‘You Always Get What You Deserve’: Another Blatant Bloody Lie?

Major religious groups (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Last week, I wrote a post titled, ‘Work Hard and You’ll Succeed: the Biggest Lie?’ Today, I want to explore, with you, another blatant lie.

We’re told, frequently and with much volume, that we get what we deserve. I think this is an attempt by some to encourage the first lie in the minds of those as yet unschooled in reality. It’s also, of course, a saying completely founded in the religious concepts that underpin the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Their sacred texts explicitly tell followers that their rewards will follow from their actions.

But is it true? Do we, or indeed anyone else, get what we deserve?

Does the innocent child deserve to starve to death by an accident of geographical location? Does the winner of millions on a lottery actually deserve this piece of great fortune? Does the drug baron deserve a life of luxury and ease at the expense of those who suffer and die through his activities? Does the Chairman of a business empire deserve the exorbitant income he awards himself?

There are millions more examples of people receiving things they don’t deserve. In fact, I’d say that more people get what they don’t deserve than get what they do. In fact, I can think of very few people I know who have actually been given what they deserved.

I hear those of a religious mind-set yelling that we get our real rewards in heaven, paradise, or whatever other presumed afterlife they believe in. But such destinations are pure speculation. There’s no way of knowing whether they even exist except by taking that final step to enter them. By then it’s too late to discover that all your effort, good, bad or indifferent, has, in fact, resulted in you reaching the same end as all living things on death: i.e. the recycling of your components. If there is an afterlife, and it’s something we can never know since no one has ever returned with a reliable report, then surely the creator of such a splendid reward system would want us to be certain?

There’s little point in any deity permitting us to have doubts about such things, since these are supposed to be the very motivations that make us do the bidding of that deity. Yet the tales that are sold by the various religions are so different and contradictory. Surely any deity worthy of the name would at least remove the elements of doubt and dispute and provide a means whereby we could actually experience such rich rewards? Nothing else makes sense.

Of course, I understand that many are now yelling at me that I have to have faith. I’m sorry, but faith in something for which there is no evidence, let alone proof, strikes me as little short of imbecility. Does anybody seriously believe in fairies, a flat Earth, that Mars is inhabited by little green men or any one of thousands of such tales? We’ve dismissed the myths of ancient times, the tales of Zeus and his clan, Odin and his cohorts, Ra and his comrades, as early attempts to explain what was then inexplicable. A similar fate is already undermining current deities as reason and rational thought supersede superstition and folklore.

It isn’t that I deny absolutely the possibility of religious dogma having a basis in truth; it’s that I see such division in interpretation and I don’t believe it can be proven. The very existence of God is a matter we, as humans, will probably never be able to determine one way or another. If such a power actually exists, it must, by its very nature, be so far outside our experience and knowledge as to be incomprehensible. Any attempt to define such a power must inevitably diminish any reality it might possess. So, I take the only sane and reasonable attitude possible: I can’t know, which is why I style myself agnostic.

I’d like to say, ‘religious considerations aside’ and give examples of my argument on that basis but, unfortunately, the world in which we live is so deeply imbued in religious foundation that it’s impossible to escape its influence.  

But I will set a challenge.

Can anyone, without citing religious concepts, please provide more examples of people actually getting what they deserve than those who most clearly do not deserve what they get? I’m open-minded enough to be converted to a different view, if I can be given evidence that ‘just deserts’ is something more than a meaningless lie disguised as truth by those with vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Go ahead; change my mind.

Ancient Symbol Worship, by Westropp & Wake, Reviewed.

This is a modern version, not the one I read,
and may contain more information.

Subtitled, Influence of the Phallic Idea in the Religions of Antiquity, this book came my way as one of a small collection given me by my brother when he was sorting stuff out prior to a move to a new house with less space. He used to work in a book store and has a number of fairly unusual titles in his library. This was one he hadn't got round to reading, but the title and subtitle intrigued me.

