The True Believer

            That optimal true believer confronted me and very seriously inquired, “Why do you seen to be so terribly unhappy?”  I retorted with, “Just what do you mean by that?”  My friend went on to say, “Why are you so upset with the way other people believe just because they don't believe the way you do?”  I think at times we're all guilty of what I call ‘selected hearing’ and what I heard from this good friend of mine was that I simply appeared to be a very unhappy person in general.  I gave the matter some serious thought with consideration for my own bias and taking on the question, I quickly arrived at some hypothetical scenario; that if I was sitting on a deserted beach somewhere, all to myself and with my life's work was essentially completed to my satisfaction; I would indeed be quite comfortable with myself, generally rather happy and most certainly contented with my personal take on reality.  And most importantly, I really wouldn't care what anybody else believed.  I had found myself in that frame of mind of feeling like I was being somehow personally attacked for my beliefs and had no reasonable defense.  And then it suddenly occurred to me exactly what my state of mine actually was that may have easily given the outward appearance of my being so unhappy.  You might say that I was simply “getting into character” for the writing with which I was presently engaged.  I then went on to explain to my good friend that the unhappiness that seemed so evident to him was nothing more than what I had been perceiving others to be experiencing because of all the apparently false spiritual allegations most persistently propagated, particularly by our Christian religions.  One of the most despairing things is the discrepancy between what one senses as reality and what one is told to being the truth.
          My friend defended his and his Christian neighbors by witnessing that many of them were indeed quite happy with their beliefs, and I quickly retorted, “They are only happy because they are in such an anesthetized or sedated state of mind made readily available to them through those various social and spiritual opiates that I am always referring to.”  I further suggested that they probably remained in this apparently contented state of mind simply because they had little choice in the absence of any available and viable alternative.  And after all, if you really feel bad and things seem to be working pretty well; why change?  It then occurred to me that this perceived body of falsely-contented believers was simply lost in some emotionally remote hinterland that lay somewhere between reality and the mythologies that they had come to accept as a reality and usually without any due questions.  At the very instant that as those entirely unrehearsed words had left my mouth, an insight from nowhere instantly flooded my mind.
          I had always considered the literary fantasies of Dante Alighieri as so eloquently expressed in his, The Divine Comedy, to be nothing more than adding further religious fuel and insult to the spiritually injured, by even suggesting the remote idea or existence of a Purgatory; to me, just another theological construct that only added more confusion to what was already a Catholics’ divinely inspired and catastrophic state of unrecognized chaos.  After my friendly confrontation, I would now strongly suggest that Dante's literary intervention of Purgatory was nothing more than his own intuitive interpretation and literary depiction of that dismal hinterland of lost souls that lies squarely between that which is reality and those contrived theological fantasies of any number of spiritually deranged religions.  These “lost souls” that I referred to should more rightly be depicted as individuals who have lost their spiritual souls/essence, all for the false promise of an eternity of heavenly bliss.  Add some meditation and thought to your stay in Purgatory, and just possibly, you might catch sight of reality and avoid the further agony.  Of course, the intention is that you feel no agony as you have been properly anesthetized by your glorious fundamentalist experience with a religion; with your quivering hands raised high towards heaven, Alleluia!  Praise the Lord!  Alleluia! Amen!
           The psychological, spiritual and emotional void that is left with the loss of what one might call the soul has over time taken on a most particular form or shape.  Most all religions tend to develop a rather intricate and well defined conjectural structure that usually has both emotional and psychological elements.  There are various components of these religious structures that take on a life unto themselves.  Their very presence or perceived absence of some psychological construct of one's total psyche is so profound as to take on the appearance of an unquestionable reality.  If you have made me to feel guilty because I do not believe in your God, your God may or may not be real, but my feelings of guilt are most certainly a psychological reality.  In the absence of any empirical evidence that your God does in fact exist, I am most apt to confuse the imagined “reality” of your God with the experienced “reality” that is most certainly a real part my perceived guilt.  Attempt to remove any of these contrived misnomers, whether it is a belief in God or the existence of a Purgatory, without replacing the remaining void with something of an equal or similar nature, structure or value, and the resulting intellectual and psychological anxiety can only be equated to that of a grand mal.  It might be expressed as, “I just can't hope to live without God!”  If you happen to live in a five room house and one of those rooms is entirely empty; you would apt to feel a strong urge to make use of that room and in doing so, would furnish it accordingly.  This is just another example of the “wholeness” concept of Gestalt in that there is a need to fill a void or accomplish this sense of completion; unfinished business.  If I were to give you a series of space dots on a piece of paper and these dots were laid out graphically in a circle, and I were to ask you what you see?  You would be more apt to simply say, a circle, than a series of dots.  We sometimes expressed the concept of Gestalt as, unfinished business that needs to be addressed before we can return to a state of homeostasis, being totally at rest with one's self.  So, what religion attempts to do is to create a big space or void in your psyche that is reserved for God.  Once the concept of God occupies that space which then becomes defined as God it is then perceived that you have a real need for God just in order to keep that space occupied.  Try and take away God, and that void or absence that remains will naturally give you a sense of need.  Get the point?
