I have a lot of atheist friends who enjoy tossing around opinions about how religion is to blame for much of the warfare, terrorism and violence in the world.
(“They’ve all got imaginary deities and kill for their beliefs”… said one friend recently in her hasty critique of Buddhism, citing the Burmese oppression of the Rohingya people, as an example of the “long and bloody” history of Buddhists. “Buddhism is not a religion of peace” she protested.)
However, I beg to differ. Frankly, the notion that religious indoctrination is responsible for most of the heinous acts of political repression and violence in history, is short-sighted and misguided.
(“They’ve all got imaginary deities and kill for their beliefs”… said one friend recently in her hasty critique of Buddhism, citing the Burmese oppression of the Rohingya people, as an example of the “long and bloody” history of Buddhists. “Buddhism is not a religion of peace” she protested.)
However, I beg to differ. Frankly, the notion that religious indoctrination is responsible for most of the heinous acts of political repression and violence in history, is short-sighted and misguided.
For one, it ignores the obvious truth that there have been many more wars and acts of genocide perpetuated due to territory disputes and economic and political power struggles, than due to religion.
And secondly, it ignores the fact that the genuine, original teachings by the founders of the major religions are usually completely distinguishable from the manifestation of the institutionalization of that religion. Why is this? This is because human beings appropriate ideologies and manipulate the tenants of religion to suit their very secular, political and economic interests. There is a very big difference between a religion authentically practiced by a devoted individual, and a religion usurped by political or military leaders, or terrorists, who simply bend the religion to whatever suits their agenda. The difference between the "religious" practice St Francis of Assisi and the Borgia Pope Alexander VI is gargantuan and one should not be judged by the other. Yes – religion has been used as an excuse to commit atrocities the world over. There is no denying that. But whether the religion in question actually advocates harm done to others in its name, is a totally separate question and should be treated as such, if we wish to avoid being bigoted and uninformed.
Thirdly, it ignores the greater political, socio-economic and historical factors that play a huge role in driving any kind of “religious” warfare. For instance, it would be careless not to consider the greater context influencing the Algerian gunmen brothers at Charlie Hebdo, such as the atrocious history of France’s oppressive relations with Algeria. It would be sloppy, not to take a moment to understand the greater context influencing many of the terrorist acts committed in the name of Islam – such as the deplorable treatment of Palestinians by Israel and the fact that the western world does nothing about innocent Muslim children being killed in their beds, yet with barefaced hypocrisy doesn’t hesitate to go to war in Iraq, when its oil interests are being threatened. Or the incredible disparity of wealth and power in the process of globalisation that leaves developing countries exploited and ravaged by poverty and famine, while the west squanders away the world’s resources and lives blithely at a level of luxury that is simply unsustainable and completely unsharable.
These factors (and many more) are key to understanding the brewing discontent and escalating violence that we are seeing from the Muslim world. The religious factor in this discontent provides a unifying force and a sense of identity and some sort of external justification, but is religion the real issue? Are the underlying historical (and secular), political and economic factors a more prominent cause? These are questions that we should be asking to understand the historical complexity of global cause and effect and to appreciate our role in the bigger picture. With this kind of perspective you might well ask yourself, the next time you go and buy a second laptop or another new car, could capitalism and global inequality be as much to blame for war and terrorism as religion?
The fact that human beings are very good at distorting philosophies (whether religious, political or sociological) to fit into secular, disturbing, and sometimes diabolical, political schemas is nothing new. It is accepted that Trotsky’s socialism has very little in common with its manifestation as the fanatical brutality of Stalin, Pol pot or Mao. These three atheist despots between them, were responsible for the massacre of over 100 million people, as well as the decimation of three exceedingly rich cultures. In all three cases, religion played no part as an inspiration to the horrors these men wrought; political theory did. A political theory that specifically rejected religion. A political theory that started out as an antidote to injustice and inequality. Wouldn't it be narrow-minded to blame Lenin or Marx for the actions of these totalitarian tyrants and the particular way they distorted communist discourse to suit their ends?
