Documento II: MEDICIONES Y PRESUPUESTO

Nigel Fong (10S03O)

essay 2

‘God might not be dead, but God sure leaves a lot of people dead.’ That was one social science professor’s response to Nietzsche’s famous proclamation that ‘God is dead’. Indeed, it might seem, at face value, that the world would be a much more peaceful and united place without religion. Perhaps the Crusades might not have happened. Perhaps six million Jews might not have been gassed to death by Hitler. Perhaps the Israel-Palestinian conflict would have been resolved in 1967 – or better, Israel would not even need to be carved out of Palestine and artificially instituted as a state. Perhaps. And yet, I believe that while religion has been the cause of much conflict, it does not necessarily divide societies, nations, and the world; instead, religion has been in many ways an unsung hero that united and civilised the world.

It is true that by its very nature, religion can make people disagree. Since the quintessence of religion is faith in something that can neither be seen nor proven, and hence cannot be debunked as well, there is often no plausible way for people of different religions to see eye-to-eye. When one’s religious beliefs constitute the meaning of one’s life, and is a tremendous source of strength, coupled with the natural tendency for members of a particular faith to identify with each other, a stray attack on one member of a particular religion is easily interpreted as a challenge to all who share that faith, by all who share another faith. This was the case when a muddle-headed Danish newspaper published cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad in a rather unflattering light – shockwaves of disgust and resentment against Western Civilisation reverberated through Muslim communities in Europe and the world. In the absence of mutual common sense, a Hobbesian nightmare of a ‘war of all against all’ does not seem far away. Not that this nightmare is merely a hypothetical one – the Holocaust and the Crusades exemplify how desensitising feelings of hatred can hypnotise individuals and blind them to common sense, and even the tenets of their own faith. When one religion commits genocide against another, religion more than divides.

Furthermore, religion drives a wedge between people in such a way as to engender the nation/state conflict. The terms ‘nation’ and ‘state’ are hardly synonymous, contrary to common belief. A nation is a group of people who identify with each other, for instance, the members of a particular religion, while a state is the political entity that seeks to represent the people of one country. A state often includes multiple nations that do not necessarily identify with each other; this is exacerbated by religion, such that the duty of a state – to further the welfare of its people, that is, the various nations within it – is often hijacked by the selfish interests of a nation within it. This presents itself, often, in a classic tale of the tyranny of the majority, where a minority religious group is excluded from society and marginalised. For instance, because Muslim minorities in Europe have little political power, their interests are seldom represented, and to this day, they tend to live in inner-city ghettos and receive an unequal share of socioeconomic opportunities. This nation/state conflict also manifests itself in the sectarian violence hampering the rebuilding of Iraq, as Sunni, Shiite, and the Kurdish denominations in Iraq (each of which holds a slightly different interpretation of Islam) never seem to be able to forge a political consensus. In this, religion divides.

And yet, in many such cases, it is not religion which divides, but the misinterpretation of religion. No reasonable reading of the Christian Bible will ever give you the slightest hint that the Christian God might condone the senseless killings sanctioned during the Crusades. No reasonable reading of the Q’uran will ever tell a Muslim to commit ‘jihad’, or holy war – much less against fellow Muslims in an Islamic country. Far from it! In this, religion cannot be our scapegoat for the conflicts of the world, and much less a banner under which those who choose to misinterpret religion can justify their actions. It is not religion that divides; it is our ever-reliable human nature.

Secondly, religion is often politicised, and often divides because it is politicised. Iran’s president (or ‘supreme ruler’, by his rightful name), together with many politicians in the Middle East engage in vicious Israel-bashing arguably not for the sake of representing their peoples, but rather to distract voters from domestic problems and incompetencies of governance by ‘uniting’ them against the mirage of a common

Religion, in fact, has never been incompatible with unity. While the different religions are intrinsically so divergent that it becomes hard to see eye-to-eye, we, first as individuals, then as a nation, and finally as a world, can always agree to disagree. Every religion preaches tolerance and respect of those who do not share the same faith. This is best encapsulated in the Golden Rule- ‘Do to others what you would like done to you’, which is found (in some variant or another) within the religious texts of all major world religions. Nations are divided, in peace and in conflict, if and only if this message of common sense is somehow forgotten, often in the face of politics. Hatred, too, has never been further from doctrines of ‘love thy neighbour’ and ‘love thy enemy’. But even if societies must harbour hate, it is one thing to hate the individual for what he has done (say, create cartoons of Prophet Muhammad), and another thing to hate the religion and all members of that religion. Religion tells us to do at most the former. Multi-religious societies are not necessarily a recipe for hatred and division – Singapore, in which many religions coexist harmoniously, is a good case in point. Religion can unite.

In addition, religion gives societies a common morality. While this morality can sometimes divide - especially on issues of homosexuality – we have to acknowledge that the plethora of religions we have today share an amazingly similar set of moral values. These are universal values, preventing citizens from inflicting mutual harm, and encouraging love and kindness, that nearly everyone shares. We have even secularised and codified these values as a formal constitution – religion is the basis for law, and the basis by which individuals may feel morally compelled to uphold the law, and by extension, their own religion. Religion can also unite nations against a common injustice. It was one factor that made the whites in the United States realise that discrimination against blacks was an insult to their own faith. Today, religion, transcending race, still holds these blacks and whites together. The saffron revolution, in which Burmese monks protested against their tyrannical government, in the process representing the members of their faith, also gained extra moral force thanks to religion. Religion unites.

At the end of the day, we see how religion intrinsically unites society in tolerance and in morality. And yet, when misinterpreted or hijacked for political interests, religion also holds the danger of dividing societies, in peace and in violence, and undermining the states that further our welfare. Given that religion is so intrinsic to human life and human calculus of meaning and value, religion is here to stay, and it is crucial that we allow religion to unite, rather than divide. For united nations stand, and a divided world falls. Religion can be both the light of the world and a scourge of this planet – it is up to us. I choose optimism.

Comments:

Fluent and a very readable style. Assertions are nicely backed up by relevant and concrete evidence. Balanced view and a well-argued stand.

gp-2009 JC1 Common Test

“New forms of the media have made mainstream media redundant”.