My Take on the Religion and Ethics Debate

Since there was not reading posted for the week so far, I wanted to talk about the religion and ethics debate/discussion which we held in class on Friday. The source which I was assigned had to do with religion being enhanced by and supported by ethics and moralities of society. In the reading, the speaker defined five separate arguments to back up his overall theory of ethics being able to enhance religion in humanity. The argument I find to be most persuasive is the argument that every individual will get what they deserve based off of the quality of their morality throughout their lifetime as that is a motivation to understand religion and use it in the name of morality and goodness as it individually applies to one being and presents a conflict (hard but moral, or easy but unjust) which we are all familiar with; it does not look at humanity as a whole, but rather the individual as a whole which makes it more convincing and compelling to understand and apply to real life. The argument I find to be least persuasive is the one regarding God treating all creations equally, and therefore equality and morality must be implemented in society to honor that. I say this because every individual, regardless of religion, has their own interpretation of God or divinity, and it cannot be a universal concept which applies to all of humanity regarding God as a motivation to be moral. Creation, being part of religion and God varied belief systems is something unique to the individual, and merely saying that God created equality and it must be sustained is not enough of a driving force or motive to act moral on behalf of something interpretative, unproved, and undetermined! 

When we discussed in our small groups about our individual assigned arguments, all of their back up and support, and the validity of them, and surprisingly I found mine the most valid and meaningful to my individual life and throughout history. I began by asking my group if and how religion and ethics are interrelated with each other at all throughout history. What I discovered was that the two had come into contact with each other, and either one may have been a result of the other, but realistically, they are entirely different things. Here’s my point of view: religion is something that applies to an entire part of humanity, making the individual part of something bigger than itself because it applies and subjects to so many people, so equally. Ethics, on the other hand, is something completely defined by the individual as there cannot and has not been a system of morals and ethics to which everyone is subjected to like a religion; even if everyone were subject to it, that subjection would be far from equal as some would impose their morals/ethics more intensely and efficiently than others as rationally some would reject and neglect them--you can’t do that with a religion. Also, ethics are determined by the individual for that very individual because every person in history has an internal set of morals which they subject themselves to but not others, that would not be reasonable or moral (irony intended)! So, maybe an individual’s system of ethics and moral code can be influenced by or structured based off of one’s religious affiliations and practices as religion does incorporate ethical and moral themes, suggestions, and reasoning (lessons) within itself, but by no means would religion dictate and set those morals in place for the individual because like I stated before, ethics stem from the individual and his/her surroundings, upbringing, environment, etc.; moral are not determined communally or generally as opposed to religion which is imposed in a much more general, interpretative sense. Therefore, I find it somewhat irrational and meaningless to discuss or debate over these three different arguments (religion needs ethics, ethics needs religion, or religion enhances ethics) as religion has absolutely no affiliations with religion whatsoever! It is merely an internal tool(s) which individuals use to enhance their lives as they act according to reason and standards composed by themselves, and because that individual set of ethics enhances life, it would reasonably effect one’s religion/religious experience. In this way, ethics are able to/are used to increase or strengthen one’s religious experiences and practices as they are merely a set of tools used to live one’s life, religious or not. 

