Why are we always under attack? No, I’m not talking about terrorism; I’m talking about our culture’s religion stigma. It is often said that religion is the root cause of most of the problems in the world today. It is easy to understand why one would think that. If we examine all the world conflicts going on, many of them (or at least the ones that make the headlines) have something to do with religious conflict. Several secularists tell me that religious fundamentalism is to blame for the plight of our world today. I take great issue with this mentality and would like to explain why.
When we talk about fundamental religious groups we often discuss groups like Al-Qaida, or those kids from “Bible Camp”, but no one ever seems to mention my favorite group of religious fundamentalists; the Quakers. That’s right; Quakers, or rather the Society of Friends, by all means should be considered fundamentalists. These crazy extremists adhere to the fundamentals of their religion so strongly that they won’t even fight in wars! I know what some of you are thinking, ‘what’s the point of religion if not to start wars?’ and that is just my point.
It has become all too comfortable in our society to assume that religion is the primary cause of war and suffering. Religious fundamentalists are just that; people who practice the fundamentals of a religion, and as a professor of mine once said, “what’s the point of having a religion if you aren’t going to practice it?” It’s okay though; I don’t blame everyone for thinking like this. We are products of our time, and often lack the bigger picture that could help us shake off this stigma of religion, so prevalent in our culture.
First let me point out the fact that there are many ideologies that influence the behavior of societies that have nothing to do with religion. Just an examination of 20th century history would explain my point. Nationalism, for quite sometime, has been the key subject of confrontation in Europe, and recently the Middle East. World War one is a perfect example. Slavic nationalism led to the perpetual unfolding of events that caused the war, and Arab nationalism sprung up in the Ottoman Empire. During World War 2, Hitler’s idea of a supreme Arian race was not a religiously inspired idea, but a nationalist one that envisioned a greater Germany.
I would argue that even conflicts that seem religious on the service are really nationalist. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a perfect example. Israel is certainly a Jewish state, ethnically. Israel is not Jewish in the sense that national law is derived from religious law. There are many secular groups in Israel, and this does not make them less Israeli. Palestinians on the other hand are not monolithically Muslim. There were (although the numbers are rapidly decreasing) a significant number of Christian Palestinians. As a matter of fact there are Christian and Muslim citizens of Israel. This conflict, which many feel the need to describe in apocalyptic terms, is really one about the emergence of two national movements in the same territory that is if you acknowledge both sides as legitimate national movements, which I do.
Also, we cannot ignore the drive of economics. Economic factors always have a role in global affairs. Most often, nations are driven by their particular interest. Economics and economic philosophies have been they cause of many conflicts involving our own nation, more so than religion, even though the United States has the highest church attendance in the western world.
Hermeneutics has grown in popularity, and with it the idea that meaning is not inherent in a text, but is negotiated between the text’s author and the reader or observer. I bring this up because this is vital to breaking this religion-stigma. The religion itself, and by that I mean the text and fundamentals of the religion, are usually not the cause of conflict. However, it cannot be denied that religion plays a large role in many of the world conflicts today. This is where hermeneutics is important. The meaning of a text is negotiated. We bring something to the text, which influence how we interpret it. Therefore, before you blame the Bible or Qur’an think to yourself, can these words really be causing us all this pain? No, it’s the other half, the interpreter that derives a message from this text, that free will on the other side of the page.
This is the key. Faith is a powerful thing, but faith cannot be handed to you in a book, and neither can hate. Whether it is religion, nationalism, or economics, we ultimately decide how we will act. So do not be afraid of religion, after all other intangible ideas such as Freedom and Liberty can inspire conflict or reconciliation just as much as religion. We need to learn how to embrace religion and find ways to help it unite us in a humanizing manner, not divide us. After all, we don’t need religion to divide us; we can do that all on our own.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Let's face it. Religion is here to stay; for no other system resonates so profoundly with the heart of humanity.
One of the major arguments on both sides of the debate is the matter of killing. Religious people say that Hitler, Stalin, & Mao were all atheists & killed because they didn't have the morality that faith provides; atheists say that suicide bombers and Christian zealots who bomb abortion clinics are doing so in the name of their religion. Both are true, in their respected historical ways, however I discredit that in BOTH sides. I don't think there are bad religions (or good ones either) just bad people. You give a bad person a reason to kill & they'll jump on it, but you give a good person a reason & they'll hold back.
Also, morality & humanity come from within, from the HUMANity which makes us differ from the animals, in that we are aware of ourselves, "conscious of our consciousness" so to speak. Religion has nothing to do with it. To imply that without religion we are left with no morals is to insult all of humanity.
I think this debate is really between religion and morality as stated above by Andrea. Religion defines a person and unites them, however it is a person's morality that determines their actions. Religion does play an important role in how a person sees the world but the morality of a person-there principles and ideals- are truly what determine their actions.
Take the example of a terrorist- usually they attack "radically" to show their reaction to a certain situation/incident etc. which in fact represents their reaction to the injustice against their religious or ethnic group. Now that reaction can be dubbed as very extreme-but thats the way a certain amount of people decided to react to the situation (whether or not it be a good representation of that religious/ethnic group.) The religion aspect has nothing to do with that terrorist groups interpretation of "retaliation" is because it's merely based on their own principles and ideals. Its just that they ultimately decide to give themselves a title that affliates them to a religion/ethnic group.
If we look at another example. After the Holocaust, Germans had a bad rep and were mostly called Nazis by the whole world even though most Germans probably didnt agree or know about the methods used against the Jews. After Hilter, German people are more likely to be associated with the Nazis-whether it be jokingly or not. There are many more examples like this, but my final point being the world tries to create generalizations about people and their religions and culture based on the action of an extremist group. We tend to stereotype and make assumptions (or whatever you would like to call it) that are creating divides in society.
On a whole
I agree with the article, awesome job. Also, Sorry If I seem a tad off topic.
The problem with generalizations is that while they do seem to advocate "lumping" and "racial profiling", etc., they are usually based in some loose stem of truth. After 9/11 people of the Islamic faith came forward to maintain that these suicide bombers, these "extremists" as they're called, were absolutely NOT the epitome of the Islamic faith. These people came forward basically to say "do not judge Islam or its people by the actions of these few evil men" .... HOWEVER, then a man came forward who said that while suicide is forbidden in Islam, martyrdom is not. If you kill yourself because you're depressed & sad, you'll go to "hell" but if you do it in an expression of your faith & to kill some infidels, then you go to "heaven" with the 72 virgins. Of course not ALL people of the Islamic faith are evil, and of course they don't ALL condone suicide bombing, in fact I'm sure most don't...BUT if the glorification of martyrdom is in the Qu'ran, there's no going around that. It either is or it isn't. It becomes less about generalizations and more about truth.
Post a Comment