| Original Post |
| Chalkdust Letter to Mr. Patrick Manning :: 07-09-2006 21:19 :: posted by Webmaster |
Dear Mr. Manning,
Kindly accept my most sincere regards as I respectfully submit this letter for your due consideration. It is not often that I write to you, but because of the peculiar circumstances whereby the learned judge, Mr. Peter Jamadar, has come to the personal conclusion that “the creation and continued existence of the Trinity Cross amount to indirect adverse effects discrimination against Hindus and Muslims,”
I am forced to do so. I am particularly concerned with the possible domino-like effect which perhaps you yourself might initiate, not unlike insidious discrimination, against Christians by your sudden decision to remove the Trinity Cross as the nation’s highest award. Certainly, it should have been clear to you that Mr. Jamadar’s conception of the original intentions embodied and motivated by the term Trinity Cross was erroneous. I will explain further.
First of all, Mr. Jamadar, in coming to his legal conclusion, was of the firm opinion that the naming of Trinidad had religious roots, since, according to him, he, Columbus, remembered his vow “to name the first land he saw after the Blessed Trinity.” Thus for Mr. Jamadar, the Trinity Cross is and was from the beginning enveloped in religion, specifically, Christianity. Let me at the onset therefore state that while Columbus was a Catholic and professed the ideals of Catholicism, there is no proof that he ever vowed to name the first land he met after the Trinity. The fact is that the third voyage itself was dedicated to the Holy Trinity and the singing of the Salve Regina, as claimed by Mr. Jamadar as proof of Columbus’ intentions, was a normal everyday prayer of the crew (See Columbus and The age of Discovery by Zvi Dor Ner, 136). While, conceivably, the three peaks of the Northern range might have reminded him of the Trinity, Columbus, on that voyage, was more concerned with finding the continent of South America. On seeing Trinidad he nevertheless wrote, that “for the aloes” and for the “large palm groves…let infinite thanks be given to the Holy Trinity.” It is in that context that the word Trinity fortuitously arose with respect to Trinidad. In addition to the above, the designer of the Trinity Cross has publicly stated that religion didn’t cross her mind when she set out to use the words “Trinity” and “Cross;” rather, she was thinking of the cross as a medium of an award, there being various examples of its use in several countries all over the world. From these above, therefore, one may easily see the flaw in Mr. Jamadar’s scholarship with respect to the original intention effected by the conjunction of the words Trinity and Cross.
Mr. Jamadar himself noted that the Cross has been used “in western civilizations as a symbol for outstanding bravery, heroism, valour and gallantry,” and yet for all, he concluded that here in Trinidad and Tobago, which is of western civilization derivation, it signifies a religious intent. The point to be understood is that while in fact Christians of the western world and we in Trinidad and Tobago do associate a certain type of cross with Christianity and with the crucifixion of Christ, there are several other notable uses of crosses all over the world from since the dawn of civilization, all having different values and symbolisms. To name a few, there was the Egyptian Cross and the cross used in Troy in the Grecian era; these were phallic symbols that were associated with the sun god and represented life and the giver of life. There was the Svastika or Sauvastika Cross that appeared on the famous footprints of Buddha carved upon the Amaravati Tope. In addition, the cross is found in various parts of India throughout India’s historical age (Sat Maraj take note). It was so numerously found in France in the pre-Christian era that various notable French historians such as Messieurs De la Saussage, Lenormant, De Saulcy and Lambert refer to its use. A glance of the coins of Ancient Gaul is sufficient to show that “it existed in nearly every part of the continent 1000 years before Christ.” History also records the use of the Greek Cross, the Maltese Cross, the Celtic Cross, the Calvary Cross, the Lorraine Cross, the St. Andrews Cross, the St. Anthony’s Cross and even Double-Cross, itself a cross. The evidence thus suggests that the Trinity Cross, as with other crosses, can well remain associative with a pertinent, desired and acclaimed intention by any population, even Christianity for some, as well as with valour, honesty and gallantry for others. The various symbols and characteristics may not be mutually exclusive.