Religion is a Rulebook: Do Versus Dont

Religion is a complex and overruling aspect of human history that over the course of countless events, situations, and settings, religion has been the root cause for human thought, conflict, and ultimately a great part of history. Clearly, each of the different religious groups and beliefs, such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. Although, the religious groups almost have more similarities than they do differences, different than what may seem on the surface; but when looking historically beneath the mere outline/structure of the religions, they share so much that it almost contradicts the entire reason for having multiple religious beliefs and practices. It breaks down to really one primary difference: that is the difference between “do” and “do not”. Now, it may seem obvious and elementary, but when looking at it from strictly a historical perspective, it explains so much of the history regarding religions. Religion has revolved around a series of rules or beliefs that have been set according to a god, physical ruler, a king (basically anyone in a seat of power or influence over a certain group of people), and the followers and believers of a religion would be determined so based on the extent to which those rules were observed and acted upon. Accordingly so, religions had seen the most spreading and expanding during the time when a ruler either ruled under or over a certain religion as it had interfered with the politics of history, and therefore, more people following the “Dos” and “Do Nots”, or the rules of a religion, means more followers; the religion would further grow in size, placement, and importance in human history. I quote: “Instead of rules that were to be followed, religion became a set of beliefs that followers needed to embody by what they did, not what they did not do...the very "truths" of these religions, open to interpretation, change as humanity changes.” Essentially, this is saying that religion had transformed into something comparable to a rulebook or guidelines to which people abided by throughout their lives, following and believing the religion they saw fit best for them and their individual lives. What happens when it is individuality that plays a key component in the growing and setting of religions? Individual interpretation. People had begun to determine what religion means to them on their own, based on their own lives. These personal meanings clearly went to effect what it meant to be a follower of a certain religion, as that religion’s identity and/or rules (Dos or Do-Nots) may change as well. So, it makes sense to say that religion changed and progressed as human history progressed as well. Now, the world continues to adjust and gauge itself to the concept of religion on a Do versus Do-Not basis rather than looking at it as something that unifies a group of people together based off of a common belief. Don’t get me wrong, religion is still a communal label and brings together the people that share it, but it has developed into a general rule book of ways of life, but how those rules are interpreted and executed are entirely variable, up to the individual. In that way, religions are not that much different as they all serve as an overarching rulebook by which humanity can follow in order to gain something in their lives or for whatever personal reason it may be, but religion has become so much more personal and individual than it has communally or generally speaking. This may be as a result of the progressing history or accomplishments like mobility, where religion has the ability to move with the individual to individual places, not staying in one greater area and being forced upon those constituents, not changing as everyone was subject to the same thing; but when people could spread out, it pertained more to them alone than to a greater crowd, allowing it to individualize itself. That being just one explanation, religion progresses with history, and because of that progression, religion means something entirely different than it did throughout all moments in history. Although, one thing has not changed: religion is something that tells you what to do and what not to do. But just like religion as a whole did, the interpretation and execution of those dos and dont’s altered as well.

Manipulation of Religon

Throughout this entire unit, I have not seen that religion can be used for the good or for the bad of the people subjected to it. When introduced to the concept of religion being an agent of the powerful, I thought to myself that that was a very large step to take in terms of my understanding and perception of religion, but it made a lot of sense as religion has and is been used as a mean by which people use to achieve/gain certain things. But, the notion of religion being used as an agent of the powerless was something alien to me. As I made sense of it, it began to sink in and I thought of some instances in which this occurred. Although, other ideas began to foster in my head about religion in general. I began to think that religion wasn’t something spiritual or meaningful to most individuals, but rather was utilized as a mere tool in order to gain something which they strive for in their lives. In the concluding section of the textbook reading, it says that, “Powerful people often use religion to retain their power by violent means often use religion. However, religion certainly may be used by those without power in a nonviolent manner to achieve social justice. History has shown that religion is a means by which people see the world, and their use of religious beliefs, depending upon the way in which they see the world, can be either for or against those in power.” For whatever the reason may be, I feel somewhat uncomfortable when I read this statement  because to me, religion is something much more than just a tool or utility in life. I find it controversial, however, as religion can be used for horrible intentions, such as gaining more land via battle and brutal violence, or, can be used for really good reasons as to gain social justice or equality in the world. Although, I began to disregard my personal feelings when I looked at this blog prompt and it actually cleared a lot of thing up in my head. I think that purely looking at religion through a historical perspective, it is merely a mean by which people manipulate in which ever way benefits themselves or their cause the most, and is entirely disregarded as a spiritual or deeper meaning in one’s life. In the example above, I pointed out that religion can be used for positive of negative reasons and in good or bad ways as well as people’s methods when using religion contrast with good or bad. But once again, the idea of historiography comes into play as the justification of what is good versus what is bad is entirely pertaining to those involved in the action, being the contributors or the receivers. For example, Pope Urban used religion to further spread his religious ideas and empire, and to gain power. That is not necessarily a bad or evil idea, but the ways by which he executed his cause were--now to him they may not have been seen as crimes or unjust, but to the history observers and the persecuted ones, that act would have been seen as vile and inhuman. Plus, its interesting that religion itself could and does provide the answers to whether or not such acts or good or bad in the name of the people and participants of the religion. Although, because religion has developed into such a powerful, driving, and  unifying force throughout history, people have completely neglected the fundamental reason that religion exists, and are using it for the wrong reasons in whichever manner that one would. The justification of how one uses it and for what reasons one uses religion cannot be entirely answered as there are countless perspectives on the subject; but, religion itself may provide good insight. When looking through history, religion has sparked political motives, social motives, economic motives, cultural motives, etc. It has been an overlying source of unification and a commonality between most people in history. Therefore, it would makes sense that in order to fit and play a role in all of these different situations, it would be manipulated in all sorts of ways so that it could fulfill the role which people sought to in their lives. It’s interesting now that I look at religion that way, that it is not something that fulfills a spiritual or meaningful aspect in life, but rather is a mean by which things are done by. On a side note, that could be one of the reasons why so many different religions were established; one couldn’t fit the needs or circumstances of someone, so they sought out something new to fill that emptiness which the other religion used to hold. But who knows, religion has become so much more than just a spirituality in life, it has become a defining, fundamental property of human history. 