The point is that any charismatic madman can take a perfectly good ideology, manipulate it until it is a mere shell (or even travesty) of itself, and use it to justify horrific violence in the process of achieving ultimate power, economic wealth, or the unchecked rampage of racial vendetta. Hitler did this. Jean Kambanda did this. Idi Amin did this. A number of catholic Popes did this. ISIS does this. George Bush did this. These are all men driven by greed, or megalomania, or unfettered sadism who would bend whatever ideology happened to be available to them, to manipulate the masses and carry out their own despicable agendas. These are not men acting from religious inspiration. These are men driven by very worldly, very human, and very secular motivations.
And an important thing to keep in mind is that the seed of those motivations is in all of us – religious folk or atheists alike. The capacity to be selfish, greedy, to enjoy power and wealth, to indulge an “us and them” kind of attitude, are all infinitely human characteristics. When these traits are left to grow unchecked and given an opportunity to express themselves in someone with a position of power, they can become tyrannical, cruel and bloodthirsty. That is what enables people to hate and harm and slaughter others who view the world differently from them; these same tendencies that we all have, but in an unrestrained context. The irony is that all of the major religions in the world were actually instigated by extraordinary pacifists who were trying specifically to address these tendencies in human beings and transform them.
The point is that any charismatic madman can take a perfectly good ideology, manipulate it until it is a mere shell (or even travesty) of itself, and use it to justify horrific violence in the process of achieving ultimate power, economic wealth, or the unchecked rampage of racial vendetta. Hitler did this. Jean Kambanda did this. Idi Amin did this. A number of catholic Popes did this. ISIS does this. George Bush did this. These are all men driven by greed, or megalomania, or unfettered sadism who would bend whatever ideology happened to be available to them, to manipulate the masses and carry out their own despicable agendas. These are not men acting from religious inspiration. These are men driven by very worldly, very human, and very secular motivations.
And an important thing to keep in mind is that the seed of those motivations is in all of us – religious folk or atheists alike. The capacity to be selfish, greedy, to enjoy power and wealth, to indulge an “us and them” kind of attitude, are all infinitely human characteristics. When these traits are left to grow unchecked and given an opportunity to express themselves in someone with a position of power, they can become tyrannical, cruel and bloodthirsty. That is what enables people to hate and harm and slaughter others who view the world differently from them; these same tendencies that we all have, but in an unrestrained context. The irony is that all of the major religions in the world were actually instigated by extraordinary pacifists who were trying specifically to address these tendencies in human beings and transform them.
Of course some religions lend themselves to variants of interpretation more than others. There is no denying that Islam with its notion of jihad is not the most peaceful of religions. The Quran has some very inflammatory verses that can easily be interpreted by fundamentalists to condone the random killing of infidels. However, many Muslims (such as the Ahmadiyya and Sufi sects) only interpret the Quran as being a book of love and peace, and claim those verses have esoteric meanings and not a literal one. They say the real Jihad is fought inside one's soul to control negative instincts. They say Muhammad only considered taking up arms as an absolute last resort if it was necessary to defend religious freedom. Interpretation is the deciding factor, and that changes over time.
Religions have their core values, their non-negotiable truths, but they also surround themselves with many stories not essential to the message. Any religion that exists over long eras absorbs many of the ideas and beliefs of the community in which it finds itself, and reflects those in its writings. Over time, thinkers and theologians reject or underplay those doctrines and texts that contradict the underlying principles of the faith as it develops.
Yes, Sharia law is sexist and violent compared with the European rule of law, yet sharia law has changed over time and has been largely shaped by changes in Islamic society. A patriarchal society with a history of bloody territorial conflicts. Is it any wonder that the interpretation of their religion is shaped by and reflects these (secular) factors?
Religions have their core values, their non-negotiable truths, but they also surround themselves with many stories not essential to the message. Any religion that exists over long eras absorbs many of the ideas and beliefs of the community in which it finds itself, and reflects those in its writings. Over time, thinkers and theologians reject or underplay those doctrines and texts that contradict the underlying principles of the faith as it develops.
