Following the English Protestant model of Evangelical ‘rescue’ such houses have existed in Ireland since 1765 when the Dublin Magdalen Asylum was founded on Leeson Street by Lady Arabella Denny as a refuge for Protestant ‘fallen women.’ Certainly there are few reasons for thinking that this original refuge was any better than what was to follow because it was Protestant and within an Ireland under British colonial domination. Yet what was to follow was fundamentally different with regard to Irish independence and Catholic control. The new state was in a condition of near financial ruin and the Irish Catholic Church was marked with a chronic and violent antipathy towards women and female sexuality. It would be in the ‘care’ of so-called ‘fallen women,’ without the practicable protection of the state, that the neuroses of Catholicism would be played out to the full in the structural mechanisms of oppression, repression, neglect and abuse in a vicious system of wickedness and evil. Although there is merit to the argument that this dark episode in Irish history ought to be considered within the wider context of the post-colonial discussion, it must be remembered that the shape which Irish Catholicism took following the Relief Act (1829) and the Disestablishment of the Protestant Church of Ireland (1871) was one which was in essence foreign to both Ireland and Britain. Archbishop Paul Cullen, made cardinal in 1866, in his reforms of the Irish Church, introduced new and developing continental devotions – which informed the popular Catholic imagination – that presented the Irish with an androgynous, de-sexualised Blessèd Virgin and a vaguely effeminate Jesus. Together with this in the process of the Cullenisation or the creation of ‘Catholic Ireland’ came the stamp of Cullen’s unwavering Ultramontanism; the complete spiritual and temporal submission of local authorities and hierarchies to the unquestionable authority of the Roman Pontiff. If indeed the evolution of such a Catholicism in Ireland is to be considered under the heading of a post-colonial nightmare, then it must be placed under the sub-heading of ‘out of the frying pan and into the fire.’

The result of this sea change was the creation of the Magdalene Laundries as they existed in Ireland between 1922 and 1996. In essence these were reformatories for prostituted women after the Protestant model in an atmosphere where the victims were blamed and within a culture of gross and systematised misogyny; categorically punitive of women for their perceived inherent sinfulness, their physical lack (the female ‘lack’ of a penis and therefore their inability to embody Christ-likeness is to this day the ground on which the Catholic Church denies ordination to women) and their sexuality. Naturally the wrath to be vented on femininity could not be sated with the victims of prostitution, and as though aware that nowhere in the Gospel is Saint Mary Magdalen (for whom the laundries were named) said to have been a prostitute, the definition of ‘fallen woman’ was widened to encompass any expression of feminine power or autonomy. Women (predominantly poor and working class women) who ‘fell pregnant’ outside of the protective sanctity of marriage were confined, women who walked away from abusive marriages were likewise confined, along with the daughters of women categorised as ‘fallen,’ rape and incest victims, and girls from orphanages and reform schools and those who were thought ‘too big a temptation for the world outside.’ According to the McAleese Report (5 February 2012) the youngest child to be sentenced to one of these institutions was only nine years old.

While the report states that there was no substantial evidence of physical or sexual abuse of the inmates of these laundries this flies in the face of the testimony of the survivors who consistently speak of the physical abuse meted out by nuns and the not infrequent complaint of sexual abuse at the hands of priests. Notwithstanding, these laundries were private business enterprises that utilised slave labour to make money. Working under harsh conditions, from six in the morning until after seven in the evening, with sub-standard food and care, these poor women and girls received nothing by way of remuneration for their time. Mothers were forcibly separated from their new-born children in circumstances which might by better described as an adoption farm where, for a fee, wealthy families could ‘adopt’ the child of a loving mother. It is not only too easy to lay all of the blame for this barbarism at the feet of the Roman Catholic Church, for while the hierarchy of the Church acted in the most despicable and callous manner towards people for whom it claims to have a divine mandate to love and protect the people of Ireland and indeed the state played a significant rôle in this vile crime. To some degree the guilt of the people of Ireland may be mitigated. It is true that these were dark times marked (or marred) by an almost unfathomable deference to the authority of the Catholic Church. People did know what was happening; the attitude of the Church with regard to ‘fallen women’ had been fully interiorised by the greater part of the population who were, in their docility and laziness, all too content to equate the ‘fallen woman’ of the Church with their own imagined image of the ‘dirty whore;’ a wanton nymphomaniac seducing unsuspecting and weak men – all for the want of filthy lucre. This excuse will go only so far. These were not unintelligent people, albeit that they lived in ignorance and fear, they knew perfectly well that what was happening was wrong. They knew what the Church was doing was evil, yet now the Church is keen to impress upon the public the fact that up to ten percent of the inmates/slaves in the laundries were delivered to the religious sisters by their own families. Shame on those families, and shame on those who knew and did nothing. Yet let us not forget the greater shame that must be on the Church which, through fear, and with the provision of the opportunity to rid themselves of their children, brought the people of Ireland to that place of deep darkness where such cruelty was possible.

In spite of the limited rôle the report assigns the Irish State in this ugliness, there is no escaping the magnitude of Ireland’s moral failure throughout. The justice system and the Department of Education with the assistance of the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (ironically enough) and An Garda Síochána delivered up innocent women and children to the ‘care’ of a foreign institution which made no secret of its abhorrence of women as sinful creatures and children as the fruit of their sin. It was in full knowledge of the conditions of slavery and abject cruelty in the Magdalene Asylums that the Irish State sent its own citizens to them, and while on paper the present government can find some small absolution in the fact that only a quarter of the victims were sent there by the direct involvement of the state, the very existence of such hell-holes on Irish soil necessitates the guilt of the Irish state for everything that happened. Knowing of their existence and permitting it to continue is the same evil as committing the crime. That the state, in this knowledge, sent women and children to these institutions seals their guilt irrevocably and forever.

