tolerate religious ideologies that are intolerant at heart the epitome of open-mindedness or just plain stupid? Guessing correctly Locke's answer to this question isn't exactly complicated.

  47 GOD WEARS DRAGON ROBES AND WANTS YOU TO KICK CONFUCIUS’S ASS

  My theory that monotheistic religions are responsible for the bloodiest religiously motivated wars in history seems to have run into a stumbling block, since Confucian/Taoist/Buddhist China is home to a religious war that caused the death of over 20 million people. The Taiping Rebellion (1850–1864), in fact, is hands-down one of the goriest conflicts in modern history. 20 million dead are a bit too much to dismiss simply as a minor exception to the rule, so it seems that I may have to revise my theory after all.

  But wait … the apologists of monotheism better hold the champagne and call off the celebrations, since the Taiping Rebellion was the brainchild of a fanatical Chinese convert to Christianity.

  The lead star in our story is a certain Hong Xiuquan. Hong's early ambitions were simple: he was making a living as a tutor and was hoping to pursue a career as a scholar. Fate, however, had other plans. The imperial examinations—which were required for joining the upper echelons of the country's scholars—were a bitch (only between 1 and 5 percent of those who took them passed). Hong belonged to the other 95–99 percent and failed them multiple times. Not being one to take rejection too well, Hong grew horribly depressed and fell sick. And this is where the visions began …

  During one of these visions, angels took Hong for a tour of heaven. There, he met a dude with a golden beard who was wearing a dragon robe. This fashionable guy was none other than God himself who gave Hong a sword and a magic seal before charging him with a divine mission to get rid of the devils roaming the country (the devils were later identified as the worshippers of different religions as well as the ruling Qing Dynasty). All of the religions most practiced in China until that point (Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism) were to become his enemies, but Confucianism in particular was the number one target of Hong's (and God's) hatred.

  After studying the Bible with a Southern Baptist missionary, Hong developed further his theology and his interpretation of these life-changing visions. His meeting with the dragon-robed deity had actually been a family reunion since, during another revelation, Hong was told he was God's second son, and Jesus's younger brother … Sounds like a nutcase? Perhaps, except that he was able to gather a huge following of converts called the “God Worshippers.” Hong and his not-so-merry band of pranksters began their journey by waging a crusade to purge any trace of Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism from Chinese society. And before long they graduated to armed insurrection against the government that had tried to stop them.

  Hong & co. managed to score several impressing military victories, conquering good chunks of southern China, and establishing a new state called the “Heavenly Kingdom of Great Peace” with capital in Nanjing. In the best tradition of religious weirdness, the creation of the Heavenly Kingdom of Great Peace heralded a bloody civil war with a body count that would make most video gamers blush. With the same zeal that characterizes most monotheists who like to mix religion and politics, Hong demanded total obedience to all his moral and religious reforms. Not only did his troops massacre followers of other religions, but they also placed hits on their own if their loyalty was questioned. Yang Xiuqing, for example, had been one of Hong's allies, but his own claim of being the “voice of God” had unnerved Hong and made him see Yang as a potential rival source of authority. Yang's career as God's voice came to a crushing halt when he was murdered along with his family and troops by Hong's henchmen.

  Eventually, Hong's military fortunes began to fade. He told his panicked followers not to worry, though. When government troops arrived under the walls of Hong's capital, Hong assured all who would listen that God had guaranteed the city would not fall. God, however, was probably too busy shopping for a whole new wardrobe of dragon clothes since, shortly after this rosy forecast, Hong died of food poisoning from eating the only wild plants he could find during the harsh siege (which, by the way, was successful and resulted in a destruction of the state built by Hong). So died Jesus's younger brother and his dream for a Christian kingdom in China.

  48 GOOD CHRISTIANS DEVOUTLY FOLLOW JEWISH LAWS AND THE OLD TESTAMENT… EXCEPT WHEN THEY DON’T

  The relationship between Judaism and its problem child, Christianity, is complicated—to say the least. All the early Christians were Jews. Christianity didn't even emerge as a separate religion until several years after Jesus's unhappy meeting with a cross and nails. And yet the differences between Judaism and this Jewish splinter sect became significant enough that they eventually divided into two fully separate religions.