Missionaries: Why Would They Kill?

Missionaries in my mind are another version of the Crusades, just without most of the military and physical force in the good of spreading a religion. Their world views of religion, cultures, and societies were, just like the Crusades, altered or different in some ways than most of the other members of greater society as their religion had provided them with a purpose and “rational” (in their minds) reason to do something with their lives--spread their religion throughout the common geography. Interestingly, as the Crusades pertained only to Christian force and in the name of Christianity, the Missionaries involved more than one religion, as Buddhism came into play in order to prevent Christianity from spreading to the utmost amount of people and making it a world power; Christian missionaries did the same toward Buddhism. Although, it is important to note that both Buddhist and Christian missionaries had a common enemy/interest--that is to prevent the spreading and popularizing of Islam, another threatening religion in the geography, which could cause potential damage/undermining of the respective religion’s society and members. That common notion did not unite the two, however, as the missionaries' role in their religion’s history was to spread and overpower the other religions in the area and convert others with different belief systems, cultures, or societies while implementing their religious beliefs and philosophies on differing cultures/religions throughout the geography in places such as Africa, Asia, and the “New World”, or Americas. The missionaries were willing to use any force necessary, although did not initiate as a military force, to convert and greaten the chances of their religion becoming one of a world power/dominance over the other religions which existed. They did this by killing, preaching, threatening, etc. and all the other forces which could be beneficial to the spreading of the religion. They did this not because they “wanted” or “intended” to, but because that was what their religion entailed and told them to do; the religious officials, the ones close to God, sent the message to commit such actions in order to greaten the eminence of the religion itself. That provided solid reasoning and backup for the participants of the missionaries, and thus, the missionaries converted others and gained followers, and in the process, naturally had people turn against them, angered. I think that this occurred mainly in locations around Asia and older civilizations because they had had a lot of time and exchange and experience to establish their own defined lifestyle, and when someone stomps in by forces and forces you to convert after living an exposed, defined life, I’d imagine I wouldn’t be too happy. But in places like the “New World”, the Americas and Africa, people had had relatively zero exposure to other religions and cultures, and did not have the extensive history which the other’s had as their history had merely just begun, whereas in Asia it had already been continuing a history of one thousand years (more or less). But, the missionaries provided those with no religion in their lives with a religious, powerful force, those people would gladly join something bigger and pledge their lives to something already established amidst the mere origins of a new society. In that way, the Missionaries were successful as they provided those with none a new religion which would then, through cultural exchanges, spread on its own throughout that newly born geography; that would allow the religion to do a majority of its spreading, gain of power, and ultimate achievement of overpowering the other religious forces during the time.

The Crusades: Shaping Reality

As I have blogged about this before, I feel that it is important to revisit one of the central ideas of the religion unit as it perfectly relates and fits into the situation of Pope Urban and the establishment and action of the Crusades. Religion shapes and changes the way certain individuals in certain circumstances view things and think about their lives. Religion is an easy agent of the powerful to obtain and achieve a common goal throughout their rule, and serves as an incredible motivation for people, usually those who are powerless, to do certain things that isn’t considered rational or correct--but religion says it is and will put be in a better place, so it’s got to be right/good to do? That’s the question that popped in my mind when reading about the Crusades and Pope Urban’s admirable quality of convincing people through his language. His speaking attributes definitely made a considerable effect on the Christians among his rule, as his ability to mobilize and promote the religion to those who were barely even subjected to it (more obliged to their leader than the religion itself!) and make them go as far as to fight for their religion is astounding. The fact that Pope Urban was able to change the way people think about their life and religion and alter its philosophies to make the people under his rule think differently was quite the accomplishment. Regardless of Urban, though, Christianity and religion as a whole was such a driving force, maybe as a result of Urban’s inspiring words and actions, but the religious force caused so many people to think and see the world differently than they usually would, and therefore, justified radical actions such as the involvement of the Crusades throughout European and some of Asian religious history. The responsibility that all of the participants in the Crusades does not fault to the Pope’s speeches or irrational actions or secret societies--it is the fault of the religion itself (not that it is a bad fault, but it was the force which provided the means to which the people would participate/support the Crusades. Also, because so many new religious emerged during the uprising reign of Christianity throughout Europe, threats were posed indirectly to Christians as their world power, land, influence, and institutions were all subject to destruction, persecution, or overpowering from the other religions which existed. So, how did the Christians react to that posing threat and danger--they originated the movement of the Crusades. Christian officials were determined on preventing the Muslims and HIndus which shared the common geography in the area which the Christians centralized, as more participants and followers calls for a more powerful and to increase the presence of the religious force; followers and believers are essential to the success, spread, and popularizing of religions, so that was another key which the main powers of the opposing religions used to gain eminence. The last thing I want to touch on is the peculiarity of the reasoning for the Crusades and involvement in them; this is really good evidence for the notion of religion shaping one’s reality. Throughout history, including today, people usually don’t do something that extreme (like the Crusades) without good benefit for themselves or something/one of their own. Now, it can be argued that people participated because they were so loyal to their religion and conscious of the potential dangers undermining it. Although, I think that that was the only benefit in the actions of the Crusades, but the people involved in them were doing it according to a false notion either they created for themselves or handed to them by the persuasive and mesmerizing words of Pope Urban. There was a specific benefit for each person who was willing to fight on behalf of their religious beliefs and prominence in history, but they were not fighting for some cause that just existed--they fought for themselves because through the cultural interaction/exchange, and the general influence which others had on one individual would foster an idea that if I fight, I am saving myself from potential danger if one of these other religions rises to power, and if not (either way), I will be in a good place, solidified in heaven. All of these thoughts which were all very real and was the main reason that the Crusades escalated to such large numbers and heights, and shows how much religion and the perception (or misperception) of something can lead an individual or group of people to do things that they usually would not commit. The Crusades embodies the concept of religions seeking overall power and using it as an agent of the powerful to gain more power/get people to do things that they usually wouldn’t because religion changes the way people think about their lives, and therefore, act. 