All of this has come to an end and still we have no peace. We have no peace because none of it has come to an end. The laundries may now be all closed up and the victims either dead or ‘free,’ but it is far from over – for the blood of our sisters calls out to us from the ground. The report did not go far enough. It stopped short of saying that the state could have and should have put an end to this wickedness and horror. The state was as much to blame for what happened as the Church, and no amount of appeal to the ‘power of the Church’ will make good for this failure because from the outset in 1922 the ‘power of the Church’ was as young as the power of the Republic. There can be no peace until the state makes a full and contrite confession. Even this would merely mark the first step on the road to peace. This peace demands justice, and nothing short of justice. No apology from the Catholic Church is required; no one can expect a lion to show remorse for its prey. Rather, Catholicism – so long as it enshrines in its theology and doctrine a hatred of humanity and healthy human behaviour – must be removed completely from society. Then we may have peace.

© 2013 homophilosophicus

The disciples, missing an opportunity to exercise their faith, get a scary object lesson about faith and peace from Jesus on that boat. It is my belief that they intellectually believed in what Jesus was doing and despite their witness to his miracles, hadn’t gotten it yet. Fast forward to the rest of the Bible, and we see these same men who stumbled their way through the gospels become bold, unstoppable men of faith starting in the book of Acts. Their lives, however, were everything but peaceful. Their job was to spread the Good News of Christ, and in doing so died for their belief. Peaceful it was not. That speaks volumes to me.

I love a good sermon at church or on the radio, I love to listen to people of faith discuss the Word. I listen to the likes of Alistair Begg, Charles Stanley, and Chuck Swindoll online. One of the messages that I can probably attribute to all of them, is that the Christian life was never promised to be peaceful all the time. Christians will find that at one time or another we will be persecuted for our faith, and spreading the Good News will sadly be mocked. Add to that we find that Satan does whatever he can to ruin our walk. Persecution in whatever form it takes is essentially guaranteed once taking up the cross of Christ. Boy that sounds awful doesn’t it? This is where I look at my life to find that peace, though flighty at times, surfaces more than I realize. Socrates said that a life unexamined isn’t worth living. That is true. I look at the last four months of my life and despite the change, I find peace. My mother, now in the late stages of cancer, is dying. I am starting a new career that has me studying material that appears to be overwhelming. It is also scary because while I study, I must keep a clear head because my mother is dying, and I have no income at the moment. That isn’t exactly a peaceful scenario. That said, I sleep better at night than I have in the last two years, I’m closer to my family than I have been at any time in my life, and I don’t seem to be sweating the whole no-income thing. I can simply say that despite the storm I’m going through, I have peace. The scariest part of my life is what it would be like to go through all this without my faith! I have found a calm amidst the storm. Though I must go through it, I have a guy like Jesus to annoyingly roll over, wave his hand, glare at me, roll back over, and go back to sleep. The summary for me is that to have peace, first have faith. It isn’t easy, but its better than the alternative.

© 2013 Kurt Alderman, The Jimmy Monologues

The definition in the Merriam-Webster dictionary (online) says this:

1 : a state of tranquillity or quiet: as

a : freedom from civil disturbance

b : a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom <a breach of the peace>

2 : freedom from disquieting or oppressive thoughts or emotions

3 : harmony in personal relations

4

a : a state or period of mutual concord between governments

b : a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity

5: used interjectionally to ask for silence or calm or as a greeting or farewell

— at peace

: in a state of concord or tranquillity

So we can see that the word itself has many meanings, but in the context of this post, we will be talking about the forth of those meanings, peace between governments or people of differing political or religious beliefs.

The seemingly never ending situation between the Israeli Jews and the Palestinian Arabs would appear to be a perfect example of how the parties on the two sides of an argument hold such deep-seated principles, that neither will concede any ground to the other. The resulting stalemate has been the cause of hundreds of deaths, yet still the conflict remains. A typical no-win, blame-each-other, under-no-circumstances-show-any-weakness type of stand-off, with the ordinary man and women in the street bearing the brunt.

Peace, it would appear from historical evidence, is not a natural state of affairs. The predominant trait of humans would seem to be to want more and more, be that power, money, land or generally any commodity you care to mention. Far from the quest for peace, governments and nations, tribes and religions, have been locked in an eternal quest to become the dominant entity since time began. That process goes on and on, and shows no sign of abating even in the modern age.

We comically call ourselves civilised people, and I suppose in the very broad sense of the word we are. But to my mind, civilised people work together to create an situation of mutual respect and harmony in which all, not just those at the top, can prosper. I don’t see a great deal of that anywhere around here. The Have’s have it all and the Have-Not’s have not a hope in hell of breaking the mould. With all the tensions created between these Have’s and Have-Not’s, be they economic, power, religious or political, the balance between the protagonists is destroyed. Where there is imbalance there is stress, where there is stress there is a destructive force that will continue to exist until either the balance is restored or one of the sides is destroyed.

Peace, by which I mean a lasting mutual agreement, can only be achieved and maintained by seeking out this balance. Whilst there are any aggrieved feelings by either party, the peace is in jeopardy, although it may be that it can be maintained temporarily by one side or the other accepting the imbalance. The situation will not last however, the destructive forces will always come to the fore eventually.

The primary goal of Nichiren Buddhists, Kosen-Rufu, or World Peace will come about only when the process of Human Revolution is complete. This involves the entire population of the planet learning the ways of happiness and hence finding a universal peace. As SGI president Daisaku Ikeda put it …

Just like a cloth, kosen-rufu is woven from vertical and horizontal threads. The vertical threads represent the passing of Nichiren Daishonin’s teaching from mentor to disciple, parent to child, senior to junior. The horizontal threads represent the impartial spread of this teaching, transcending national borders, social classes and all other distinctions. Simply put, kosen-rufu is the movement to communicate the ultimate way to happiness—to communicate the highest principle of peace to people of all classes and nations through the correct philosophy and teaching of Nichiren.

It did seem for a while in 2011, that there was as seed change happening, starting with the Arab Spring. It really did feel as though the marvellous quote from Daisaku Ikeda was actually about to come to fruition:

A great resolution in just a single individual will help achieve a change in the destiny of an entire society and further, will cause a change in the destiny of humankind.