  Wait … did I say fully separate? Well, that's not exactly true. Christianity, in fact, borrows huge chunks of its theology from Judaism. Open any Christian Bible, and the first few books are made up of the Torah and other Jewish scriptures, which are considered sacred texts by both Judaism and Christianity.

  But this is where the game gets tricky. In terms of just about everything, the New and Old Testament don't always get along. I’ll be nice to you and spare you a horrendously long lis
t of Old vs. New Testament spats, but let's just say that many Christian concepts are at odds with Jewish ones, and vice versa. So, in light of this, what should the Christian attitude be about Jewish customs, traditions, and ideas? Should the Old Testament carry the same weight as the New, or should good Christians just skip the first few hundred pages of their Bibles as a tedious prologue to the good stuff?

  Jesus himself seems to answer these questions unambiguously. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, …” he thunders in Matthew 5:17. And in many other passages, Jesus emphasizes his loyalty to Jewish laws.

  Case closed then, right? Not exactly, for in a classic case of “Do as I say, not as I do,” Jesus's actions seem to tell a different story. Time and time again, he scandalized the more observant Jews by routinely breaking religious customs. Kosher laws? Screw them. Paying homage to the elite among the official priesthood at the Temple? Jesus states that hookers are much worthier of heaven than priests, and kicks out all the money-lenders from the Temple. Refraining from work on the Sabbath? Jesus lifts his middle finger to that concept, and continues to preach and heal on the Sabbath as he would on any other day (something that, incidentally, was considered blasphemous enough for the death penalty according to Old Testament laws).

  Possibly more outrageous than everything else, in my all time favorite New Testament passage Jesus directly interferes with a crowd set on applying Old Testament laws exactly as they were written down. A woman has been caught sleeping around and the law is very clear on this matter: she is to be executed on the public square. Scores of observant citizens promptly oblige by getting ready to stone her to death in the name of upholding morality, but Jesus stops them in their tracks. Standing alone in front of a rock-wielding mob, Jesus stares them down and talks to them until they give up and go home. The fact that the crowd wasn't doing anything unusual, but simply applying Old Testament laws makes Jesus's actions all the more amazing. When the law doesn't match his sense of compassion, Jesus doesn't hesitate to drop the law and follow his instincts.

  This makes me like Jesus a hell of a lot more than anything else found in scriptures, but doesn't exactly make the job of faithful Christians easy. Jesus, in fact, never spells out which parts of the Old Testament should be kept and which ones should be abandoned. So, how are good Christians to decide? The typical rule of thumb goes something like this: if the Old Testament says stuff you like but that is not mentioned by Jesus (i.e. that homosexuality is a sin, etc.), then you'll firmly argue that it's clearly an important part of Christian theology since it's found in the Old Testament. If, on the other hand, it says something you don't like, then you can just go ahead and ignore it since real Christianity is about New Testament anyway. The beauty of this game is that you can make the Bible say pretty much anything you want it to say.

  49 RELIGION WITHOUT RELIGION

  Our guests today are a couple of Indian tricksters who, throughout the 1900s, gained enormous fame as religious leaders … but neither one followed any organized religion, nor wanted to create a new one!

  At first sight, the two couldn't be more different. One spent decades preaching against masters, prophets, and any other type of spiritual authoritative figure. The other sported gold watches, legions of adoring fans, an overabundant collection of Rolls-Royces, and all the other trappings typical of the successful guru. But despite this and other differences, they both challenged the existing religious norms of the day, and radically reinvented an approach to spirituality that considered organized religion as a disease to be avoided.

