All religions and spiritual philosophies seem to have a common set of good values that none of us really can disagree with. These have to do with how we treat each other, show love, tolerance and kindess, do the right thing even if it is hard. They have to do with fairness and justice in our treatment of each other that will lead to peace and harmony. The only 'unfairness' they would recommend would be to treat others 'unfairly nice or kindly' as a starting point.
I believe the very nature of such a message is what attracts people to a religion. Even if someone is born into a family that claims to follow a religion, it is their own understanding of the goodness in that, that makes them want to follow. I have rarely heard of or seen anyone say they were attracted to a religion because it encourages injustice, unfairness and justifies us in mistreating someone else. If someone claims such, let us count them out for the purposes of this discussion. They belong to a separate category - a very important and dangerous category, which we will look at later.
Now, I believe that people who are attracted by the message of good in a religion are inherently good people who want to follow the message and actually treat each other well with fairness, justice. The only unfairness that they would like to mete out or receive would be - 'being unfairly nice or kind to someone willingly'. Would you agree upto this point?
Given nothing else but the true spirit of religions, most people would get along relatively well if both are good natured. Human nature is such that it constantly militates against being an ideal follower of the good messages in our religion and all religions. Jealousy, hate, anger, resentment against injustice or insults all crop up and demand action on our part. While our religious or personal philosophy is supposed to help us respond in a better fashion than a knee-jerk, ill-considered reaction, we are not always perfect in our responses. However, when surrounded or guided by people who are not involved in our personal issues of grievances we can normally achieve reasonable response and maintain the goals of our religious beliefs, in real life.
I contend that given nothing more than a bunch of people having to live together in the same town or village or society, it is no wonder that most good, decent people of differing faiths, differing races, differing cultures can usually find a harmonious and amicable balance and live together for many, many years. Gradually, many of their shared languages, practices, music, literature and cultures will merge, overlap while people still retain a large amount of their original, distinct identity.
I believe it takes deliberate mischief, for someone to deviously push their own agenda of greed for power or wealth or control to set people against each other, create and sustain conflict, create and sustain real and perceived injustices and causes to turn religion into a weapon to be used for their nefarious purposes. I believe it is such that has ALWAYS created and sustained religious conflict.
Were the original people who were inspired by the messages of the Hindu Vedas, the life and messages of Jesus, or the messages of Buddha or Prophet Mohammed, or any 'saint' or even 'cult leader' not good people who were sufficiently inspired and passionate to lead a better life and treat each other well?
Never mind what someone else claims the core beliefs or messages of their own or somebody else's religion are. Let us never let another person define these for us. Let us each personally define what our faith or religion means in how we want to treat others, particularly those of a different religion or faith. Misinterpreting the basic messages of one's own religion or someone else's religion is common and let us not get into that game. It always fudges the issues. That is why I would never let George Bush define Islam for me. I would not even let him define Christianity for me! I would look at people who are better role models and even then I would have to exercise my own brain, thinking and judgement.
So, I believe ALL religious conflicts are ultimately the work of mischief makers - power grabbers, thugs and looters who will use the ignorant or foolish mases for their own purposes and let them do all the fighing and dying, while they sit back and enjoy the power, wealth and control they crave.
Some religious conflicts are recent, appearing after hundreds of years of peace. Some are entirely new. Some have gone on for thousands of years. But fighting and killing (at least on one side) is always the work of mischief makers. Once it starts from one side the other responds by defending itself from extermination or in simple retaliation. Of course our own foolishness often contributes to keeping this cycle going on.
They say - 'ultimately all politics is local'. I say ultimately, ' ultimately all religious conflicts are political' and hence by implication 'all relgious conflicts are local political issues'.
Political issues are mostly created by mischief makers, and sustained by foolishness of others.
Without these wicked people, most would co-exist relatively peacefully. The thought of people not being susceptible to manipulation, hate-mongering and not taking someone else's interpretation of religion over their own personal idea, must be the biggest fear of mischief makers and hate-mongerers.
So, what do you think?
What do you think are the roots of mischief making in the conflict between Christians and Muslims - one of the longest on-going religious conflicts or wars in recent history? Someone wrote that they have had conflicts since the 7th century. How did it start? Who were the mischief makers then?
- What and who keep it going today ? Are they not so many examples still of many Christians and Muslims living peacefully, when it comes to civil society (not to be mistaken for the political or relgiious leadership)?
- Who are the mischief makers now? Who are all the fools now?
Copyright (c) Kannan Narayanamurthy 2015
All rights reserved
No comments:
Post a Comment