Part Two: The Issue of Religion

It seems that mankind has a strong tendency towards division and isolation. We see ourselves as if apart from the Universal; apart from Nature; apart from each other; even apart from our singular Selves. Perhaps the “refractive error” in perception stems from that last inclination. We are the looking glass. We are blessed with an innate ability to “step aside,” and self-analyze. How often we do this without stepping back to see the whole and make a synthesis! Analysis without synthesis is stagnation, if not quagmire. Parts can be indefinitely torn into ever smaller bits; at some point one has to put the pieces together to test how the unit “runs...”

While reputedly we are frequently our “own harshest critics,” we also appear to be convinced (no matter how much we otherwise berate ourselves) that we are fundamentally “good,” i.e. of sound judgement, best intentions, proper morals, etc. And rules—whether they are “meant to be broken” or not—are for Other people—because, as for us, we could really do without…

…what’s religion really? …a set of do’s and don’ts? By definition religion is a system of faith and worship; by extension it is a code of ethics. In my view it may be individual or collective. While it might be perceived as arrogant to say, “I follow my own religion,” I find more understanding in such an assertion than in a claim that: “I am Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Atheist…” Participants in a shared doctrine inevitably abide by their own highly individualized interpretation of it. Could it be otherwise?

Most people are born into a system of faith; I am no exception. I was raised Catholic by a religiously-devote superstitious maternal-grandmother; and simultaneously prompted to philosophical speculation by a spiritually-devote non-denominational, yet inherently Catholic, father. At the moment, I feel pleasantly in tune with the Infinite—I feel good when I go to church; and I feel good when I give thanks at home. I pray in my own way, communing with reflections of God that I find everywhere. I put greater emphasis on generally recognized accords: The Golden Rule (Do not do unto others, as you would not have done to you); Abstention from Judgement (Judge not lest thou be Judged); and the basic tenets of the Inca (Do not Lie, Do not Steal, Do not be Lazy).

One is tempted to just shrug and dismiss religion as a set of Prejudices when contemplating the assorted practices and rituals, prescriptions and prohibitions, and precepts. What does it mean to be “heathen?” or “chosen people?!” Having already signaled my own recognition of God as the sum of Everything and the Totality of Nothing, such exclusive phrases fill me with a distinctly sad realization—religion is not Divine. It is as profoundly human as our childish tendency to personify God/faith and locate It as separate from ourselves.

…does heaven and hell exist? …why would a loving God want his people to suffer? My viewpoint on this is, perhaps unsurprisingly, ambivalent! …what is in the afterlife? I’m sorry I cannot speak to this; I have no insight. But in our lifetimes, I contend that to a great extent we make our own happiness or misery by how we chose to perceive what we’ve got. Everything influences that lot—but aside from the limitations of our own “from-whence-begotten” Will (*ref. Schopenhauer), no one can force our Attitude towards it… Was it Malcolm X who said that he never felt as Free as when he found himself in prison? “No matter where you go, there you are,” right? In our mind is the lock; as well as the key. (And therein the demons and angels reside.)

To suggest much pain and suffering is borne by the lowly of society is not "inaccurate," yet nevertheless unjust… the well-to-do are plagued, too. Life doles out straws of fate with apparent indifference… internal conflict, disease, premature death visit anyone, anytime, anyplace. Sure the rich are in a position to put up a quixotic fight. They are battling windmills all the same… we can clearly see that the supposed antidotes that “money buys” are not guaranteed to work, nor is any amount of “good works,” nor “faith” in God.

Then it seems all that remains is a certain surrender, which tends to bring peace of mind—a declaration: “I do not understand; Thy will be done.” Because as a fact, it will: With us, or without us. We can resist and suffer all the more for it; or accept and go with the flow of it. Somehow others have noted that it helps to have (in all things) an attitude of Gratitude. The notion of a “loving God” might be dubbed in literary terms a grandiose "pathetic fallacy.” As I see it, God is Love as a noun, the whole of it, complete in and of itself—not giving to some and withholding from others. We, on the other hand, are granted (as share of it) Love as verb. Then the question is this: Am I willing to Love God (the entirety of It) unconditionally, without reservation—with warts and All?