In terms of the concept of the trinity, Mr. Jamadar, in my respectful opinion, went at length to prove that the East Indians do not nor have ever related to the Trinity. As such, he went on to say that it was “inaccurate to suggest that there are concepts equivalent to the Christian concepts of “trinity’ and “cross” in Hinduism, and that the “Trimurti” of Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma in the Hindu pantheon “is the same one unmanifested Brahman, but is called by different names.” Mr. Jamadar may be versed in law, but not in history or philosophy, for there have existed in the world, including India, several references to beliefs in a trinity of gods. So strong was the belief in the “Trimurti” as one god in ancient India that historian Joseph Geer was forced to remind East Indians of this oneness of the three gods in his book “What the Religions Believe” (page 25 onwards), and famed Indian writer Rammohan Ray sought in the early 19th century to purge it out of East Indian philosophy and religion.. It is a fact that although those Hindus who particularly worship either Vishnu or Shiva generally consider one or the other as their favourite god and as the Lord and Brahman in its personal aspect, Vishnu is often regarded as a special manifestation of the “preservative” aspect of the Supreme and Shiva as that of the “destructive” function. Another deity, Brahma, the personification of the impersonal Brahman, remains in the background as a demiurge. These three great figures (Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva) constitute the so-called Hindu trinity (Trimurti, - the one or whole with three forms). This conception attempts to synthesize and harmonize the conviction that the Supreme Power is singular with the plurality of gods in daily religious worship. It is true to say however, that although the concept of the Trimurti assigns a position of increasing importance to some great gods, it never has become a living element in the religion of the masses. This latter might have been the conundrum which Mr. Jamadar had to confront. But certainly, it is born of ignorance rather than through in-depth scholarly research. Moreover, Brahma since ancient times has had no cult worth mentioning, and many Hindus worship neither Shiva nor Vishnu but one or another of the innumerable other Hindu gods.
Not only has the trinity concept been a part of Hinduism for ages, the people of Ancient Babylon believed and prayed to the three-in-one god concept of Ninas, Istar and Tammuz; similarly in ancient Rome, there was the single godhead of Jupiter, Fortuna and Mercury, while the Egyptians honoured as one God, the pantheon of Osiris (Nimrod), Isis (Semiramis), and Horus (the Son). See “Exploring Ancient History-The First 2,500 years,” by Schulz, Ch.11:24). In addition to all these believers in the trinity, it must be further understood that for the first three centuries before the Nicene Creed was made absolute by the Council of Nice in 325 C.E., Christians and others believed in the oneness of God made manifest in three persons.
Mr. Jamadar is, therefore, inaccurate to state that the trinity is news to Hindus and others, and that the concept is disrespectful to non-Christians. Moreover, it must be emphatically stated that the trinity concept which is basic to the faith of all Christians does not state that there are three gods; rather, the Christians believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all one and the same God. The Muslims then ought not to feel disrespected by the Trinity concept for like them, Christians know and believe that--call him what you will, Allah, Jehovah or Yahweh--there is and will ever be one God.
In terms of the relationships between East Indians and Christians in Trinidad and Tobago, Mr. Jamadar went at great length to show that over the years, particularly in the 19th century, the East Indian population experienced alienation and marginalization, as the Christians and the Elitist colonials showed discrimination toward them in matters of class, labour and religion. As proof of the neglect which befell Indians, Mr. Jamadar quotes Dr. Eric Williams and the Keenan report of 1869 to underscore the poor treatment meted out to East Indians. What Mr. Jamadar did not say is that the very same Keenan and the very author Dr. Williams in the very same book from which he quoted pointed out the countless examples of discrimination and societal inequalities that were also meted out to the Africans in Trinidad and Tobago. Keenan in fact went the extra mile to show why Africans then were backward educationally and why they could not ascend the social ladder in terms of education, occupation and social acceptance.