But the forces of evil, otherwise known as the greedy bastards who govern most countries, were not going to let their power slip so easily. Every day we hear about further atrocities and conflicts. Just yesterday a group of Islamist militants took a group of oil workers hostage in Algeria. This morning the world is holding its collective breath as reports of hostage deaths start filtering out of the country. We are also hearing constant reports from Mali as once again Islamic rebels are involved in armed struggle with a French interventionist force.

Not wishing in any way to end this post on a down-beat note, but it is clear that Peace is a very fragile and elusive thing. Like the Palos Verdes Blue it is very rarely seen, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist, or that, given the right environment, it won’t flourish and cease to be so rare. Let us have faith in Kosen-Rufu, or whatever you wish to call it, remove this underlying current of greed and violence and make the world a happy and peaceful place for once.

- Namaste

© 2013 Anupadin, The Search for Enlightenment

In response to the Pope’s comments Eamon Gilmore, An Tánaiste, remarked that what the women of Ireland needed was more than the ‘understanding and mercy’ of the Church. They need legal clarification of the issues surrounding abortion in Ireland. Gilmore may have his own secularist agenda regarding the Church, but he does have a point. In fact he could have pushed this point a little further. With its continual rhetoric of the sanctity of human life the Church in Ireland, both Catholic and Protestant, has consistently failed to call the government to account on its programme of austerity. As the current economic crisis deepens over Europe, the economic measures of the Irish state to safeguard the wealthy have hit the working (or increasingly the unemployed) people hard. Businesses are closing down, pushing up unemployment, and putting greater stresses on individuals and families. Marriages and partnerships are breaking down while record numbers of young Irish people are electing the path of emigration. On top of this, the suicide rate over the whole of the island of Ireland has reached new highs; with up to three people every day choosing to end their lives by suicide. Budgetary cuts affecting healthcare are imposing serious limitations on the ability of hospitals to save lives. People die, but they die with increasing frequency during periods of economic hardship. Gilmore’s hands are not clean on this score, but then he is not harping on about the sanctity of human life. In consideration of these simple facts it would seem that the Church is somewhat selective in its understanding and appreciation of the sanctity of human life.

There exists an obscure ethical notion that when one saves a life, especially an otherwise defenceless or vulnerable life, that one is from this moment on responsible for that life. Such a concept is raised in the literature of the Holocaust. Is it right to save a child from the gas chamber only to see that same child die a more painful death of starvation or disease? In taking such a rigid stance on the abortion debate the Catholic Church is effectively situating itself as the defender of the defenceless, and so calls upon itself, by extension, the role of guardian. Yet it is precisely in this assumption of stewardship that the Church finds itself in a position of extreme contradiction. Few people are aware that the Instituto per le Opere di Religione (the Vatican Bank) is the second largest stakeholder in Pietro Beretta Ltd. Beretta, as many might be aware, is the single largest arms manufacturer in the world. It is true, of course, that Beretta manufacture sporting and hunting firearms, but such trifles do not keep leading firearms factories at the top of their game – so to speak. They are also the creators of the Beretta M-12, for example, the lightweight 9mm Parabellum calibre submachine gun which has seen considerable action in the Vietnam War, the 1978 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the US invasion of Iraq and the recent revolt in Libya. Peter’s pence is invested (at least in part) in war and human suffering, and do we really want to look at the death count attributed to these conflicts and to Beretta Ltd.?

Does the Church allow for the mitigation of an abortion in a war-zone?  No, it certainly does not. The Holy See is willing to speak out on the theological defensibility of a just war, in the full knowledge of its financial investments, and yet condemn the actions of women who choose to end their pregnancies in the most adverse circumstances imaginable. For all that the Roman Catholic Church is, on every level of its hierarchical structure, it is not consistent on its position on the sanctity of human life. It may be pretty well guaranteed that this inconsistency is part and parcel of ‘Church (irrespective of denominational flavour)’ when it meets the reality of politics and economics. Much the same might be pointed out when we come to consider the death penalty. Often the voice of the Catholic Church is the loudest when it comes to calls for clemency on behalf of a death-row prisoner due for execution in jurisdictions which maintain the death penalty. Quite frequently, in fact, this call comes from the mouth of the Pope himself. This Catholic position, however, does not justify the belief that the Catholic Church is against the practice of the death penalty. Actually the very call for clemency implies an acceptance of the justice of the penalty. At no time has the Church declared the death penalty sinful or described it as constituting a ‘grave offence incurring excommunication latæ sententæ.’ This stands to reason, as the Church, in her territorial guise (the Papal States), has executed a considerable number of human beings.

In consideration of these glaring inconsistencies the current and belligerent stance of Rome on abortion causes some confusion. The solution to this problem lies in the recognition that, while many Catholics may care deeply about the life and well-being of the unborn, the Catholic Church as a political and hierarchical powerhouse no more cares for the ‘life of the child’ than a mouse cares for a cat. The most obvious answer to the Catholic Church’s fixation on the abortion question is the place of its authority over the hearts and minds of the Catholic faithful in an increasingly secular society. Since the 1968 publication of Humanæ Vitæ the Church has come to see that its moral authority is no longer absolute. It too, like its once significant temporal authority, is fast diminishing. Authority, in the Roman form, is now a thing of the past, and has been abandoned by the rest of the modern world. As a last throw of the dice then, the authorities of the Church feel the need to flex their muscles all the more in those areas where their authority might still be listened to. So abortion has become the arena of the Church’s last stand.

As has been pointed out by a number of notable clerical detractors, this question of abortion (along with birth control and artificial human reproduction) has been closely tied with papal infallibility in the all-in stakes of Catholic authority over the past five decades. In the coming days, weeks and months it is clear that the questions surrounding abortion and abortion legislation in the Republic of Ireland are going to come ever closer to the centre of the public forum. The knotted weave of rights and conflicting rights of the child, the mother and society is not an easy landscape for debate and ethical discourse, and by no means will it be an easy decision for the courts or the Irish people in a possible referendum. Yet it is still of the greatest importance that we, the people, are aware of the players in the game. This awareness extends even to the motives (hidden and apparent) of all the authorities who will be presenting their case to the decision-makers. To this end it is crucial that the people of Ireland are aware that the abortion issue – as a theatre of conflict – may not always be an issue in its own right to all of the contesting parties. Certainly the signs that one is able to read from the Catholic Church are that this issue has been, and is being, used cynically as a weapon in a greater internal conflict. It has become the last bastion of the Church’s authority, and less the platform from which the Church has been able to expound a moral code with integrity.