Yes, Sharia law is sexist and violent compared with the European rule of law, yet sharia law has changed over time and has been largely shaped by changes in Islamic society. A patriarchal society with a history of bloody territorial conflicts. Is it any wonder that the interpretation of their religion is shaped by and reflects these (secular) factors?
| The Bible also has some pretty violent sentiments in it, especially in the old testament. Yet the gist of Jesus’ teachings is uncontroversial - do good, love thy neighbor as thyself and to turn the other cheek. His creed was all about overcoming hatred and greed with love and charity and forgiveness. The fact that his words and actions have been institutionalized as various churches and at times used as an excuse to do the exact opposite of what he preached, is not Jesus’ fault. It is not the fault of Christianity per se, that Catholic priests enjoy sexually exploiting young boys. It is the fault of peoples’ tendency throughout history to turn everything into a grab for power, wealth and gratification at the cost of others, under the guise of religion or ideology or ethnic identity, or whatever it happens to be. |  |
 | In fact, is quite astounding - our capacity to turn even the antidote into the problem. It is the one constant throughout history – in pre-Christian Roman times (see the Gracchi brothers for example), in post-Christian times, in the crusades (which were actually a political grab for trading routes and land and wealth and had very little to do with religion), during the reformation, and especially over the last 200 years. As the bard said long ago – “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Human beings have been violent, factional and blood thirsty since beginningless time, whether or not they believed in a god, or many gods, or no gods at all. |
To blame religion for the existence of this tendency is, frankly, utterly absurd. The seeds for our repeated history, like I said, lie within each of us, no matter what we believe. And no amount of scientific rationalism will provide humankind with the antidote to this. In fact, a Darwinian view can be seen to advocate for the natural prevalence of such characteristics even more, with its survival of the fittest law. Nature is violent and cruel and the survival of the fittest instinct ensures there will always be an “us and them” attitude inherent in us, which ensures we place ourselves and our kin’s wellbeing and survival ahead of any “others”.
Religion is not responsible for this instinct, (although it may reflect this instinct in the way it gets institutionalised). In fact, religions, such as Christianity and Buddhism, have attempted (and largely been completely unsuccessful, I might add) to interrupt this natural order and to inject a completely un-natural, and some would say more evolved, consciousness into human society. They have introduced the extraordinary notion of caring for others, no matter what colour or creed, more than for yourself.
The Buddha, in particular, taught that no human being is worth more than any other. That we all have the potential to break free from our habitual tendencies and that we are not necessarily bound by our dog-eat-dog experience of the world. He taught that we are all responsible for our own perceptions and that they can be changed through examining and deconstructing how we have been indoctrinated to relate to phenomena. He taught that through cultivating love and altruism to the point that our love for all beings is unlimited and our notion of self is no longer something we have to protect, we become completely harmless. The Buddha taught the Buddhist path as a complete antidote to violence, greed, hate and aggression. There is absolutely nothing in the teachings of the Buddha which could possibly be used to advocate harming others. His entire doctrine revolves around not harming others and discovering how to benefit all sentient beings instead. Since the whole thrust of the Buddhist teachings is to eliminate the notion of “us and them” completely, in a deep experiential way, and to cultivate empathy and compassion to the point of becoming nothing but love and awareness (which is essentially what enlightenment is), how could Buddhism justify killing or harming or oppressing others?
The fact that some so-called Theravadin Buddhist countries have been subjected to political regimes which have slaughtered non-buddhist people, or the fact that there exist plenty of corruption and power struggles in many “Buddhist” monasteries, is yet again an example of the secular play of power and politics under the guise of religion. Such historical episodes have nothing to do with the authentic teachings of the Buddha. Buddhism is nothing other than a religion of peace. The societies in which Buddhism has flourished and been shaped, however, are full of instances of so-called "buddhists" committing acts of violence and aggression for socio-economical and political reasons. To judge all Buddhists by the behaviour of some people (who may wear the robes and shave their head, yet who couldn’t be further away from embodying or practicing the actual teachings of the Buddha), is illogical and myopic. It would be ridiculous to blame all atheists and say their belief in scientific rationalism is inherently flawed and harmful, simply because people like Nazi war criminals, or Ted Bundy, or Mussolini, or Kim-Jong II, who happen to be atheists, also happen to be sadistic sociopaths.