Above all, Mr. Manning, Mr. Jamadar neglected to show that the very same Christians whom he accused of discriminating against East Indians were the ones who went at great length to bring education, as a tool for stability and equality, to the East Indian minority. In addition, Christians have contributed rather handsomely to the social welfare and evangelization of East Indians from 1845 until the present day. Mr Jamadar and Mr. Sat Maraj, not being historians, may not have known that it was twelve Roman Catholic nuns who took care of the East Indian lepers at the Leper Asylum founded at Cocorite in 1841, and that by 1887, there were 558 East Indian lepers there as patients. Moreover by 1893, only one nun was alive, the others having caught the disease; they gave their lives for East Indians in this country.
Mr. Jamadar forgot to state that the Belmont Orphanage was founded by a Roman Catholic priest, Fr. Forestier, and that a vast number of homeless East Indian children and youth found solace there. In 1887, out of 75 orphans, 50 were Hindu children. So thankful were the East Indians for this help, that they bequeathed 306 pounds sterling to that institution when certain Indians died on board the ship “Silhet” while returning to India. Nor did Mr. Jamadar mention the number of East Indians who were educated at Roman Catholic primary schools, a move for which Mr. Keenan had commended the Catholics, and that the Catholic Board of Education built three primary schools, two in Port of Spain and one in San Juan, especially for East Indian children. Famed Fr. Cothonay who wrote extensively on the carnival reminded us that Catholic priests did so much for East Indians that one of them, Fr. Ribon, was nicknamed “the coolie priest.”
Need I mention the work of the Catholics in Siparia where the Virgin Mary has been venerated by East Indians there for years to the extent that she is known as “Siparia Mai?” Need I mention the Catholic monastery of Mt. St. Benedict that has been a sanctuary for East Indians since their day of arrival? I happened to attend, in the mid 1950s, St. Mary’s College and there was a standing joke among us students there, that the reason why the East Indians, notably the Hindus, did so well at Cambridge Overseas Examinations was on account of the fact that while we prayed and studied Catholicism for 45 minutes daily, they were doing home work and cramming French and Maths, since attendance at religious devotions and classes was not for them mandatory. Such extra time for cramming was the reason why boys like Neville Jankey beat the hell out of us, and Rudy Pigott and Lloyd Best at QRC shone over us, since they too didn’t have to attend to matters religious there.
I can show too, that the hand of friendship and love that was extended to East Indians by Catholics was also extended to them by the Presbyterians headed by Mr. John Morton, and by Anglicans as well, but space does not permit. I must briefly state, however, that before the advent of the Canadian Missionaries and Mr. Morton, the Anglicans built six schools, one of which was the Tacarigua Orphanage, for East Indians. The Canadian missionaries by 1911 had 61 schools for East Indians and continued the evangelization and education started by Mr. John Morton who began his missionary zeal in 1868 in Iere village on the doorsteps of the tapia home of an East Indian immigrant. When Mr. Peter Jamadar states then that in coming to his conclusion re the use of the Trinity Cross, that the “relevant historical, sociological, cultural and religious contexts must be considered,” and these must “include the perspectives of Hindus and Muslims who have lived and are living in this society,” but neglects to show the charity and love that was extended and continue to be extended to the very East Indians by the Christian community and one may add, by a local Christian government, then unfortunately, his findings must be utterly skewed. Calypsonian Smiley has a saying: “A shilling has two sides.” One needs no Privy Council to so conclude.
I honestly am of the opinion that the wiles of Mr. Sat Maraj have been extended to our courts of law to test the application of the Trinity Cross as an award for all citizens only because of the writings and challenges posed to traditional Hindu culture by famed Rammohan Ray who was born in British-ruled Bengal in 1772. After studying and rewriting the Upanisads (ancient and holy books of the East Indians) into Bengali and Hindi, Ray attacked missionary Baptists, challenged Christian supremacy and the concept of the Holy Trinity in India.