© 2013 homophilosophicus

Within hours of this video clip being posted on the internet it had gone viral. Class war swiftly moved from the quiet disgruntlement of the masses and the sly calculations of the social élite onto the battlefields of the streets and our social networking sites. Naturally the surreptitiously recorded footage did not include the events leading up to the young girl’s outburst, but the content of her tirade has touched a nerve and has released a beast that will not easily be recaptured. This woman, who has come to be known as ‘#KPMGgirl’ as a consequence of her repeated assertion that her dad is the ‘highest earning partner at KPMG, has landed herself at the very centre of a storm which has brought the pain of Ireland’s class divisions to the fore in the public arena. Yet the ensuing scrap would prove to be anything but a simple conflict of the oppressed against the oppressor, for this obnoxious young lady had real clout behind her. Now, it would not be entirely fair to say that the big guns that came to her aid were ‘on her side’ per se. By using the name of one of the ‘big four’ personal services companies in the world she had brought their reputation into question. All of a sudden the internet uploads were being removed on various pretexts, ranging from the fact that the person in question was only sixteen years of age to the assertion that comment on her behaviour constituted cyber-bullying. As quick as one upload was taken down another was being re-posted; a war of attrition had broken out in the cyberspace over Dublin. The twittering middle classes were circling their wagons to protect one of their own. While completely avoiding the inconvenient content of her hate speech, the national broadcaster, RTÉ, was slamming the victimisation of a poor adolescent on the internet and questioning whether or not it was time for controlling measures to be put on the internet to protect vulnerable children. The victims of this girl’s verbal assault were now being branded as bullies.

So now that the storm is raging full force and all of the players are making hay on the board it might be an opportune moment to consider what it is exactly that is going on. Thus far the most potent defence manœuvre has been to slur all [negative] online comment as cyber-bullying; playing on the emotions stirred by the recent suicides of two sisters. Yes, there can be no doubt that the public response to KPMGgirl must be stressful for her, but it is not bullying. The establishment simply must be reminded that her comments were made in a public place, in front of members of the general public, and in the crowded environs of a late night pizza restaurant in Ireland’s capital city. It is not a crime to film someone in a public place. Maybe the Irish media should reflect a little more on this defence when they next broadcast the exploits of drunken Irish [working class] teens abroad. On top of this attempt to bully the public into submission the establishment are making the absurd claim that she should be excused because she was drunk on the grounds that ‘we have all done this when drunk.’ Quite frankly, we have not all done this when drunk. Maybe the national broadcaster should think about this excuse the next time they tell the public that ‘alcohol is never an excuse’ in their Drink Aware commercials. As if these stupidities were not enough, the next line of defence is the age card. Apparently the young woman is a sixteen year old private schoolgirl. Okay, well the content is not pornographic. That excuse does not hold either. The only thing that may be described as sexually explicit in the video clip is the atrocious and vulgar language of the young woman. The attempt to defend her on the grounds of her age will not wash, but since it has been brought up maybe we should dwell on her age a little longer. This poor-little-rich-girl is out after dark, during the weekend, in a busy city centre, showing off her underwear and clearly intoxicated with alcohol. This does raise a few concerns. Why does her father – apparently the highest paid partner in his firm – not know where she is and what she is doing? In less privileged circumstances this is the sort of juvenile delinquency that has social services knocking on the door of the family home. If there are to be any legal questions being asked about this video then those questions should be concerned with the clear negligence of her parents.

Her choice of the word ‘pleb’ when describing the poor, highly reminiscent of Andrew Mitchell’s outburst in front of the police in London, was clearly not something she had invented all on her own. This was an entire rhetoric that she had learned. What actually makes her the target of such public scorn and vilification is that she said in public what her entire class think in private. Nothing troubles the middle classes more than when one of their own lets slip the thoughts and imaginings of their very black hearts. For us at the bottom it is a wonderful moment of pure justice.

© 2013 homophilosophicus

To think, let alone speak, of prayer we enter into ascendance; a going up out of the mundane and temporal and into a place that transcends understanding. We cannot comprehend, not even in the least, what prayer is; that is to say that we cannot speak positively of the nature of Audio ut Divinus. What is left to us then is a discussion of prayer in the negative; that which prayer is not. Mothers and fathers for countless generations have taught their children to pray; they pray for the people they love and care about, for good weather and a restful night’s sleep. These are the prayers of children, which for the intellect of the infant, are no bad thing; yet, so many people of faith fail to move beyond this infantile appreciation of prayer and so erroneously come to a positivist understanding of its nature. Thus knowing what prayer is it is reduced to the absurdity of a quid pro quo or a bargaining with the Almighty. Moving beyond this impasse one is forced to make a decision, either accept that there is no God or step courageously into a mystical relationship with the Author of Life; both of which are infinitely preferable to bargaining with a God who does not negotiate. It is at this moment of conversion that the Atheist and the mystic have more in common with the Islamic notion of submission to God than they do with the preacher of prosperity. For only once the die has been cast do Atheists and mystics realise that God is dead.

