Religion is such a inundatingly vast and controversial topic that the method of approaching it is itself much of quandary. Perhaps because of the old saying that therein every religion "lies a sacred cow", that many people tend to hold the reins and pull the brakes before deciding whether or not to put forth that kind of unrestrained, unfettered comments they have in mind. Richard Dawkins, one of the most critical, vocal aethist of the 21st century, echoed this point in his book " The God Delusion", by arguing that there was seemingly something so divinely and so sacrosanct in religion that any mere benign arguments against religion is seen as act of disrespect, indignation or blasphemy. In the area of social discourse, the unrestricted freedom to voice one's view is the greatest impetus to change and improvement, but in the field of religion, this freedom is notably absent. Thus in a way religion is quite a rarefied realm of its own, unlike what Dawkin has alluded to, religious comments, or even arguments against religion, are not the usual ubiquitous movie,restaurant critique one can find in any newspaper. Religion is an, quite simply put, exceptional case.
Modern world religion takes the many different shapes and sizes. Christianity for example stresses more on proactive proselytization - and it is little wonder that the South korean christian community, as stated in The Economist, has grown dramatically over the past few years. Many skeptics has posed question to this startling rate of religious growth, accruing this phenomenom to aggressive tactics as aforesaid. Churches are now involved in a drive in a scale larger than ever - and the outreach of church has been favourably bolstered by the increase in the number and scale of churches and the permeation of christianity - related materials. Even the recent connondrum regarding the Christians evangelical groups being held hostage in Iraq has lent a voice to the up and rising Christian community in South Korea. It is hard to resist thie overarching tidal wave of influence, especially, as some critics have claimed, when many people are emotionally yielding, faltering, prostrate and irresolute. Such a quivery form of human nature definitely opens doors to religious doctrines, especially in times of uncertainty.
But one must scratch the surface and go beyond mere cursory observations. In a world that is changing so rapidly - for better or worst - people derive huge comfort in knowing that there is something static and constant amidst the overwhelming drive of change. For overnight merchants could become paupers and technology barriers be overrun; fear is creeping into people who feel that this uncertainty is certainly too much for them to bear. For them, religions provides a source of comfort that amidst a transient and ephemeral world lies an eternal being that is resistant to all changes.
Some people argued that globalisation has taken its toll, both physically and psychologically on mankind. Many people argued that through the pervasive trangression of Western pop culture beyond national boundaries, even beyond cultural markers, religion was the only pivot left that people could cling on to amidst the purported sludge of decadence. People see globalisation, and and the spill over effect of cultural permeation as not only an impugnation on their way of life, but also a derision against their culture and a smack in the face of morality; something that many had believed to be a scarce trait, barely traceable in modern 21 st century. People see this Western influence as invasive, akin to a malignant cancerous cells that spreads throughout the body with such impunity and such audacity, and in short- as a retrogression, into a dismal state of disrepair and decline. Claiming that with the influx of offensive culture by products such as pornography (which is ironic since Asia itself is as culpable for the pornography culture, if not more), such as homsexuality, such as upsized fast food chain and degrading movie which spreads anti establishment values. So it is not quite difficult to see how panicky and disorientated some of them have been - and quite simply, they revel in the solace and comfort that God could provide. In this age where morality is as subjective as it gets, The Bible could just be their answer to a universal code of moraliy - something they believed to be unchanging and cast in stone throughout the various historical nodes. And they believe that such religious teachings could reverse the tide of western erosion of values and even self degradation- for the teaching of Bible focuses on the issue of redemption and salvation. People are becoming increasingly afraid, even to the extent of disillusioned, thanks in no small part to constantly reminders from media, from environment, and even from preachings that mankind is indeed headed for doomsday because humans are irredeemably and unrepentantly sinful. This enchanched the perennial sense of guilt and fear, two very potent ingredients for religiosity. After all, when one sees such casual, loose and florid display of catastrophes in the media - the very sort of news that could sensationalize and captivate - one is predisposed to guilt and repentance. And God would be their answer to the unresolved problems on Earth that seemed never ending.
Of course, then there are those who view religion as more of a personal compass. Religion has for many, become more of a lifestyle where they have an avenue to vent their frustration or seek solace amidst the bedlam of globalisation and even technological progress. Indeed, many pined for the supposed halcyon days when society is much more organised, structured and definitely more ordered. Comparatively, the modern world seems more of a messy and clumsy heap of dischords and incongruity, with no moral diction whatsover to guides its course. People feel there is the presence of an omniscient, omnipotent power that far supercedes and circumvents the limits and boundaries of human capabilities. This superlative form of being is so enamoured by many because people feel gratified that even in times of despair and travail, someone is there to aid, to administer, to remedy. Even the mere thought of it would bring infinite comfort to people - people who question the incapacity of humanity and also humanely beings to transfuse the ultimate values of love and compassion to one another. Only religion is able to offer this.