The Origins of Islam and Christianity Compare

The origins of Islam are similar to those of Christianity. These means are obviously varied in many ways as they involve different people, times, places, etc. Although, they both revolve around a similar principle that happens to be the heading of the chapter: there was a messenger and the messenger sent a message that revolutionized the world of religion, initiating something new, appealing, and to become enormous. Islam began with the birth of Muhammad in 570 CE in Mecca. Accordingly, Mecca was going to become a holy, acclaimed, and historically significant site in Islamic history--all because of Muhammad. He undertook periods of disconnection from society, and when he was amidst the rest of life, he went through a deeply religious and eye opening experience which would set him with his drive for the meaning of the rest of his life: to enlighten and spread the words of God which connected with him during his periods of withdrawal and religious connection. These experiences had him convinced that he was the messenger of God, Allah, and that he was to do his work without question and with faith, devotion, and willingness. This is very comparable to Jesus, the initiator of the Christian movement and religion in history, who was born and raised in an outlandish home, far away from much civilization. There, after being born via immaculate conception (an already spiritual, god-like feature to his life) he was raised without much interaction with others in rural areas. He had experiences in which he personally established a connection with a higher power and that power (assuming God) provided Jesus with his insight and messages. Because of this, Jesus was considered the son of God, in the sense that he represented and embodied everything that the higher power consisted of. Both Jesus and Muhammad were individuals who, as a result of religious experiences, allegedly gained something from their Gods and went on to spread their message and attract others with the insight they possessed. They were both messengers of God, embodying everything that God was, and therefore, both became crucial figures in their respective religion’s history. Another similarity between the origins of Islam and Christianity was the reason which both of them succeeded in spreading their religious ideas and beliefs. Both Jesus and Muhammad were born without a holy scripture of their religion, and lived their lives in the absence of either religion’s religious texts. This was because they themselves would be one of the first things that would appear in their religion’s holy scriptures since they were the main root causes for the religion’s existence. Anyways, Muhammad was still actively spreading and teaching the principles of the Quran because what was in the Quran were God’s attributes and therefore the beliefs about Islam since they revolved around Allah. So, Muhammad had been teaching the lessons from God that were recorded in the Quran; being written down allowed Muhammad and Islam to spread much faster around since just verbally, Muhammad could not introduce Islamic tradition and belief around the entire region at the time. Oppositely, Christianity’s holy scriptures were written way after Jesus’ actual time spreading Christianity. He had to personally, verbally popularize and explain Christianity to everyone he interacted with, making the process of its spreading and appealing much slower than that of Islam. The Old Testament heavily revolved around Jesus and the beliefs of God, only because Jesus’ messages were implemented and transferred so strongly, historically, throughout society. So, both Islam and Christianity compare in the sense that their holy scriptures revolve around them, their interaction with God, and the religious beliefs according to them (and God), but Islam was able to use that to their advantage and widespread at a faster rate than Christianity did, considering their holy texts were not established yet. Considering both religion’s holy scriptures and messengers/messages, the origins of both Islam and Christianity (especially the lives of Muhammad and Jesus) compare to one another.