          There is no doubt that any number of these various contrived structural components of a religion, each in some small or possibly even great capacity, is naturally found supporting the perceived veracity of the others.  The overall structure is often referred to as simply a “belief system” and within these belief systems there are any numbers of identifiable subsidiary structures which are naturally designed to accommodate the overall various functions.  The all-encompassing structure, the church, mosque, temple or synagogue, all represents the idea of a mass gathering of individuals who supposedly share a common perception of their various individual spiritual needs and will witness to one another in such a manner as to provide mutual support.  There is most certainly strength in numbers, and the effect of the perceived mutual support gives the individual the needed confidence to totally surrender and then one can expect to simply abandon any residual questioning or doubts.  It is a thoroughly designed system that is self-sustaining; the feeling of perpetual motion that can easily provide that other needed sense of immortality.  Very truthfully, it is so well constructed that it becomes a tough nut to crack.  This is the essence of the true believer.
          These various and erroneous religious structures and inherent functions are most often imbued with a keenly focused and intellectual inoculation against any intrusion of reality that might possibly undermine the true veracity of any of these various erroneous religious structures.  In the real and consistent absence of any real empirical evidence supporting the complete veracity of these hypothetical structures, the various inoculations may be as simple as employing some simple fear tactic that in and of itself becomes a perceived reality to the individual believer.  Confront the avid proponent of any one of these felonious religions with any reasonable question of doubt as to the reality of their God and His eternal kingdom and you are most apt to have opened a floodgate of what feels like a rehearsed and rote dialogue in avid defense of their all too cherished beliefs.  God forbid if you dare attempt to dismantle any one of these cherished structures!  This overly responsive and often hysterical dialogue is usually synonymous with the same contrived and rationalized political, sociological and psychological inoculations that were likely and obviously successfully administered initially to this true believer and probably repeatedly employed just to retain and enslave the true believer to his or her religion.
          Observe the youngest and yet un-socialized infant and you will more often note an inherent quality or ability to simply smile upon any initial positive encounter and the whole emotional countenance of that infant’s face reads simply as one of pure joy.  That expression of pure innocence is what is so attractive about infants.  That simple and initial joy could and should be easily maintained throughout one's entire life if only it weren't for the intrusion and intervention of other human beings already spoiled by the sociological and political milieu of a religious society.  Sigmund Freud postulated that the worst thing that ever happened to Western culture was the advent of Christianity.  He could have easily come to this conclusion simply based upon the untold numbers of malicious and torturous murders of innocent individuals simply because they questioned, opposed or rejected the beliefs of the Catholic Church.  Freud recognized an even more hideous crime and that is the destruction of an otherwise joyous and healthy self-image with the wrongful creation of countless and often erroneous sins, the pronouncement of which naturally and unavoidably result in deep-seeded feelings of deep-seated guilt.  The experience of relentless guilt is singularly the very worst enemy to that more desired and natural state of joy.  I would wish to remind the reader once again that the real confusion between the “reality” of the experienced of the feelings of deep-seated guilt and the unwarranted and certainly unjustified “reality” that some given human act as prescribed by the church is actually sinful, will aptly lead the true believer to accept, often without question, his own self-imposed condemnation.  “I truly feel bad and that could only mean that I actually have committed some egregious act or had some bad thought that was surely sinful in the eyes of God and the church!”  Most of us know that we’re truly good folk, and in our effort to maintain this good self-image, we simply try to follow the rules whether they are true or false.