Of course, religion itself is prone to competition, both from outside and within. As mentioned earlier, Christianity itself is centered on active proselytization, which may be seen as jeopardizing the interest of other religion due to their aggresive push. Buddhism on many other hand relies more on self enlightenment and attainment, and so methods of recruitment are kept at bay and mostly innocuous and less pronounced than Christianity. But as of late, the unusually encroaching, rampant execution of unbridled proselytization has pertubed many religious leaders - in what many see as an encroachment of religious berth and territory. Hence in a rather visceral, knee jerk reaction fashion, Buddhists in Korea , usually receded from public domaina and precincts, have emerged and clamoured to build more monastaries in a bid to breathe amidst stifling greater clout from competing religion. this situation is real - and it is excarcebating. And in time, it might just trigger a potential clash between religions and break the status quo of live and let live. Only time will tell.
Of course, these are external concerns. Religion itself is not exempt from parochial provincial concerns. Problems at their doorsteps are a pain in the ass, a nip in the bud. From a orgy of embarrassing scandals to internal strike between competing factions, religion itself may not seem that impregnable after all. Ted Haggard, a former American evangelical preacher, was shamed into retirement due to a string of scandals in which he was alleged to have had sexual transactions with homosexual prostitutes, despite preaching fervently against homosexual and same sex marriage. Even the face of Christianity has seen the never ending distrust and altercation between Protestants and Catholics, a conflict that has only seen the better of the light in recent years, but has yet to subside. Why has religion so ironically been worshipped and revered by people for the supposed immaculate truth and values it upholds, although it itself is plagued with such scandals and unrest?
A former divinity professor in Harvard professes that religion is much akin to a quagmire, while there is no certain path other than one towards strife, distrust, and intolerance. Magnify this, and you get a rancorous, odious conflict between different religions. Why is there such insidious and inexplicable hatred between religions? Some tries to argue that the teachings and dictions of every particular religion does not permit the kind of consensus or compromise that we have, for so long, tried to inculcate and nurture. For example, many religion steers believers towards the existence of the One and Only Almighty God, and such a prescribed form of religious pedagogy cannot possibly offer berth or accomodate the idea of religion coexistence. And as The Economist wisely pointed out, religion just cannot offer that kind of plurality or freedom of speech that raw democracy offers. If one argues that a certain act is divinely ordained as immoral, or that a certain land is divinely ordained as belonging to the particular sect of religion, is any logic or evidence likely to convince them of otherwise.
But religion is not wihout its upsides too. Many believed that religion has awarded a platform that allowed people to discuss in a amiable way, various ways of improving the welfare of mankind. This kind of healthy discussion, they say, is neccessary and defintitely harmless. In more specific ways, religion has springboarded US aid into poverty stricken, or disease stricken countries such as Aid, brought attention to the abject prevailing problems of child trafficking and prostituition in Asia and condemn, rather appropriately, the lack of concerted effort in styming such atrocities.
But efforts of religion to stick their finger into the controversial pies are hamstrung - and deservedly so. The Economist painted a rather plain picture of how religions has rejected some of the notions of modernity, including, amongst many, contraception, abortion, homosexuality, or even to the more technical inanimate issues such as capitalism. Religion argues that chronological snobbery is used to buttress the frittering away of moral values through apertures of globalisation - much like the process of percolation whileby age old commendable, righteous and meritous values are slowly filtered off. This is true in some sense, but let us zero in on the case of contraception in the Philippines. In the poorer parts of the country, many families are unncessarily overburdened by the abundance of offsprings. The "conservation religious teachings" has cast a disapproving eye on contraception, and many of these poor people are hands tied. As one of them put it plainly, asking for contraception device is almost impossible since most of these are banned in their country already. And as a result, these people have far more children than their financial capability could well afford, and these has cost them dearly. Recently, the suicide of a young 11 year old girl has affirmed this point of view : Somethings being unduly religious does open up more to problems rather than solving it, as so they claimed. Such poverty stricken families have become the unwitting lambs to the slaughter. Even a recent case when a medical doctor refused treatment to a rape victim simply because his religion does not permit him to do so has sparked controversy. Despite religious denounciation of abortion, this case was unconvertibly tragic. This was a one off single event of abuse, act of treachery, malignance, unscrupulousness and despicableness, and it is even more opprobrious when one intentionally witholds appropriate treatment and even forced abortion of this ill-fated victim. What has religion done in this instance? A prescient professor of economics once commented that, " It is pharisiacism at the worst when the religious dogmas, that are embraced by pious followers at zero cost, are superimposed on other unwitting individuals who are consequentially faced, counterproductively, with even greater problems than those that these religious texts purportedly claim to solve."