Submission or complete and unconditional surrender to God does not require an understanding of the nature of the god to whom one surrenders. In fact the will to know presupposes a condition, and is then no submission at all. For the Atheist this submission takes for form of an acceptance that the god of childhood is little more than an imaginative construct, passed mimetically from one generation to the next as a Deus ex machina cure-all for the presently unfathomable. Atheism, as philosophical materialism, rejects the supernatural; the inherent contradiction of an unmoved mover who without recourse to the laws of nature establishes the cosmos, only to enforce such laws thereafter with periodic suspensions of the same for the purposes of miracles and other conjuring tricks. The Atheist abhors the god who parts the sea whilst unmoved by an HIV and AIDS pandemic, in the same manner that he or she scoffs at a creator who arbitrarily decrees laws and punishes offenders with suffering eternal in the ceaselessly burning pits of hell – as though life was not suffering enough. The god identified by many and rejected by the Atheist is not altogether dissimilar from the Uncle George of Gerard W. Hughes,

After many conversations, an identikit image of God formed in my imagination. God was a family relative, much admired by mum and dad, who described him as very loving, a great friend of the family, very powerful and interested in all of us. Eventually we were taken to visit ‘Good Old Uncle George.’ He lives in a formidable mansion, is bearded, gruff and threatening. We cannot share our parents’ professed admiration for this jewel in the family. At the end of the visit, Uncle George turns to address us. ‘Now listen dear,’ he begins, looking very severe, ‘I want to see you here once a week, and if you fail to come, let me just show you what will happen to you.’ He then leads us down to the mansion’s basement. It is dark, becomes hotter and hotter as we descend, and we begin to hear unearthly screams. In the basement there are steel doors. Uncle George opens one. ‘Now look in there, dear,’ he says. We see a nightmare vision, an array of burning furnaces with little demons in attendance, who throw into the blaze those men, women and children who failed to visit Uncle George or to act in a way he approved. ‘And if you don’t come visit me, dear, that is where you most certainly will go,’ says Uncle George. He then takes us upstairs again to meet mum and dad. As we go home, tightly clutching dad with one hand and mum with the other, mum leans over us and says, ‘And now don’t you love Uncle George with all your heart and soul, mind and strength?’ And we, loathing the monster, say, ‘Yes I do,’ because to say anything else would be to join the queue at the furnace (God of Surprises, 1985).

In short, the truly prayerful must agree with the Atheist in the rejection of such a devil. What then of the God of the mystic? How does the mystic pray? This is not altogether an easy question to answer, for it demands the simultaneous assent to the underpinning of everything and acceptance of nothing at all. In an earlier article on the subject of prayer our colleague and friend Anupadin wrote of his own tradition of prayer as ‘fundamentally different [to theistic religions]’ in that to the Buddhist prayer is ‘communication to the inner self’ rather than ‘to an external being.’ This, and with no slight toward Anupadin, is vexing in the extreme. It is vexing, not from the Buddhist point of view, but precisely in that Christianity has almost completely bought this construct notion of an objective God; the very entity rejected by the Atheist and the mystic ([this] God is dead!). From the standpoint of the Christian mystic the objectification of God as ‘an exterior being’ is the most profound misunderstanding of Incarnational religion; it is idolatry. The awe-inspiring prologue of Saint John’s Gospel announces that the Word (the Logos as word and wisdom of God and the greatest of all abstractions) became flesh and lived among us (John 1:11 NRSV). This very One, who assumes all humanity in himself so as to redeem it all (Saint Athanasius), is the same Christ who lives in all who have been crucified with him (Galatians 2:20) as Immanuel; God with us (Matthew 1:23). So we Christians may begin to answer the question of prayer by first declaring that which it is not, and by recognising that it is not altogether unlike the Buddhist philosophy of prayer as communication to the inner self. To be sure this is most certainly the philosophy of prayer at work when we encounter our Lord (who himself is inseparable from the Father as we are from the Son) in the garden of his passion: ‘Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me; yet, not my will but yours be done (Luke 22:42 NRSV).’

The dubious and whimsical god of our infancy and ignorance is truly dead, and may he rest in peace. All of the laws of physics and nature, the laws of causality, still exist and are immovable. No amount of bribery, pleading or bargaining will move the unmoved, and so all thoughts of prayer orientated to bending the will of God are in vain. At best these are no more sophisticated than magical thinking, and at worst manipulative and dangerous. Our God, the Almighty Creator who is the very seedbed of reality, will not suspend the governance of space and time in their proper order to ensure fine weather for a sailing or safe delivery from a catastrophe. God will be God as reality continues unmoved in its perpetual motion of the real. Goodness and badness (as we might understand such temporalities) will continue as surely as seedtime follows harvest (Genesis 8:22), living and dying the same. Yet this is not nihilism, but rather it is hope. The purpose of prayer is not to convince some capricious deity to amuse us with another trick, but to affect the miracle of transforming us, through submission, to the will of God. Such a miracle empowers each one of us to see in the suffering of others an opportunity to help and not merely hope for divine intervention.

© 2012 homophilosophicus

Three times Narendra returned to the Master, who inquired as to how the boy’s prayers had gone, and three times, the Master sent Narendra back to the temple to pray for his family. Never was Narendra able to maintain his presence of mind, so deep in ecstasy did he fall at the sight of the Goddess’s image. At last, Sri Ramakrishna himself granted Narendra the boon that his family would never go without the basic necessities of life. The whole thing had been a charade and a lesson.

A special aspect of Sri Ramakrishna’s teaching is the idea that the aim of all religion is God realization. One may receive benefits from simple piety, from occasional prayers or erratic spiritual practices, and these may bring some happiness, some relief of suffering, and a more auspicious set of circumstances in one’s future life, but God realization alone will bring a permanent end to suffering and the cycle of rebirth.

For those not familiar with the term, God realization, in brief, is the realization that God alone is real and eternal, all other things, including our perceived identities, will pass away and are, therefore, unreal. This is not an intellectual understanding that we can acquire through study, but a direct knowledge acquired through the renunciation of desires and the elimination of the ego. God realization results in an intimate, direct and permanent experience of the divine in this life. It is the same experience as Self realization, nirvana, entering into the Kingdom of Heaven within, and so on. These are all limited ways of describing the experience of the Limitless.

Sri Ramakrishna pulled no punches. Lust and greed keep us bound up in desire, ignorant of our true, divine nature and our oneness with God. For a sincere aspirant who wants to reach the ultimate goal, anything that does not bring one closer to God realization is a waste of time. Once one attains the goal, life’s problems cease to be problems, experiences are neither good nor bad but simply experienced, and one knows the endless bliss of divine wisdom.