  Our first guest is Jiddu Krishnamurti. Born in a Hindu family in 1895, Krishnamurti was “discovered” by members of a mystical organization known as the Theosophical Society, who believed him to be some sort of messiah. Now, if you thought your teenage years were weird, imagine being doted upon by scores of people expecting you to save the world, and lead humanity to a more enlightened state of consciousness … That's stuff heavy enough to give a whole new meaning to teen angst …

  For a while, Krishnamurti went along with this. I mean … who wouldn't want to believe it when everyone around you tells you that you are “the one?” But eventually, he took a step that very few individuals finding themselves in his position would ever dare to take. Without mincing his words, he told those who had spent years grooming him for his role that they were delusional. “I maintain that truth is a pathless land”—he said—“and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect …” The belief in messiahs, world teachers, and saviors was—according to him—the pathological weakness of people who are too scared to take responsibility for their own lives. And anyone willing to fulfill those roles is an egomaniac exploiting human insecurities. With that, he kissed goodbye to his role as “the one,” and returned a castle in Holland along with 5,000 acres of land that had been donated to him by his followers (by the way, if the Theosophical Society is looking for a replacement after the Krishnamurti's debacle, I volunteer my services and promise never to return castle and acres).

  Throughout the rest of his life, Krishnamurti refused to give his loyalty to any religion or nation. But much like Thomas Paine or Lao Tzu, he argued that it was through communion with nature that human beings could come in contact with the divine. He kept lecturing about spirituality and attracted thousands of “non-followers,” but always stopped short of codifying his teachings into a system (something that, incidentally, inspired Bruce Lee to apply the same idea to the martial arts).

  Our second guest was born under the name of Chandra Mohan Jain, but in the course of his life he ended up using more aliases than Jason Bourne (among the most long lasting ones were Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and Osho). From the start, Osho was born with a mischievous streak to him. The man just loved pushing people's buttons. His teaching career as a philosophy university professor was cut short since his lectures attracted plenty of students but horrified administrators who believed he was a threat to religion and morality (by the way, they were probably right …).

  Osho, however, never stopped teaching. He just changed setting. Freed from the constraints of institutions, he let himself loose and began instructing disciples in his own brand of rebellious spirituality. His lectures would use the scriptures of world religions as well as the writings of philosophers like Nietzsche and Heraclitus as starting points that Osho could use to put on a show. Half stand up comedian and half spiritual master, Osho delighted in cracking people up and trying to enlighten them at the same time. With smug satisfaction, he offended the average Indian sensibility by attacking organized religion at any chance he had while promoting a very relaxed attitude about sex. The style of meditation that he taught was similarly freer and wilder than anything anybody had seen. In the 1980s, after an attempted assassination by an outraged Hindu fundamentalist and increased hostility by the Indian government, Osho relocated to the United States. And this is where things got really weird …

  His followers bought an insanely vast amount of land, and promptly began building a new city in the midst of Oregon. Osho, in the meantime, had the less than spectacular idea to go into an extended period of complete silence and let his secretary, the highly disturbing Ma Anand Sheela run his affairs. Many scandals and a bioterrorist attack later (set up by Sheela against local opponents of Osho's community), Osho decided that maybe giving Sheela so much power had not been his best plan yet. Sheela was promptly kicked out, but still … any moron with a single digit IQ could take a look at Sheela and run for his life. She looked like what happens to an Indian woman if the restless spirit of a Nazi dictator were to take over her body. Watching The Exorcist 17 times in a row is less scary than a single “hello” from Sheela. So, just how the hell someone who was supposedly as smart as Osho chose to hand over his affairs to her?

  In any case … Osho's teachings were certainly much more controversial than Krishnamurti's. Whereas people either liked Krishnamurti or simply ignored him, Osho always elicited strong reactions. Som
e revered him as the most brilliant mind of the 20th century, while others viewed him as a self-aggrandizing charlatan (some also felt both ways and regarded him as the most brilliant charlatan whoever lived ….). But regardless of their differences, both Osho and Krishnamurti uncompromisingly attacked organized religions while simultaneously teaching meditation as the foundation of true spirituality.

  50 WHY CAN’T WE MOVE THE STATE OF ISRAEL TO PARAGUAY?

  A brief look at Jewish history could make country and blues singers think that their lives are not so bad after all. The whole thing is as cheerful as a funeral invitation: being conquered by everyone who shows up in the neighborhood (from Assyrians to Babylonians, from Greeks to Romans), ending up as a religious minority among people who hate your guts, getting locked up in the original ghetto (not Snoop Dogg's kind of ghetto …), pogroms, inquisitions, and the final touch of the Holocaust wiping out millions of your people.