I and countless citizens are of the opinion, Mr. Manning, that, given the sociological background under which it was established, the Trinity Cross is national in scope and function and not religious, even though the name espouses a religious concept in the hearts of many. It is like a wrapped dhalpouri roti, which though East Indian by linguistic translation and modified eastern origin and history, is economically and socially Trinidadian in function.
It must be understood that the Hindus were at no time in our history in the majority. In terms of the numerical population, Trinidad and Tobago has always been a Christian country. Mr. Jamadar himself points out this fact on page 10 of his report. He shows that in censuses taken in 1871, 1946, 1960, and 1970, persons of East Indian descent have always been in the minority. Rev. Fr. Harricharan has shown: that in 1895, the non-Christian population was a mere 30 percent (see The work of the Christian Churches among the East Indians in Trinidad, page 22); that of the total population of 70,000 in Trinidad in 1851, the Catholics numbered 44, 000 (see The Catholic Church in Trinidad by John Harricharan, page 132). What all this adds up to is that one cannot take the history of thousands of Christians who have laboured in the vineyard for centuries and throw it all down into the abyss of forgetfulness and despair in one fell swoop, simply because one of the Christian traditions appear unfriendly to a non-Christian? To do so is to show total disrespect for history, the numerous dead and the tens of thousands who have given their all to Trinidad and Tobago. Moreover, it is total disrespect for all the Trinbagonian Christians who are not yet born, and who because of the wiles of a few mischievous and attention-grabbing persons may never hear of or understand fully, the holy, viable and extant traditions of their ancestors. This is not politics, Mr. Manning; this is culture; this is life. It was Aristotle, speaking on democracy, who said: One principle of liberty is for all to rule and be ruled in turn, and indeed democratic justice is the application of numerical not proportionate equality.” It was Abraham Lincoln who intoned: “You cannot help the poor by overtaxing the rich.” Paradoxically, you cannot help the non-Christians by trampling upon the traditions of the Christians. History, Mr. Manning, will condemn you.
Faithfully,
In History and Culture,
________________________________
Dr. Hollis U. Liverpool (Chalkdust).
Dr. Hollis Liverpool,
Associate Professor of History,
University of the Virgin Islands,
St. Thomas. USVI. 00802.
Of Christianity, the Cross and Domination
Woe unto you, lawyers!
For ye have taken away the key of knowledge. (St. Luke XI: 52)
It would seem that my letter to Mr. Manning on the Trinity Cross brought out many persons who, in trying to depreciate the article, showed that they had rotting skeletons in their cupboards. Of the detractors, I will not answer Sat Maraj, for he is one who insulted me in front of the prime minister some years ago and I only counsel the doubtful who have respect for other human beings. In addition, the tone of his diatribe was one of continued disrespect for me and my point of view. Your correspondent Balgobin Ramdeen, on the other hand, felt that I was insolent to Mr. Justice Jamadar in saying that his judgement reflected “a personal opinion” and that he was not aware that I was schooled in philosophy. Let me tell Mr Ramdeen at the onset that it would surprise him to know that I hold a Post-Graduate Certificate in philosophy from the University of Michigan, one of the top five universities in the U.S. Secondly, if the Jamadar’s judgement on the Trinity Cross was not a personal one, whose was it? What worries people like Balgobin Ramdeen is the fact that they continue to feel that all lawyers hold the monopoly on intellectualism and that it is insolent to criticize a High Court judge. Well, I fear neither Balgobin nor Jamadar or any other legal mind when it comes to expounding the historical truth. For the records, I will not deal with Ramdeen’s folly where he quotes William Durant’s “Story of Civilization” written in 1927 to show us in 2006 that India is the mother of all philosophy and learning. To believe that, according to Marion O’Callaghan in another press article, would be tantamount to reducing scholarship to absurdity. If he, however, wishes me to take him up on the variables of Sanskrit and learning, I am ever so willing.