This small volume, first published in 1875, sets out to examine the influence of the phallic, or male, component in ancient religion. But it takes this idea into modern religion, suggesting that the ancient beliefs, customs and rites have been absorbed and altered by modern celebrants in forms recognisable to those who wish to see.

There's some Latin, untranslated, and a colossal amount of reference to often obscure issues that were, presumably, well known to scholars of the time. But, for a modern reader, these references remain unexplained and would require a great deal of research to track down and more time than most people have these days for such esoteric issues. Whilst those who already have a deep interest in the symbolism employed in worship will undoubtedly understand the references, the rest of us will remain confused. However, much is clarified by context and, having an interest in many subjects, I was able to apprehend a lot of what the authors allude to, though other items consisted of listings of arcane information lacking any hook on which I could hang it.

That the book was written in the Victorian era, with its dreadful hypocrisy regarding all matters sexual, shows in the circumspection that rules the writing. Where, today, we would name the penis, testes, vulva and breasts without fear or embarrassment, the authors are constrained by the customs of their times and therefore have to express much of their ides in convoluted form or by the use of metaphor, much of which is couched in classical references that will be lost on many modern readers.

A second factor in preventing the authors expressing themselves frankly and with clarity is their sensitivity to the feelings of those who profess a faith. Again, today, such sensitivities can be dealt with more openly, showing respect rather than reverence. In the time the book was published however, such frankness, leading to real clarity, would have probably prevented publication.

So, an already difficult subject is made more obscure for reasons that are no longer valid. As the ideas and information explored are still valid and in need of wider publicity, I'd love to see some modern scholar produce a similar volume for today's reader with a much clearer text. Perhaps it's been done and I simply haven't come across the book.

As it is, this book can really only be read by the general reader as a partial glimpse into the subject. Those with a good knowledge of ancient history, religion and symbolism will glean a good deal more, however. Many of the ideas expressed as certainties have, of course, been placed in doubt or even refuted by more recent discoveries of texts from such sources as the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient records and parchments retrieved from many different sources by modern archaeologists.

Members of religious organisations will no doubt be outraged by suggestions that the roots of their current dogma and rites grew from ancient forms of worship that were definitely based in reproduction and sexuality, often in very explicit acts of devotion, sacrifice and propitiation to the early deities. But a dispassionate and disinterested examination of the rites, customs and beliefs of such groups quickly establishes their ancient links with many practices and myths no longer considered either right or sensible.

A demanding read, not for the faint-hearted.

Are Traditions and Customs Really Worth Keeping?

Image via Wikipedia

Such a question will inevitably promote discussion, debate and perhaps some outrage at the mere suggestion. But, before I say my piece and invite your comments and contributions, perhaps I should define the terms, so that we all know what we're discussing:

Tradition is defined as belief, custom, etc., passed along from generation to generation by non-written means; those beliefs, collectively; established and accepted practice or custom; principles held and generally followed by a branch of the arts, adopted from and handed down through experience and practice; doctrine regarded as possessing divine authority with no written evidence; the spoken messages of Christ and the apostles, passed on by word of mouth through generations; words and actions of Muhammad not incorporated in the Qur'an but transmitted orally before being recorded.

Custom is held to be habitual or common practice; a usual way of behaving; usage, fashion or habit; established usage which, because it has continued for a long time, has taken on the force of a law or right.

The world is overrun with examples of custom and tradition; many are religious in origin, others stem from early ignorance of certain realities, yet others have developed as responses to threats from outside the boundaries set by those groups practicing them. We, mostly, take such things for granted and promote their continuance without much thought for either their origins or their real social effects. So, is any harm done by such continuation? Is it possible that some customs and traditions are not good things?

Let's look at some of the most popular and widespread. Christmas is almost on us. This celebration of the birth of a notable prophet, a figure responsible for the formation of one of the world's great religions, is touted as a demonstration of love, generosity and general goodwill to all men. Peace and harmony are tied into the very meaning of this tradition. So, can it be seen in any way as other than a good thing?

