Recent events, such as terrorism committed by Muslims, have led to
some people banking on it as a rationale for wanting religion wiped off
the face of the Earth. Atheists especially are excited, using this as
proof of their claim that religion is the cause of all conflict.
However, I disagree. It is still a slippery slope to prove this since
most experiential knowledge has shown that violence occurs for many
other reasons other than religion. Yet the militant anti-religionists are vehement in promoting this view to the point of treating it like Gospel truth and perhaps even insulting others who disagree. Let’s get back to Earth, then.
One of the things in the news lately is the discovery of a possible stone age massacre site
– perhaps the earliest known massacre. Archaeologists working in
Nataruk, Kenya, found over 27 skeletons of people who may have been
killed with various types of weapons. One skeleton of a pregnant woman
was even found in a position where she was bound hand and foot. The
event is dated to 10,000 years ago based on the evidence. If anyone
believes the stone age people were non-violent and pure – this should
tell them otherwise.
Whatever really happened, it is hard to connect religion to it. According to the Reuters report,
the victims may have possessed food that the attackers wanted – leading
to one conclusion that it was a pillaging attack. Even if the attackers
might have held a religious belief of some sort – which could not be
proven – it could also not be proven if this was the motivation of the
attack. At least one can conclude, there was conflict, murder and
violence long before religion, much more organized religion, existed. It
thus most likely precludes the thesis that religion is the cause of
warfare.
What would then be cause of conflict and violence? I have written in my personal blog about it,
using the example of two men finding a well or oasis in the desert.
Because they perceive it as a limited resource, each doesn’t want to
share it. They each want exclusive ownership of this. The way to resolve
this: kill the other one. The successful killer owns the well and rules
over it. For me, this is the most basic way to describe conflict in the
world. It’s mostly about resources and domination.
Back to the case of Islam, while I have read resources saying that
the Quran in some verses encourages modern violence, many Muslims have
lived without doing harm to anyone. In the end, whatever religion one
belongs to, the decision to live ethically falls to the individual
person. Yet the paranoia being spread in the Internet tries to gives the
idea that Muslims are “sleeper murderers,” and will one day attack you
even if you’re kind to them. This is baloney that tries to encourage you
to be the first one to be violent.
Muslims are not engaged in a world conquest mission to force their
culture onto other nations and parts of the world. This is a made-up
story to make people feel threatened and to increase hatred and anger
against Muslims. So when a military like the U.S. decides to invade
another country, which these days tends to be a Muslim country, these
people riled up in hatred will support it. But what the U.S. and
participating invaders are really after are resources, like oil.
Something that Mnar Muhawesh of Mint Press News explained in an excellent big-picture way.
Also, the claim that the Cologne attacks are part of an Islamic
cultural effort to “conquer the world” or part of a so-called rape game
are untrue. German police have already revealed
that the sexual assaults are actually a modus of a criminal gang that
uses the groping and other sexual assault acts to cover up their
stealing or robbing their victims. Some Muslims, a few refugees,
Arab-looking men and North Africans may be involved; but it is not an
act of religion. It is the act of a crime group. In related news, the
13-year-old Russian-German girl who earlier claimed to have been raped
by refugees or migrants after disappearing on Jan. 11 rescinded her story and admitted that she made it up.
Perhaps these overly idealistic anti-religionists should also realize
that religion, as demonstrated by the explanation about Islam above, is
part and parcel of culture these days. But for sure, even if you
eliminate religion and any form of spirituality, conflict would still
remain. As explained above, there are so many reasons people can find
for hurting and killing someone. Get Real Philippines has always pointed
to culture as the cause of many problems. Culture consists of the
things that you actually believe and practice in everyday life. Certain
cultures can have their own reasons for killing people even without
religion.
For example, teens and gangs today. They don’t fight because of
religion. Some want to kill someone because they were insulted or the
other person seduced their girlfriend (or even simply because)! Look at
the Maguindanao Massacre: it was done for political reasons. Really,
people kill for the pettiest things.
Thus, if religion was eliminated from the world, violence won’t be
significantly reduced; it’s likely to remain the same. If you really
want to eliminate violence, why not eliminate the entire human race,
since violence seems natural to humans. Or, change the nature of people
in how they behave towards each other. That’s probably why religion was
founded in the first place, to introduce through spirituality the idea
that since we are all created by and equal before a certain deity, so we
shouldn’t be hurting each other. But of course, ideas throughout time
become warped and movements get hijacked, so sadly, we are back to
square one.
I will agree with what some people from both pro- and anti-religion
camps would say: the best way anyone can show that their way works best
is through their personal conduct and example. Show us you live
ethically, we’ll believe you.
No comments:
Post a Comment