          The true believer is so thoroughly convinced of his own perceived absolute need for a religion as a vehicle for the expression of one's spirituality that he will absolutely deny the remote possibility of anyone existing without a religion or at the very least, some reasonable philosophy that purports to having some moral inner value to the individual.  You just have to believe in something!  This hypothetically needed structure for an external religion or philosophy that is unnaturally superimposed on one’s personal and moral psyche becomes such a significant structure for most individuals that the very idea of its absence is simply perceived as unimaginable.  It is often the position of this true believer that if he or she has no meaning or purpose in life without a religion, and furthermore, this would surely hold true for every other “normal” human being.  This avid conviction is naturally reinforced by one's participation in believers’ groups that hold these same values as well as any of the same judgment of others.  In the most simplistic terms, we are experiencing what one might rightly call as spiritual mass hysteria.  The only true differentiation between most individuals is simply their own preferred choice amongst a multitude of alternative religions; the idea of living without a religion or philosophy is simply not a viable choice for the optimal true believer.
          Although one’s spirituality is a matter of personal growth and enlightenment, it appears that the principal mission of most churches is more focused on the survival of the church itself as opposed to aiding the individual in his or her own search for the truth.  The principal mission that should address the individual at the expense of the group is most often abandoned under the false guise of, “What is good for the church is naturally for the good of all of the individuals.”  Consider the fact that one loses their individuality as soon as they freely subjugate themselves to any narrowly-defined religious discipline.  It is a sociological and political model that is specifically designed for the singular purpose of maintaining that infamy referred to as the status quo usually at any cost.  What should be the focus on the individual is displaced with other ‘greater’ purposes and projects that become as impersonal as to only requiring the repeated contribution of one's money.  When this secular form of “spiritual” materialism occurs, the individual is often pacified with the perennial concept of charity and that transcendental ideal that after all, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.”  There is little question that giving enhances one's self concept and it feels particularly good to that individual that often finds him or herself making that extraordinary sacrifice for the sole benefit of others.  However, the problem remains that the individual is simply left out of the picture and after all, it is probably easier and less complicated to construct a new wing to the church's physical structure than to invest those hours of labor into the more often-needed spiritual counseling of its individual members.  Just how material can you get?
          The logical question still remains, ‘How is it that so many apparently intelligent and sane individuals can be so thoroughly duped?  Religious structures as well as the metaphysical constructs and philosophical hypotheses are all generally developed to answer those questions of the unknown in a manner that appears to be satisfactory and acceptable to the believer.  And if that is not enough, the masses have often been given answers to questions that were never asked in the first place.  For thousands of years the witch doctors, priests and spiritual healers have been able to conjure up any number of the respectable mythologies and explanations for the unknown in the historical absence of any empirical or scientific evidence to contradict their creative imaginations.  And if these spiritual despots were to run out of viable and reasonable explanations, the pope simply proclaims that anything he declares is absolutely “infallible.”  All of this cerebral and verbal conjuring naturally results in and leads to any number of those “supreme” spiritual constructs that not unsurprisingly assumes the position of dictating the tenants of the religion along with providing the moral authority to the church necessary to maintain obedience of its members.  This moral authority often goes beyond the church to the greater society, and worst of all, these imaginary, often creative not only contrived religious tenets that are only designed to maintain the overall structure of the religion are usually nothing more than hollow illusions that are disguised by design as some credible representations of reality.
          The true believer is cursed by an entanglement of illusions that are supported by the most imaginary array of descriptive words that conjures majestic images that are so terribly real to the imagination but have no credible substance beyond their presence as part of our spoken language or simply found and defined in detail in any standard dictionary.  Have you ever read the definition of God in the dictionary?  Beyond the spoken or written magic of the individual word, there exists this vast body of literature that has relentlessly employed these magical words to the point of lending another false sense of reality to these images that are only the conjured product of the creative imagination of gifted writers.  One of the finest examples is Dante's Divine Comedy, which was only intended as a fictional piece of literature and not so surprisingly, many Catholics came to believe that for the very fact that some man could have conceived the very idea of a purgatory must bear some credible witness to its reality.  And, of all the written words of literature, there are none that equal the stories of the Bible, which many Christians truly believe to be the very utterance of their ubiquitous God.  Of equal impact in our modern-day world is the fantastic movie industry that for one depicts the fictional life of Jesus with the same emphatic impact as that of Dante's Divine Comedy.  There is no question in many peoples’ mind that Moses indeed parted the waters of the sea after witnessing it on the widescreen. There indeed must be a God or why else would we have such a word in our vocabulary?  We even capitalized the word god in our Judeo-Christian culture as an emphatic affirmation to the belief that our God is the one and only supreme God and creator of all things, and that any other claim by any other god is and must be totally fictitious.  It is rather difficult for anyone to escape the overwhelming presentation from so many diverse sources, the very idea that all religions can’t all be wrong and that their must be some real reason that all of them appear to share the common notion that there actually is some unseen external power or being responsible for our creation.  Of course, some of our Native Indians see the world being carried on the back of a turtle.  Be reminded that when all of these beliefs and mythologies first began, the scientific observation and understanding of our universe was simply not yet comprehended by even the most imaginable minds and if that witch doctor were to have envisioned the future, I'm sure he would have certainly kept it to himself.  After all, it is the intention of any religious despot to maintain the illusion at all costs.
