THE PAIN OF WORSHIP AND THE WORSHIP OF PAIN
by Ana Ferreira
It's urgent to shed an insight on the symbols that make our lifestyle and crowd our imagination. They are illustrations of our tortured Christian culture, of its miserable nature and objects of worship. In the West, and in the Middle East, religion worships pain, it praises sacrifice and martyrdom giving irresponsible "glory" to the grotesque. But why does Abrahamic religion worship pain? It worships pain because it was born of violence, of repression and fighting. The torturous mind doesn't know beauty, so it can not speak of beauty. The destructive mind doesn't know creativity, so it can not speak of splendour. The controlling mind only knows jealousy and fear, so it can not speak of freedom. Abrahamic religions are centred in the male ego, they impose on you because they want to control you. These religions were born of politics, not of religiousness. In fact they are not religions, they are political systems designed to diminish you with guilt and self-pity. Abrahamic religions teach you pain so that you accept violence, the violence they impose on you. Abrahamic religions and nationalism are born of the same father. If you are very patriotic you are also very Christian. If you go to war you are Christian for sure. How long will little boys dream to be soldiers? How long will a man's ideal of manhood be attached to violence? Assassins have become men of business; they walk our boulevards.
Christianity represents god in pain, it calls out to the grotesque to tell us about god - the crucifixion is a symbol of violence and pain, both are grotesque. Something's wrong, the people's celebration of God is not one of joy and bliss, it is agonizing. Crucifixes must be abolished as symbols of civilized worship for the Divine. Christianity's main object of worship terrorizes the child with visions that encourage the worship of pain - how can the child not grow in pain if what he is told about god is pain praising? The child will also want to be like god, and if pain is there violence is implied. Do you realize the implications of lies? Instead of encouraging to look for beauty, an expression of joy in the face of God, a child is taught suffering and hurt, we frustrated him with failed promises, vain promises - this frustration can lead to disbelieving (atheist) or believing wrong (Abrahamic criminal). The objects of worship are the first thing you see, and frustration is halfway to self-destruction or murder.
For Christianity the hero must suffer, the hero must die. The roman church sardonically learnt with the ones it victimized and who died for their deluded beliefs. Rome certainly saw it as an enormous instrument of power, and influence, taking advantage of it politically, culturally and military. Extremes often touch in a society of martyrs and soldiers; of apples and serpents, punishment and fall. Ours is a civilization of the martial and martyr, both heroes. This is the culture we're made of: a cocktail of roman entertainment shaken with Abraham's hoax. It's time to cross the cross! How can a soul believe God wishes to be represented by a roman torture technique? How can a brain believe God is a culture/country's national property? Even if intellectual, literary or historical. Religious nationalism is the kind that kills its superman and then wishes to resurrect him as a means to prove that the nation was chosen by god. It's Hollywood at its best. The hero is the loner man - a divinized self-created image, on a world wide crusade, projected in an epic sky with the intention to marvel. He is the cowboy of heaven with angel pistols and archangel boots riding on a ghost horse and drinking ghost beer. Bang! Bang! He shoots the woman, he's arrived.
Why insisting on god's nationalism? Who profits with a message of religious national supremacy? War does, nobody else. How can anyone accept that God is property of a nationality, a monarchy, tribe or clan? The haunts of the old testament had an echo in the foundation of Islam. Islam announces that Abdu-1-Muttalib was linked to Abraham - the same Abraham of the Hebrews - and mentions Moses and Jesus as divine messengers sent by god. The Koram revelation proclaims its continuity in relation to the jewish-christian revelations professed in the old testament, however, and once the romans had confiscated Jesus, the Arabs distance themselves from christianity as a way of keeping their own identity. To accomplish this they needed new prophets, their own Arab prophets; now that the old ones had been exploited by the decadent west (Rome). In Mecca the temple's pontificate was recruited among the aristocracy of the city, and these aristocrats were holders of two major public tasks: taking care of the temple and regulating water distribution. Abdu-1-Muttalib (Muhammad's grandfather) was a much respected person in Mecca, one of the greatest aristocrats and personalities of the city who had the prestigious responsibility for the siqáya - water service. When Abdullah died (Muhammad's father) Muhammad was raised by his grandfather and a nanny; only when Muhammad was six years old he was given to his mother who died shortly after. From then on Muhammad lived with his grandfather. Abdu-1-Muttalib asked god for ten children and made the vow to sacrifice one of these children to God, just like Abraham. Abdu-1-Muttalib's family protested against this vow and the sacrifice didn't happen. The son who was supposed to have been sacrificed was Muhammad's father. Abdu-1-Muttalib desire to be like Abraham (patriarch of Judaism - the original rubbish) has most certainly influenced his grandchild.