Sri Ramakrishna’s teachings seem to beg the question of what use the simple practice of prayer can be to someone with such a lofty goal. Will I bring myself closer to the Lord by asking for a better job, or healing of my child’s illness, or for the safety of victims of a natural disaster? Sri Ramakrishna once had a conversation about God with some Sikhs who said that God’s great compassion was evident in his giving us all we need for survival. Sri Ramakrishna seemed to think this view arose from missing an essential point. Here is an excerpt of the conversation from The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna

Master: “God is the Father of us all. Who will look after the child if the father doesn’t? Do you mean to say that the people of the neighbouring village should look after the child?”

Narendra: “Then shouldn’t we call God kind?”

Master: “Have I forbidden you to? What I mean is that God is our very own. He is not a stranger to us.”[1]

We may pray to God for the necessities of life. No matter how far along the spiritual journey we have traveled, we will always be in need of certain material things, and it is likely for most of us that they will not always be easily come by. That being said, we must trust that the Lord anticipates our needs and will provide for them. He is not some distant entity. He is our very own. We can put our faith in Him, and, in order to realize Him, we must do so. So long as our prayer supports our faith in God, we can not only ask Him for what we need, we can expect it.

But what place does prayer have in the quest for God realization? Are not strenuous austerities called for? Must we not fast for days, meditate for hours, and count millions of mantras? In fact, such tortuous practices are counter-productive. Sri Ramakrishna often said that, in the Kali Yuga — that is, our current age — truthfulness itself is an austerity. He himself took part in very difficult spiritual practices, but he did not urge his devotees to do the same.

I have done sixteen annas[2] of sadhana[3]. It is enough even if you did one anna.

The principle spiritual practice Sri Ramakrishna called for was devotion to God. This, he said, was the way for the Kali Yuga. He called it the easy path, which leads one directly to God realization. He encouraged his disciples to cultivate love for God, chant God’s name and sing His glories. He also encouraged prayer.

Sri Ramakrishna frequently asked his disciples, “Who cries for God?” People, he would say, cry for family and friends, over loss and misfortune, but how many people shed tears for lack of the vision of God? Who weeps with longing for God realization? Who so intensely feels the need to know God intimately that they bawl at His feet?

You must reach God somehow or other. Call on Him in solitude and pray to Him, ‘O Lord! reveal Thyself to me.’ Weep for Him with a longing heart.

Time and again, the Master encourages his students to “weep for God,” to “be a little mad for God,” to “cry… with a real cry” to God. According to Sri Ramakrishna, prayer can certainly lead to the realization of God, but it must be the most sincere prayer, fueled by a deep yearning for God. He illustrates this yearning through one of his many parables.

A student once said to his guru, “I have been practicing spiritual disciplines for some time. When will I realize God?”

The teacher said, “Come with me,” and led his student to a pond, where the two of them waded in until the water reached their chests. With no warning, the guru grabbed the young man by the hair of his head and dunked him under the water. He held him there for some time until the boy was thrashing about violently. The student rose from the water, spluttering and gasping for breath, and the teacher asked him, “How did you feel while I was holding you under?”

“My chest was burning!” said the student. “I was dying for a breath!”

“When you feel such a desire for God,” said the guru, “then alone will you realize him.”

So this is Sri Ramakrishna’s message about prayer. Not only must it be done with regularity –

At dusk put aside all duties and pray to God.

– but with earnestness and, above all, great longing. This longing we can cultivate, and, in fact, we can pray to God for the devotion we need to accomplish our goal.

I prayed to the Divine Mother for pure love.  I said to Her: ‘Here is Thy righteousness, here is Thy unrighteousness.  Take them both and give me pure love for Thee.  Here is Thy purity, here is Thy impurity.  Take them both and give me pure love for Thee.  O Mother, here is Thy virtue, here is Thy vice.  Take them both and give me pure love for Thee.

Sri Ramakrishna assures us that God hears our prayers, and will answer them if we but make a little effort.

© 2012 Art MacAilein, Bamboo Thoughts

“Jesus said, ‘Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh recieveth; and he that seeketh findeth: and to him that knocketh it shall be opened… And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, ye shall receive (Mathew 7:7-8; 21:22).’”

Now, I haven’t read the Bible from cover to cover but I’ve never before heard or read that there’s a wrong way to go about it. As a child I prayed with my parents every night before bed. My father and I would kneel side by side, prop our elbows on my bed and say ‘Our Father’ together and end by asking God to bless family and friends and thanking Him for everything. For many years when I prayed that was what I did. In my teenage years I started to develop a relation with Jesus. After saying ‘Our Father’ I would tell Jesus what was worrying me and ask him to help me solve problems, clear obstacles. More recently I’ve been praying for a job. As a recent graduate that’s hardly surprising, and though there have been times I’ve wanted to scream with frustration after praying I’ve always felt much better.

When I pray I speak as I would to someone who is a cross between my best friend and an older brother, one with wisdom, compassion and the ability to help me with anything and everything. My prayers don’t always happen at night before I’m going to bed, while I’m kneeling with my elbows resting on my bed. I pray all the time. Sometimes it’s for help and sometimes it’s just a quick ‘Thank You’ for a cool morning after weeks of heat with the temperatures soaring to almost 40° Celsius. It’s like having God on speed dial, but better because I don’t have to wait for him to pick up the phone because I know He’s listening as soon as I start.

My uncle, the one I went to visit last month, told me that I should pray about specific things. I used to be rather vague in my prayers, but since I’ve started being more focused I feel like I have a better relationship with God. I don’t think that there’s any one right way to pray and that different ways suit different people. All I know is that chatting; confiding and even gossiping a little to Him is how I pray and so far it’s been working out great!

© 2012 Zara Ramaniah, Ropra Ivy

First Prayer – for the appreciation of life’s protective forces:

I offer appreciation to the Shoten Zenjin, the functions in life and in the environment that serve to protect us, and pray that these protective powers may further be strengthened and enhanced through my practice of the Law.