        The problem is this; if newly revealed reality is not similar to the old perceived functions of religion then it becomes almost impossible for it to be easily assimilated.  It's just so damn hard to fit a round peg in a square hole!  It simply doesn't fit the established, time-honored and accepted mold, whether that mold is faulty or real.  What is taken to be the primary function of religion is its perceived absolute necessity as an integral part of the spiritual growth of the individual.  The true believer not only believes in the mythology, he has been led to believe that he cannot possibly achieve any spiritual growth outside the defined confines of a religion. The facilitation of this spiritual growth is supposedly the prime function of any religion and for the most part, even these falsely conceived religions do provide a strong semblance to what is actually needed for spiritual growth.  In addition to the perceived need for the spiritual function of a religion there is that need for the structure itself, which becomes a physical testament to the greatness and glory of that Supreme Being or God.  All of which returns us to the common notion that we all share this need of a religion to guide us through this turmoil of life.  Change in either the structure or the function of any religion is most difficult if not impossible without the total collapse or abandonment of the established internalized notion or conceptualization that both the function and structure of religion is absolutely necessary for one’s salvation.  There we go again; another concept, salvation.
          To understand all of this, let’s take a quick look at the field of transportation.  The structure could be any number of vehicles from a bicycle to a jetliner.  The function is to simply get someone from point A to point B. There is no doubt that any man or woman is faced with making moral and ethical decisions in the course of one's life.  The rationale for making these decisions is often and simply a question of what the individual perceives as right or wrong.  Spirituality is this nebulous construct of one's inner nature that might be considered sacred or just is simply of a higher order.  It is often based on one's spirituality that decisions are made, one way or the other.  I am quite sure you have heard the expression that one considers themselves to be spiritual but not necessarily religious.  What they are probably expressing is that they accept the function of religion but not necessarily its structure.  A spiritual individual is still expected to behave in a goodly manner that is socially defined and condoned, and herein lays another problem.  Is the nature of spirituality defined solely by society or can one's personal choices be morally and ethically sound and still be unacceptable to society?  We all seemingly want to get from point A to point B.  The question might be what to do and how; the answer should be something that is personally determined, but so many individuals too often abdicate that immutable right of choice; free will.  The idea is that religions can often assume the role of the vehicle that dictates just what directions and actions that we should take.  I for one, would rather be the captain of my own ship and be totally responsible for getting me from that point A to point B.  What about you?
          Religions have so permeated our society that their definition of certain social institutions, like that of marriage, becomes the only acceptable definition and thus translated into the law of the land.  A man and woman can be legally married with what is called a civil ceremony; a religious ceremony is simply not necessary.  There are many same-sex relationships that wish to have the same legal recognition as that of a man or woman, but because most Christian churches do not condone such homosexual relationships, our civil institutions follow suit and refuse to recognize those same-sex relationships.  Simply because the Christian religion condemns same-sex relationships as sinful, they are also considered as illegal in our society.  I was under the impression that churches were not to mingle in the affairs of state, particularly in America.  This radical condemnation of homosexuality by the church and society can have devastating effects on any given homosexual; it has been reported that one-third of all teenage suicides in America is gay related.  This awful number of suicides is likely due to the self-incrimination of teenage homosexuals because every aspect of their external social environment and existence concurs that homosexuality is an abomination.  This is a good example of just how religion has so thoroughly dominated the political, social and psychological domains of the individual to the point of life-and-death, even when reality speaks to the contrary.  For those men and women who wish to cohabitation without the benefit of marriage, they too often face the same criticism and ridicule simply based upon what society with the persuasion of the Christian church has come to believe as being unnatural; that of a man and woman who wish to occupy the same conjugal bed.  Marriage is still and only a religious sacrament that is conferred and defined by the church.  Marriage is also a civil and legal arrangement between a man and woman that is recognized by government and does not necessitate the religious ceremony as performed by a religion.  Then the question might be, why not two people of the same sex be permitted a civil recognition of their consensual adult relationship?  This is not a matter of a sexual definition; it's simply contractual.