The Buddha taught different levels of teaching in accordance with the differing capacity of beings. This, and the differing cultural milieu of the time and place in which it flourished, has meant the kinds of Buddhism that exist in the world have different flavours and emphasies. In the Theravadin tradition the emphasis is on discipline, morality and meditation. In Mahayana Buddhism the emphasis is on Bodhicitta (compassion and selfless altruism) and recognizing the compounded nature of phenomena. In Vajrayana Buddhism, the emphasis is on an all-embracive approach to transform all of phenomena into a means for developing insight and loving kindness. Theravadin Buddhism has historically been quite sexist and strict and women are considered inferior to men. In Vajrayana Buddhism, by contrast, it is said that the women are superior to men in their capacity for enlightenment and there are numerous female Buddhas as inspiring examples. However these different kinds of “buddhism” manifest is entirely dependent on the nature of the culture it flourished in, and the time in history.
The Buddha taught different levels of teaching in accordance with the differing capacity of beings. This, and the differing cultural milieu of the time and place in which it flourished, has meant the kinds of Buddhism that exist in the world have different flavours and emphasies. In the Theravadin tradition the emphasis is on discipline, morality and meditation. In Mahayana Buddhism the emphasis is on Bodhicitta (compassion and selfless altruism) and recognizing the compounded nature of phenomena. In Vajrayana Buddhism, the emphasis is on an all-embracive approach to transform all of phenomena into a means for developing insight and loving kindness. Theravadin Buddhism has historically been quite sexist and strict and women are considered inferior to men. In Vajrayana Buddhism, by contrast, it is said that the women are superior to men in their capacity for enlightenment and there are numerous female Buddhas as inspiring examples. However these different kinds of “buddhism” manifest is entirely dependent on the nature of the culture it flourished in, and the time in history.
Religions and ideologies are shaped and influenced by the characteristics of the society they develop in. Sometimes the so-called tenants of the religion have more to do with the social mores of the time, than with the genuine words and teachings of the religion’s founder. Both the Koran and the Bible were written after their instigators passed away. It takes dedication and study and the right motivation to separate the pith of the religion from the cultural artifacts. The key to this is education and authenticity of the teaching lineage. When these are missing, a religion can become a hodgepodge of contradictory elements. The trick is to go back to the original purpose of the teachings and have enough discrimination to recognize the essence from the chaff. And the original purpose of most religions is to provide a transformative antidote to the troubles and torment of the world and to bring about peace and ultimate happiness.
I know many atheists who are wonderful, loving, kind, compassionate human beings and who have identical goals to the religious people I know. They derive for themselves some meaning from their atheism or rational scientific creed that enables them to seek to improve themselves, to engender empathy and care for others, in furtherance of a more peaceful world. Whatever ideological means they use to do this, is commendable. In the same way, the essential teachings of the major religions are just as commendable, for attempting to achieve this and go against the tide of human folly. The only difference in the two is that the major religions have been institutionalized over history into becoming forces that achieve the opposite of their intention – due to the secular appropriation of the ideology and its distortion through the machinations of the pursuit of political and economic power.
So to all you atheists who blame religion for the corruption, war and terror around you, I say, look inside yourselves. For you have the causes for both altruism and selfishness within you. The battle between these two is played out whether you are “religious” or an “atheist.” The outer ideological garb or cultural association is irrelevant. You are either an unwitting pawn in the endless repetitive history of bloodshed and prejudice, or you can decide to take responsibility to do something completely different and cultivate the antidote to the mess, deep within yourself. This is all the Buddha was trying to get us to do. Whether you call yourself a Buddhist or an atheist, the Buddha couldn’t care less about such labels! If you are trying to cultivate the antidote to hate and ignorance inside yourself in a genuine and daring way, then you are actually more of a genuine Buddhist than anyone who wears robes and thinks it’s okay to kill, torture or harm others.
What we need to do is prioritize the quest for self-knowledge recognize the labyrinth of preconceptions and prejudices within us – that feeling that we are right and everyone else is wrong. For it is only in understanding the root cause of human aggression and stupidity, and taking responsibility for that seed within ourselves, that we can develop the humility, empathy and perspective necessary to effectively apply an antidote and protect it from the dangers of appropriation and distortion.
RSS Feed