The problem with the Trinity Cross, as far as persons who want it changed are concerned, appears not to be the Trinity or the Cross. Last week at the Arima Race track, a well-known punter of East Indian origin accused me of racism towards the East Indian community. The fool did not even realize that in stating my stand for the non-removal of the award, I spoke for thousands of East Indians who are religiously Christians. Unwittingly, the punter was echoing the racism of many anti-Trinitarians domiciled here.
Ramdeen is, however, a different kettle of fish; he tacitly accepts the Christian perspective of the Western world and is so awed by the power of Christianity that he taught it to students based on his own interpretation of the texts of the Bible. Therein his problem lies and the problem with so many others of his ilk. They understand neither Christianity nor Catholicism. In addition to their ignorance of the faith, they associate Christianity with dominance and political power and thus fear that such dominance will, over time, marginalize their wealth, status and non-Christian faith and even dull their intellectual capacity, when in an arena of Christian academia. They know that the word “Trinity” and the Cross will always exist in this part of the world and view such symbols as an obstacle to their progress. It is that obstacle for which the symbols present a new role of dominance that will forever perturb their non-Christian minds. They see themselves as a subordinate group and thereby they create, out of its ordeal, a hidden transcript that represents a critique of power behind the back of the dominant. One cannot fail to see the elements of attack on Christianity already mined in Balgobin Ramdeen’s apology for a response. Those who have eyes to see let them see.
The valid fact is, today, the western world is Christian and seems relentlessly to be continuing in this mode. Of course, it allows other religions a niche to exist yet it continues to prevail, even though fragmented. The essence of Jesus Christ, the risen Son of God, prevails and as a living, evolving church is a powerhouse of authority and influence worldwide. Therefore, the inherent problem of the Trinity Cross is really its claim to dominance in the minds of some citizens and its connotations of man’s invincibility as a religious emblem through the vicissitudes of earthly life.
History shows that, to a large extent, survival and growth of the western world have been through doctrine and though Trinidad and Tobago is not as populous and numerically significant as India or China, yet every western Christian citizen reflects the ponderous glory of a human being made in the image of God, in their worship of the Saviour. It is this visible dominance of the Christian spirit which prevails in Trinidad and Tobago and which tends to conjure up illusory elements of unfair treatment to others in all secular matters associated with popular mainstream behaviour and culture. Christianity is about both heaven and earth for those who sincerely believe in it. Thus, the removal of the Christian symbol in relation to earthly affairs from its Christian society unwittingly leaves the land open to betrayals and elements of chicanery from opposing forces. This hideous face of the petticoat that Ramdeen et al are showing under the disguise of intangibles of unfair treatment is manifestly the predicted domino effect that caused me to address my letter to Mr. Manning, coming after those with rubber band pellets of occluded hate. But I am a Catholic; hence I am not angry.
Removal of the Trinity Cross and calls for or institution of other symbols will set the stage for a new fundamental (Dr. Brereton please note). However, the paradigm will not be a secular state, as has been iterated, or an irreligious one, but of a new ideology pertaining to an invasive doctrine of an alternate culture. It is patently naïve to expect Trinidad and Tobago with its two religious divides to evolve into secularism. No such elements are in the equation so they cannot be evident in a solution except one of incipient nihilism, when we shall have begun the cold war against any moral establishment. Frankly, this is not far-fetched, since it will not introduce doomsday in Trinidad, but only proceed to vomit plagues of ill-will, in tiny spurts of malevolence, violence and hate in order to maintain constant confusion. I daresay the plague has already started, thanks to men like Balgobin Ramdeen.