          Because so many of these religious constructs and institutions have no basis in reality, they can only be considered as no more than just theoretical concepts or perhaps just downright superstitions; it's just that these religions have some unseen wizard talking from behind some heavenly and imaginary screen.  However, these established concepts have so totally dominated society for so long that in the minds of most believers, there simply is no acceptable alternative.  In nearly all cases we are simply dealing with something that is unseen and it is only one's imagination that is necessarily employed in order to continue the spiritual deceptions.  The average individual is faced with the reality that nearly every social system in society concurs with the mythologies of their own brand of religion.  Just how thorough are these countless religious deceptions?  In the United States it is printed on our paper money, “In God we trust.”
          In this Judeo-Christian culture we are so fixated on the notion that we absolutely need a religion in order to survive that if some individual is perceived as to being non-religious and yet appears to be comfortable with having some personal worldview of their environment, he or she is often put into another conveniently defined box or mold or structure that for the lack of any other word, is simply called, a philosophy.  We are simply bound to have some form of religion whether we want it or not!
          The true believers have become the standard for most of society and even though this true believer is the standard, reality is slowly creeping into what was once the exclusive sacred ground of the church.  Even with all of the intellectual and spiritual advancement of reality, the true believer sees himself to be in a position of moral righteousness and as long as these true believers maintain their position of political power simply by the fact of majority rule, they will no doubt continue to impose their conservative values on all of society.  Despite the good intentions of the founding fathers of America to protect the individual rights of all of its citizens equally, the poignant consequence of the moral indignation of the true believer, that is directed at any minority believing or living differently, is apt to have a devastating effect on those who dare to oppose this righteously dictatorial majority.  In some strange pecking order of hand-me-down power, the true believer has taken on the role of the oppressor and being so empathically partial to this newly-found role of vicarious power, the true believer is even more convinced that his mythology is indeed the absolute truth; otherwise, why should he or she have been so empowered?  It is a severe case of spiritual pathology that so separates the individual from reality that there is little chance of any significant change.  Their righteous indignation is often rewarded with the euphoric feelings of personal victory and because these feelings are indeed real and only real feelings, there is the false assumption that the root cause of these feelings are equally real and no proof to the contrary is ever apt to be even remotely considered.  We are dealing with pathological individuals whose lifestyles are often judged as rewarding based only on the number of the other individuals that they have so righteously condemned or successfully converted to their own brand of religion.  What a pathetic lifestyle!
          The true believer is a serious danger to himself, his family and to society in that he or she is so totally convinced of their own take on reality, that the truth is often suppressed beyond redemption; there is not even the most remote possibility of any viable alternative.  There have always been those who have opposed this rigid establishment and for their efforts, they were at the very least ostracized from society and risked the greatest punishment of death.  I am of course, describing the very political dynamics of the Spanish Inquisition; believe in our God, confess your faith to this God or perish with the promise of eternal damnation.  The true believer really has little choice other than to conform, and we are fortunate to live in a time where there is at least some protection for those who choose to believe differently.  It still remains socially and psychologically difficult to oppose popular belief systems without risking some degree of isolation and for many of the most fearless and spiritually adventuresome individuals, there is no choice but to conform especially in light of the lack of any acceptable alternative.  Do we dare venture outside the box?  Absolutely!  Most adventurers that step outside the box are advised to maintain some lifeline and that the very least, leave the door open to a confession that their brief adventure was perhaps all in vain.  There is always that cautious sidestep into another marginally acceptable religion; Buddhism for example.  The true believer however, is apt to remain comfortably and safely within his tightly and well defined box, and for the weak at heart, this is quite acceptable.
          There will soon be a time when the realities that so contradict our ancient as well as modern religions and mythologies will become so obvious, that adventuring outside these constricted theological boxes will not only become more acceptable but rightfully encouraged.  This will be a true challenge to the true believer, and I would suspect that many will simply remain where they feel comfortable and perhaps leave it to the next generation to make the inevitable changes.