When Abdu-1-Muttalib died, one of his sons inherited the siqáya (water service) and took care of Muhammad who didn't go to school but was given the chance to succeed in the family's commercial business, which consisted of selling caravans. Muhammad was successful in his business but felt that he had a mission: god had chosen him to spread a new message. Once again it's an ego trip: god chose him. It's always god who chooses, it's never Nature. Not everybody in Muhammad's family believed him, his uncle Abú-Lahab was afraid of losing his clerical privileges and Muhammad's mission was seen as a threat. As a result Muhammad's family protection was denied to him. And well, it's a fuck when your own family doesn't support you.
In the company of Abú-Bakr, Muhammad moved to the city of Medina (Hejira) where people believed in his mission. But the people of Mecca didn't accept this and declared war against Medina. Thus, Muhammad, as chief of the city of Medina, prepared and organized the battles against Mecca - once again it's violence leading the way of god, no wonder it will end in pain. Muhammad finally conquers Mecca triumphantly (the city who had initially rejected him when he was about to reveal the message) and states that his message is sent by god, saying to the people that he had perfected their religion with a new revelation: Islam. «Today I perfected your religion and gave you the completeness of my grace. I have by good, granted you as faith: Islam».
Now you are surely thinking "what a crap Islam is" but what makes you think Christianity was born differently? It wasn't, it's all politics and ego. All patriarchs were chosen by god, not by Nature. A god that only males can see and hear. All religions are mind set and the mind is the last divine thing in you, it is polluted with your ego, your anger, your frustration, your desire. One day Muhammad died in Medina, the books say he didn't appoint a successor - his ego told him not to because that would be the only way for his message to survive as a belief system welcomed by all. If he had chosen a successor he would have been disbelieved. However, the community of believers soon choose a successor, a chief. The cities of Mecca and Medina gathered in the Nidwa (assembly) where all the clans and tribes were represented. They agreed to designate Abú-Bakr as Muhammad's Caliph (successor); Abú-Bakr had been with the prophet ever since he started when he arrived at Medina. The dynasty of Muhammad's successors had to do with blood ties as in a monarchy. The political and governmental aspects of Islam’s religious hierarchy was similar to that of monarchies. The same would have happened with Jesus if the Romans hadn't repressed Hebrew's revolt.
After Muhammad the fights between big groups of families against each other led to the murder of Uthman, the third Caliph. From here on a series of disputes, battles and debates took place. The two parties fought each other for the succession; there was very little spirituality in that but too many commercial interests, among others. For one of the parties (the sunnites) Islam's direction should not be looked for in heredity, or genealogy, but in the prophet’s legacy: the Qur'an, whose texts were revealed by god.
Islamic law doesn't distinguish between "matter of church" and "matter of state", on this it is more transparent than in the West. In the West everybody pretends they are not Christians but in fact Christianity undermines everything from justice to education. Just like European noblemen and kings, the Caliphs fought with their own military armies. Caliph Ali was assassinated because the Kharijites didn't approve his sense of freedom. Then, Ali's son Hassan was elected to succeed him however, Hassan soon realized the ferocity of the opponent clan and abdicated to Mu'áwiya. All Abrahamic religions are infested with political and economic assassinations carried on by feelings of revenge among families.
The shiites, led by a tragic but grand vision of destiny, professed that the Imams had been assassinated (those of Ali's dynasty) and established a doctrine that enlarged the influence of the Imam's function (once just a caliph). His election, understood as being “chosen”, is of divine origin and gives the Imam the power to define, rearrange, perfect and complete the divine injunctions. On the other hand, the sunites' doctrine doesn't recognize any human intermediary between the community and god, now that the prophet is gone. The Imam's dimension of influence is very different from that of the caliphs, who are successors but not substitutes of the prophet. The shia believes in the political and religious leadership of infallible Imams who rule by right of divine appointment and hold absolute spiritual authority. The sunites believe that their faith was settled and defined in the Qu'ram, while the shiites are convinced of the importance of the message professed by the “Imam of the season”. In fact, these so called theological problems have nothing to do with "theo" but with politics.
Muslims regard Muhammad as the restorer of the original monotheistic faith of Abraham, Moses and Jesus. But Muslims don't worship the crucifixion, they know it is a symbol of Rome and Rome is the West.
We can only welcome these accounts in the light of history; history as a creator, and product, of society and its mechanisms of control. It helps digging our cognitive evolution, the birth of philosophy, the event of science. Messianism is another form of supermanness; it proclaims god's will to become human. Messianism puts humans on a pedestal, its doctrine never mentions the animals in a loving positive way, animals are always object of sacrifice. In the same its doctrine never mentions Nature, unless it is to dominate her or send calamity and spread destruction. Abrahamic religions are not only painful and violent, they are negative prone. For Islam and Judaism the messiah is a national hero (with so many nationalities, guerrilla and frontiers, I wonder where god hides in times of war). God is the property of a country, how come the rest of the countries aren't depressed? The rest of the countries were given saints; the saints exist to give dignity to the other countries, they express god's love for the other countries. The saints are god's crumbs.