Ramdeen’s interpretation of the Godhead is so incorrect and is misguided by an understanding of his own brand of Hinduism when he innocently proclaims that there are three gods in Christianity. It appears difficult for him to conceive of an acceptance of the abstraction of three persons in one God, as Catholics do, yet he is proud of his students for having passed their external examinations for Cambridge. He was always a lucky lawyer, but alas, he is truly a lucky man. His writing shows that he neither understands the words “Mystery” nor “Trinity” as they relate to the Catholic Church. Space does not allow me to state all the ramifications of the Holy Trinity; I will do so probably in another article, if the editor permits. The fact is that the “mystery” of the Trinity has been so revealed by God through the liturgy and the scriptures that the Catholic Church has pronounced it as the dogma of the Holy Trinity. It is now the central mystery of the Christian faith and of Christian life. Ramdeen claims that we Christians have three gods: “the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” For the records, Mr. Ramdeen, we Catholics worship one God in the Trinity in unity, without either confusing the persons or dividing the substance; for the person of the Father is one, the Son’s is another, the Holy Spirit’s another; but the Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal. Ramdeen also appears not to understand the meaning of the word “mystery” in the liturgy. He writes as though it is something that the Church does not understand, and consequently I, as a layman, cannot comprehend. Let me therefore tell Ramdeen that Christ’s Paschal life is itself a mystery; there is too, the Paschal mystery in the sacraments of the Church. The plan of God, which is realized in history, is mysterious. A mystery, dear Mr. Ramdeen, is only a way of designating revealed truths and was a response of the Catholic Church to those intellectual movements of the 18th and 19th centuries such as Rationalism and the Enlightenment, which were seen as threats to the idea of a sacred revelation; such movements claimed that revelation was irrational. The affirmation of mystery meant that the reality of God was unattainable to unaided human reason. Mystery does not mean the incomprehensible or the unintelligible; it means, in common language, that man cannot know who God is or what God is doing or why God is doing it unless God tells him. And God has revealed to us several areas in the scriptures pertaining to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as one God. And Ramdeen says that to Hindus “ignorance is the greatest sin!” Obviously, he must be devoid of all Karma by now.
And for God’s sake Mr. Ramdeen, in my article I explained that Hindus also possessed the Trinity in their use of the Sanskrit word “Trimurti.” Neither I nor Joseph Geer, whom I quoted, ever said that Hindus have three gods; indeed, we spoke of the three named gods or persons as one. How you as a learned lawyer reach that conclusion confounds me, for I am sure that your reading capability is beyond university level. But having tried to demean me, you went on to demean Fr. Moses, something that no real Hindu does. You ask that we do not denigrate one another, yet you seek to denigrate Fr. Moses by going so far as to hint that the Pentecostals are “raiding” his “flock” and by subtly referring to him as a “hypocrite.” What a great Hindu you are! By now you no longer possess any karma.
The Catholic Church is a missionary one, Mr. Ramdeen. It has a divine mandate to preach the gospel of Christ to all. “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and Lo, I am with you always, until the close of the age” (Mt. 28: 19-20). The Lord’s missionary mandate is ultimately grounded in the eternal love of the Most Holy Trinity. Do you see how important the Trinity is to Catholics? Do you see Christ’s revelation of the Trinity in Scripture? Because the Church in the persons of people like Leela Ramdeen and Fr. Moses believe in God’s universal plan of salvation, it must be missionary. Fr. Moses is not proselytizing; he, like all good Catholics, is a missionary of God’s spoken word. Furthermore, in accordance with the revealed word of God as seen in the writing of Matthew, the Decree on the Apostolate of Lay People, in keeping with Vatican II, calls upon Catholics everywhere to be “on the lookout for occasions of announcing Christ by word.” The apostolate has the noble task of winning souls for God and Vatican II has called upon that body to seek out and evangelize those especially who do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who, nevertheless, seek God with a sincere heart and, moved by grace, try to do his will.
Finally Ramdeen, in making your case to remove the Trinity Cross, you stated that the mark of a civilized society is “respect for the minority.” You are quite right, but “cetera desunt.” You must add: “A civilized society must have respect for the minority as well as the majority.” And famed Wendell Phillips added: “One on God’s side is a majority.”
Dr. Hollis U. Liverpool,
Associate Professor of history,
University of the Virgin Islands.
St. Thomas, USVI.
|
|
:: 0 ::
|
|
| Comments |
| No comments have been made yet. |
|
