Religion is Evil
No right-thinking and well-informed individual will deny that organized religion has been the source of much historical conflict and misery to people. It still is in many places - draconian theocracies, religious riots, religion-inspired terrorism are all part of the present geopolitical makeup. Despite all this negativity, there is no way to ignore its power and sway over people. Only a section in the Enlightened West that is steeped in scientific materialism and prosperity, and a concomitant number of Westernized urban elites from other cultures, can really claim to zero necessity for religion in their lives. Most of this section looks down on religion, and the reasons range from the political dimensions (religious authoritarianism for example) to religion violating reason and scientific temper, and of being of little practical value in a modern way of life.
The attitude, if overdone, can sometimes lead to snobbery, and surprisingly monolithic ideas about how all religion is uniformly bad. Muslim terrorists blow themselves up, Catholic priests rape children, and the Hindus observe a caste-apartheid, and that most if not all of them are patriarchal and discriminatory : that's the most remarkable contribution of religion, or so it is made out in the popular liberal discourse.
Religion is an ancient instinct stemming from man's desire to make sense of things and instill some faith to enable him to cope with the travails of existence . Social order and morality have come to be structured around it, and like it or not, a large section of the human population still today derives its sense of purpose and conscience from religious principles. The good that religion impels them to do would never get reported in the liberal media. One might hazard that rational thinking and material prosperity renders traditional religion redundant, but for the majority who have little access to education and material contentment it still is a way of life.
In medieval Europe when survival itself was a major concern, monks carried on a tradition of learning. Classical scholarship was transmitted by the clergy. Gregor Mendel, the guy who discovered genetics, was an ordained monk. When other societies came to be subjugated by Western imperialism, some of them withdrew into spiritual excesses to give themselves a sense of security. This is why Christianity came to be so enthusiastically appropriated in the New World, among Native Americans and African slaves alike. When the Conquistadors imposed their rule of loot and rapine, it were a few monks who stood up for native rights, who conducted studies on their cultures, which though condescending, were necessary to protect an entire body of knowledge from extinction. (Well it is impossible to argue that they were not doing missionary work of conversion on the side too.)
In Asian societies, religion has always been a central fact of life. Great philosophies as well as practical moral codes have their roots in religion. Buddhist monks have led protests against oppressive (and secular) military juntas in Burma, in Vietnam. In many parts of the Third World, where people still look up to religious leaders, some of the most noted political activists and pacifists have been religious figures - a classic example being Desmond Tutu , the South African archbishop who stood up to Apartheid. Catholic priests buttressed the progressive Sandinista movement in Nicaragua, and brought sense and succor to people caught between government and rebels in many other Latin American revolucions. Not to mention the great work done in education and social work by the likes of Mother Teresa. Hindu revivalism as epitomized by the likes of Vivekananda and Dayanand Saraswati, provided a key anti-colonial strategy. Gandhi himself used religion to good effect to appeal to the masses. The Islamic revolution in Iran was a kneejerk reaction against the Shah's feudal politics, that then unfortunately degenerated into totalitarianism. One of the key anti-Nazi movements within Germany, the White Rose group, were actually Christian democrats.
Posts
4 comments:
Interesting post. I have a few objections, though.
1. I have never heard a liberal say that religion is evil. This is a very simplistic approach that no true liberal would adopt.
2. The only kind of person who thinks and speaks in terms of things being "evil" is a religious person. A non-religious liberal would not operate with the categories of evil and, ergo, would not say that religion is evil.
3. In Europe, the medieval period was a moment of high tolerance in matters of religion. In Spain, Jews, Muslims and Christians coexisted for centuries in what is known as "the culture of tolerance." The "medieval monstrosities" you talk about actually belong to the Renaissance era. The Renaissance positioned itself as a moment of awakening from the "dark times" of the Middle Ages. However, this was nothing other than an ideological manipulation. Persecutions of heretics, expulsions of Jews and Muslims took place during the Renaissance. In the Middle Ages, a Muslim king of one of the taifa kingdoms on the Iberian Peninsula had no problem with having a Jewish vizier or a Jewish army commander.
Hi Clarissa, thanks for reading and commenting on this post. Admittedly I have been somewhat intemperate and oxymoronic with my choice of language, but that was with a purpose. Of course no right-thinking liberal would deal in binary categories, and adhering to dogmas while calling yourself liberal is itself paradoxical (which is what the post tries to bring out). While they would not be dumb enough to proclaim "religion is evil" (that's my own dramatic exaggeration), I do find a certain sense of elitism in many educated/sophisticated liberals who tend to look down as a rule upon religion. The usually liberal press would jump on an act of child abuse by a priest but entirely overlook the good community service that the church might be doing. I should like to see liberals have a more mature and practical attitude towards something that still seems to matter so much to so many people instead of distancing oneself from it outright.
You make a good point about the Renaissance-created myth of the Dark Ages. I am aware of the tolerance practised by the Moorish rulers of Spain. But what about the rest of Europe? While the Renaissance was pretty bad, the Crusades and the persecution of Jews who were believed to poison wells happened
before that.
Religion is certainly more fundamental in society than science can ever imagine to be. If religion was dispensable it would not have stood the test of time. Not in the digital age.
Along with evolution in society, religious practices and their understandings have evolved. Frowning upon religion does not make us any more educated than the 'superstitious' who frown upon science.
Great analysis.
loved this one. eta in person alochona korte chai, actually. jodio, tor aar aamar motamot bhalo rokom i ak. :-)))
Post a Comment