Second Prayer – for the appreciation for the Gohonzon:

I offer my deepest praise and most sincere gratitude to the Dai-Gohonzon of the Three Great Secret Laws, which was bestowed upon the entire world.

I offer my deepest praise and most sincere gratitude to Nichiren Daishonin, the Buddha of the Latter Day of the Law.

I offer my deepest praise and most sincere gratitude to Nikko Shonin.

I offer sincere gratitude to Nichimoku Shonin.

Third Prayer – for the attainment of kosen-rufu:

I pray that the great desire for kosen-rufu is fulfilled, and that the Soka Gakkai International develops eternally in this endeavour.

I offer my most sincere gratitude to the three founding presidents – Tsunesaburo Makiguchi, Josei Toda and Daisaku Ikeda – for their eternal example of selfless dedication to the propagation of the Law.

Fourth Prayer – personal prayers and prayers for the deceased:

I pray to bring forth Buddhahood from within my life, change my karma and to fulfil my wishes in the present and the future.

* Prayers for specific outcomes are brought to mind here.

I pray for my deceased relatives and for all those who have passed away, particularly for these individuals:

* Here we bring to mind the names of those we particularly wish to remember

I pray for peace throughout the world and for the happiness of all humanity.

I think you can see that the prayers are mainly intended to bring to mind the subjects they contain, rather than being any form of communication with a third party. They focus the mind on the desired effect, and are intended to remind us that we need to make the causes ourselves, for the effects we wish to see. We remember the dedication and sacrifices that the founding presidents have made in order to keep the faith alive and the efforts they have made in promoting the religion in the past decades. I feel it is important to mention that although the third prayer mentions the development of the Soka Gakkai International, it is more important that the aim of the SGI to promote peace for all on earth, rather than the organisation itself, is the desired outcome.

Personally, during the forth prayer, where we bring to mind specific outcomes, I remind myself of personal goals, self-improvement, human revolution and the like, as well as thinking of others who are struggling with challenges such as ill health, difficult situations and so on. By bring these things into my consciousness means that I can focus on ways I may resolve my own challenges, or help others resolve theirs. There is no concept of me asking any third party to intervene in the outcome, the responsibility for that is all my own. In that respect, I find Nichiren Buddhism to be a very empowering philosophy. I am taking responsibility for the events occurring in my life, myself. Whilst this puts the onus squarely on my own shoulders, it also gives me control, rather than handing it to any third party  whatsoever.

Far from being an all-knowing, all-seeing deity, I am, like you, a simple human being. So I make mistakes in the decisions and thoughts, words and deeds I perform each and every day. Because I take full responsibility for all those mistakes, I am free to learn from them, rather than ask forgiveness for them. Prayers form a large part in that learning process. By purposefully bringing these erroneous issues into my consciousness, I am able to analyse, evaluate and modify my thinking. By doing this as part of my daily regime, I am forced to constantly confront my failings, and that improves my chances to improve and to increase the scope of  my enlightened nature.

So I hope you can see the contrast between Buddhist prayers and those of other theistic religions. Far from being a form of communication between the person praying and his or her god, it is communication between me and my consciousness. Furthermore, because I accept responsibility for everything that happens in my life, I am forced to search for the causes of the effects I am experiencing, rather than asking ‘why is this happening to me?’. I am tempted to suggest that Nichiren Buddhists do not actually pray at all, in the accepted definition of that word. But although the intended recipient of our prayers could not be more different, the intention behind those prayers can be seen to be very much the same.

© 2012 Anupadin, The Search for Enlightenment

Ellen White had the following to say regarding this reluctance on our part to engage in prayer…

Our heavenly Father waits to bestow upon us the fullness of His blessing. It is our privilege to drink largely at the fountain of boundless love. What a wonder it is that we pray so little! God is ready and willing to hear the sincere prayer of the humblest of His children, and yet there is much manifest reluctance on our part to make known our wants to God. What can the angels of heaven think of poor helpless human beings, who are subject to temptation, when God’s heart of infinite love yearns toward them, ready to give them more than they can ask or think, and yet they pray so little and have so little faith? The angels love to bow before God; they love to be near Him. They regard communion with God as their highest joy; and yet the children of earth, who need so much the help that God only can give, seem satisfied to walk without the light of His Spirit, the companionship of His presence.

Prayer is not always easy to understand. Why ask God for something He already knows about? Will God not do anything for us except we ask Him first? Can our prayers really change what God intends to do; can it change His mind?  Whether we understand what prayer is or not, one thing is certain; without it, as Christians, we are doomed to failure. Prayer is the lifeblood of the soul. I have found throughout my Christian walk, that those times when I needed prayer most, came after periods where I prayed least. I have found that the old adage, that we don’t know what we are missing until its gone, is very relevant at times like these.

God, whose name the Lord informed Moses is merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, (Exodus 34:5,6) demonstrates His character by being precisely what His name above depicts. At those times when I had neglected to pray as often and as constantly as I ought, and found myself in the inevitable spot of bother as a result, and upon realising my predicament and returning to my knees,  am so grateful that I did not hear… “Ha! Serve yourself right! You neglect Me and you get yourself into trouble every time. How many times do I have to remind you! You are weak, stupid, ignorant, self-willed, arrogant, proud, independently minded, and quite frankly, too much trouble to bother with any more. Sort out your own problems. I’m done with you.!!!” On the contrary, what I hear is “Oh my precious son, welcome back! Now, take of My strength, let My grace and power sustain you, trust Me and all things shall work together for your good.” ( Psalm 145:18,19; Luke 15:18-24; Psalm 29:11; Jeremiah 29:11; Isaiah 42:16; 65:24; Romans 8:28.)