Well, the timing of the ceremony, as most people are aware, is way off if it is an actual commemoration of the prophet's birth, since it's believed he was actually born in the summer months. So, the first aspect I question is the lack of honesty in the dating. Of course, it's well known that the old Pagan ceremony that was traditionally held at the mid-winter point long before Christianity came on the scene, was hijacked by the church in order to allow the celebrants to more readily accept the new religion. So, the timing of the celebration immediately takes on the nature of a con-trick, something devised to make more palatable a set of beliefs that were at variance with those of the people it was invented to convert. Such trickery is hardly the way to promote a doctrine that purports to have truth at its heart, I think.

In Islam, the position of the woman is traditionally that of subordinate; traditionally, though not according to the holy book of the faith. The Qur'an states quite clearly that men and women are of equal value and worth. However, the later commentaries, supposedly recorded as the words and actions of the prophet, Mohammed, are open to interpretation that women are rightly considered subordinate to men. Such downgrading of the gender would fit in well with the beliefs of a man brought up in a brothel, of course. And they fit in well with the traditions of a culture which has regarded women as goods and chattels since the beginning of recorded history. One has only to look at the ethnic communities where Islam first developed and note the custom of awarding their leaders numerous wives and concubines to see that the male attitude to the position of women in such societies was less than generous. The Islamic belief that men who are martyred in the cause (whatever that cause may be determined to be) will be rewarded by an eternity in paradise served by anything up to 72 virgin maidens, indicates that women are seen as the playthings and servants of men. No such reward awaits those women who sacrifice themselves to the cause, however. And, clearly, the fate of the 72 virgin maidens is hardly something to be relished. So, I question the custom and tradition held so dear by the sects of this religion in this regard.

The tradition of regarding pork as unclean, elevated to quasi-legal status in certain communities, stems from early observations that pig meat can cause many illnesses. Of course, with modern farming techniques and the knowledge that such meat must be well-cooked to avoid the problems, the risk has been reduced to similar proportions as those of eating any other meat. But it's noteworthy that the ban on eating pork remains. It's been enshrined into the culture of those communities and is upheld as something positive simply on the grounds that it is customary, traditional. Another example of the religious authorities being unwilling to accept that the basis for their laws might actually be questionable.

In certain parts of the Middle East and Africa it's customary for young women to be circumcised. This, of course, is a euphemism for brutal damage to the victims genitalia. The custom, carried out without anaesthetic, involves the removal of the clitoris and, frequently, the stitching together of the labia minor to prevent penetration. This tradition, often continued and encouraged by the mothers of the victims, is designed entirely to serve the men of the communities. The thought behind it is that women will not 'stray' if there is little pleasure for them in the sex act. The victim's stitched labia are cut open once the woman marries so that her husband may penetrate her, regardless of any pain she may suffer. This custom is defended by those within the community on the grounds that it is a long held tradition. And, of course, it the combination of the status of tradition with subliminal brain-washing that allows the mothers to continue to perpetrate this violence on their daughters.

I could go on. There are many examples of similar customs and traditions: wife burning at the death of a husband, the disfiguring of women who refuse a suitor's advances, the killing of daughters who 'dishonour' a family by refusing to marry the chosen husband. All, of course, with serious consequences for those affected. There are also lesser customs and traditions that do more subtle harm. The custom of the Abrahamic religions in their elevation of commerce to the level of some sort of divinely inspired activity, for example, has allowed business to proceed without any real concern about its effects on those who are less well off. And the custom of giving at Christmas, whilst producing some very real generosity of spirit as well as actual charity, has caused many millions to put themselves into debt in order to avoid being thought either mean or too poor to give as much as their neighbours.

So, to return to my question: is it possible that some customs and traditions are not good things? I think you'll know my answer, but I'm interested to learn yours. Are you willing to get involved in the discussion here? It's easy enough to make a comment below.