Richard Dawkins has articulated with such panache and semaphoric precision that religion is not so much of a autonomous, discrete choice than a imbibed, trickled-down heritage. By default children are bornt into christian families as christians; and this perhaps blinkers their view to alternative perspectives or prospects, and perhaps explain the aversiveness and abhorence certain religions display to each other. Young children are already at the mercy of religious vitrolia and conflicts - with young Shi'ites being desseminated and indoctrinated religious resentment and antipathies against conflicting religion. This can in a way explain the seemingly in built, predilected and propensity for strife and conflict - and to explain the perpetuality of this state of affairs. Children are bounded and haunted by past spectres of religious fracas, and they believe that it is natural and imperative to continue this line of behaviour and thought that their parents have exercised over their lifetime. Hence the strife prevails.
Of course globalisation, however denounced by religious doctrines, does lend a springboard for religion to spread its influence. One must not forget that wihout globalisation religion would not have been able to spread with such efficacy and ferocity. Globalisation enabled the untrammeled flow of religious text, groups and influence, and allowed the influence of certain form of Islamism - a more austere sombre one - to precipitate. In fact globalisation was unquestionably a catalyst in the spread of religious teachings. Pious subjects could cross national boundaries with unbridled ease, religion was accorded greater avenues for manisfestation, such as the world wide web. The unhampered transnational flow of human traffic has exposed certain religions to people who otherwise would never have encountered them had globalisation not effected such a convenience in cross boundary travel. So it is rather ironic for religions to write off globalisation with such ease.
Many people have argued that religion does not live up to the standards it preached, as echoed by Oxford professor Mailey Jenkins. She argued that religious supposed immaculate and sacred teachings are in fact no more than doctrines of sanctimony and contempt and that the subjects of its teachings in fact cannot stand up to scrutiny. In this age where skeptics and critiques against religion (or even atheist) are bedeviled as perfidious, dissolute and morally deficient infidels, it is perplexing when the religious subjects themselves are not exempt from such wrongdoings or moral miscarriage that their religious teachings have deplored. She also argued that the inconsistency of behavior based on religion doctrines is astounding. Many argued that for religion to be credible or even probable, one has to allow all his behaviours be circumscribed by his religious teachings, unlike the kind of arbitration or discretion in which many people exercise when practicing religion. For critics believed that for religion to truly have a unyielding creditable basis, one has to truly live up to the dictions of his religion, or esle religion itself would be mere ring hollow - vacuous, maladroit and desolote. Under such antes of religion one would be hard pressed to find any religious subjects who would actually fit the bill. In modern day terms such as religion and morality has been bandied about carelessly. Many has casually tailored religion to fit their own needs, to the extent of resonating with teachings that they concur while turning a nelsonian eye or feigning ignorance to texts which obviously do not suit their lifestyles nor their agendas. One cannot possibly canvass his own religious compass and pick and choose - for one to truly lay claim to a certain religion, one has to commit himself resolutely to religion in its entirety. It might sound a little extreme - but if religion loses its objectivity, is it not just a mere human belief rather than something transcendentally and superlatively divine?
Yet herein lies a caveat : Religion itself and its subjects should be seperated. Perhaps religion is not the cauldron of acrimony; Mankind is. Since centuries ago, philosophers have questioned whether religion has been despicably and unscrupulously used by Mankind as a subterfuge for personal agendas. For many religion is merely a platform to voice their displeasure over unsavoury issues such as homosexuality. Oxford professor J Thompson lamented that "Unfortunately religion has become a venue for people to echo their personal disagreements in a more pronounced and a more unified position". Such solidarity unfortunately might not be binded by religion as much as it is by similar antipathies against certain behaviours. Religion lends authority to such voices of displeasure - people may argue that their distaste for certain behaviours is morally right because God said so, and this becomes a cul de sac for democratic discourse. All the rules of discourse would subsequently be thrown out of window because logic just cannot withstand the omnipotence of God himself, and all this happens while people rant behind the veneers of their religion. and they have a reason to be smug about it.
But one thing that we know for sure : religion is here to stay and so it will. Prognostications from previous century that religion would be a "thing of a past" and inexorably recede in the face of modernity have been proven wrong. And nothing is more certain than the incumbency of religion and its place in the modern world. Religion would continue to drive, resolve or interlocute conflicts. And whether we like it or not, mankind still prefers the idea that there is a omniscient being beyond that keeps the Earth in good shape. Because the idea of Earth still surviving (miraculously) wihout the presence of God despite the seemingly imperfectness of human being just does not make sense. So perhaps there really is a God. Or perhaps it is really not that important if there is one or not.Believing that there is one is all that matters.
No comments:
Post a Comment