Prayer however isn’t only  a cry for help. It is really the only vehicle we have for sustaining our relationship with God, and like any inter-human relationship, to get to know Him we must spend time with Him. If communication is so crucial in our relationships with other people, how can it be less so with God? And if Jesus, the spotless Son of God, Who knew no sin,was without fault, and walked in perfect harmony with the will of His Father throughout His life  needed to pray so often as depicted so clearly throughout the gospels, (see Luke 3:21,22; 6:12,13; 9:28,29; Hebrews 5:7; Matt. 14:23.) how much more do we need to? So the big question remains, and is one I need repeatedly to ask myself. “Why do we pray so little?!” Frankly, I think the answer, for me anyway, is somewhat closely related to something I wrote above. I am weak, stupid, ignorant, self-willed, arrogant, proud, and all too independently minded. (Now I  am allowed to say that, so there is no need for everyone to agree with me okay!) Truly though, it comes down to a matter of choice. How well do we really want to know our Creator? How close do we want to be to Him?

I don’t believe however that I am being dishonest when I say that of late, that is the last three or four months, my prayer life has vastly improved. I have found more consistency, and have found a level of great peace and joy as a result. That’s not to say that there weren’t times in the past when I experienced such peace, nor felt such joy. But of late it is constant, and I am greatly reluctant to allow this to slip, on the contrary, I am convinced there is no limit to the closeness and intimacy we can have with our Lord.

Bottom line, prayer is a serious business. We are called to pray.  Why? Why is it that the Bible tells us:

For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; (2 Corinthians 10:4)

And,

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places   Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.  Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;  And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;  Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.  And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:  Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints. (Eph 6:12-18)

What does that all mean? It means there is a war on. I have seen much evil. I have seen demons, and I have seen angels. I have seen a possessed young woman (now deceased)  face to face speaking to me vehemently in an ancient language with which I am familiar but in a dialect known only to the priestly class. She was not of that class. She was my best friend’s wife. And at that time she had such an expression of hatred for me I have never seen elsewhere since, thank God. She was delivered of that demon, praise God. The point being we are at war. There is a major war going on; a war entailing our entire planet with ramifications throughout all the universe. A war between Christ and Satan, and we are on the frontline. Not only are we on the frontline, we are also the prize. If we aren’t being attacked, maligned, abused, persecuted, talked about, gossiped over, sworn at, cursed, at least some of the time if not all at once constantly, then we are doing something wrong. Satan hates Jesus with a vengeance, with a passion that will never lessen until the day he is destroyed. He however cannot touch Christ personally, but he can certainly touch Him through His followers. That’s you and me. If Satan doesn’t see you as his primary target, if you are no threat to him, then you need to find out why and do something about it. We are called to fight, called to be warriors for Christ. If your Christian walk is a walk in the park with no hassle, no troubles, no obstacles to climb over, no mountains to remove, no rivers to cross, then your on the wrong path.

There is a major world war on folks, a war that will have repercussions that will last for all eternity, a war that will result in more casualties than all other wars put together, and if you cannot see it in your own life or in the lives of your loved ones, your AWOL. Time to fast and pray that God will open your eyes and show you where the enemy is operating. You are called to fight. You will be surprised at how close the battle is. Prayer is your lifeline. It is your sole connection to the source of life and to your sustaining power. It is through prayer that we ensure our remaining connected to the vine. There is great power in prayer. There are conditions however to experiencing the answers we desire. Ellen White puts it like this:

There are certain conditions upon which we may expect that God will hear and answer our prayers. One of the first of these is that we feel our need of help from Him. He has promised, “I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground.” Isaiah 44:3. Those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, who long after God, may be sure that they will be filled. The heart must be open to the Spirit’s influence, or God’s blessing cannot be received. Our great need is itself an argument and pleads most eloquently in our behalf. But the Lord is to be sought unto to do these things for us. He says, “Ask, and it shall be given you.” And “He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?” Matthew 7:7; Romans 8:32 If we regard iniquity in our hearts, if we cling to any known sin, the Lord will not hear us; but the prayer of the penitent, contrite soul is always accepted. When all known wrongs are righted, we may believe that God will answer our petitions. Our own merit will never commend us to the favor of God; it is the worthiness of Jesus that will save us, His blood that will cleanse us; yet we have a work to do in complying with the conditions of acceptance. Another element of prevailing prayer is faith. “He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.” Hebrews 11:6. Jesus said to His disciples, “What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.” Mark 11:24. Do we take Him at His word? (Steps to Christ p95)

In her book Gospel Workers, she writes;

Family prayer and public prayer have their place; but it is secret communion with God that sustains the soul-life. It was in the mount with God that Moses beheld the pattern of that wonderful building which was to be the abiding-place of His glory. It is in the mount with God—the secret place of communion—that we are to contemplate His glorious ideal for humanity. Thus we shall be enabled so to fashion our character-building that to us may be fulfilled the promise, “I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.” [2 Corinthians 6:16.] While engaged in our daily work, we should lift the soul to heaven in prayer. These silent petitions rise like incense before the throne of grace; and the enemy is baffled. The Christian whose heart is thus stayed upon God cannot be overcome. No evil arts can destroy his peace. All the promises of God’s word, all the power of divine grace, all the resources of Jehovah, are pledged to secure his deliverance. It was thus that Enoch walked with God. And God was with him, a present help in every time of need. Christ’s ministers must watch unto prayer. They may come with boldness to the throne of grace, lifting up holy hands without wrath or doubting. In faith they may supplicate the Father in heaven for wisdom and grace, that they may know how to work, how to deal with minds. Prayer is the breath of the soul. It is the secret of spiritual power. No other means of grace can be substituted, and the health of the soul be preserved. Prayer brings the heart into immediate contact with the Well-spring of life, and strengthens the sinew and muscle of the religious experience. Neglect the exercise of prayer, or engage in prayer spasmodically, now and then, as seems convenient, and you lose your hold on God. The spiritual faculties lose their vitality, the religious experience lacks health and vigor.

In summary, when all is said and done, there remains much we do not grasp about prayer. But one thing is certain, and I say this from personal experience. Those who do pray know for sure that prayer changes your life, and changes it for the better.

© 2012 Brendan James, Repairing the Breech