The people who hold on to these fairy tales (no matter how attractive human imagination is, and it is) should be rescued, not the other. The worship of such ugliness and brutality in sacred affairs are meant to put fear in your heart. Because if you accept the pain of who you worship - the agonizing death of Jesus or Isaac's terror before the pyre - if you accept the nature of god as painful, you easily renounce your right to be happy. If Mary resigned herself to the ghost that fucked her without asking so woman must resign; not only resign but be proud of resignation - after all the rapist was god. Nothing and no one could profit so much with the image of a violent death but the murderer: Rome. Murderers always profit with the grotesque, the uglier the vision the better for the murderer; the victim is always the glory of the murderer - that's why martyrs and heroes are part of the same absurdity, they are inseparable and that's why both must disappear from our society.
Americans and Europeans worship these images of violence, blood and pain. Yet, none of it has to do with America or Europe. In reality those who venerate such symbols are worshipping the enemy, the occupant. None of these religions are from Europe or America - so why are you so patriotic about them? Because the religions are patriotic, they inject that poison in you. Christianity was a roman political move spiced with cynical pettiness. Rome made itself immortal by one thing they were good at: crucifying. They had already stolen the Hellenic gods, interpreting the myths to suit their convenience and purposes.
It's the ugly taking over the sacred with visions that terrorized during the course of History, and it's meant to give the clerics power over the people, as politicians of the lord. The clergy was the new emergent social class whose origins are only political.
Medieval church powered by roman catholicism started the crusades. The knights templar were the church's military face, whose members were supposed to be believed as also being priests of some sort. The knights templar were a Christian military order, they received training on war. Their neurotic principles, along with their excellent training and their heavy armament, made the templar one of the most feared combat forces in medieval times. There was a threefold division of the ranks of the templar: the aristocratic knights, the lower-born sergeants, and the clergy. Knights were required to be of knightly descent. They were equipped as heavy cavalry, with three or four horses, and one or two squires - they were a war machine. The roman church turned common soldiers into specialized warriors of the new roman god. Rome injected Christianity into the soldiers - professional soldiers that constituted an army - like fundamentalists inject prejudice in the education of young men. The knights templar fought till death and this devotion (vow) assured them a place in heaven as martyrs of the holy war (it sounds contemporary). The roman church and its empire had combined Christian martyrdom with the gut of the roman games in an arena.. Just like it is today, still.
The political and military organization of the knights templar developed banking services, helping the church to create a financial and economic force - money and influence are excellent handcuffs and a clever, resourceful, form of war. Rome gave the templar a lot of privileges because in reality they were the church's survival. Maybe Rome never gave up conquering territory, subjugating others to their law, only its strategy changed. «The Order was officially endorsed by the church and became a favoured force across Europe, receiving money, land, businesses, and noble-born sons. The Order was also exempted from obedience to local laws meaning that the templar could pass freely through all borders, were not required to pay any taxes, and were exempt from all authority except that of the Pope. Based on this mix of donations and business dealing, the templar established financial networks across the whole of Christendom. They acquired large tracts of land, both in Europe and the Middle East; they bought and managed farms and vineyards; they built churches and castles; they were involved in manufacturing, import and export; they had their own fleet of ships (not bad for an institution of god)». The Knights Templar were the world's first multinational corporation and all of this under the blessings of the roman catholic church. What makes you think knight templar don't exist anymore? Because they don't ride on horseback? They still exist, none of it has changed.
The roman empire had not weakened but strengthened itself using faith as a shield, dogma as justice, and the crucifixion as a psychological weapon, an instrument, designed to keep us vulnerable and under scrutiny. Now war had a divine reason to exist, a blessing from god, as long as it went according to what god wanted. But who spoke for god? The priests of course. The templar ended abruptly when the French monarchy was alerted to the vicious heresies of the Order and the spiritual vacuum of its practices/motives. The templar success was closely tied to the crusades, an euphemism for war. But when the crusaders were defeated and lost ghost land, support for the Order faded. When the King of France grew conscious of the templar economic power (subjugating all Europe under roman jurisdiction) he began pressuring the pope to take action. The Order's members were arrested and the Order disbanded. However, once defeated in these realms of influence, the clergy turned to culture and a new form of control was reinforced: the Inquisition (an ecclesiastical tribunal of the roman catholic church designed to judge heresy).
Christianity's god is all about pain, suffering, ugly stuff. If you see love there I don't. If you see caring and kindness and tenderness, I don't. But then what do you expect? It's a father's god, it's a brain god, not a mother's and not a heart's.
