spoonmonger
27th March 2006, 17:49
Religious Intolerance Breeds Religious Fundamentalism and Not Vice-Versa
We live in a climate of political uncertainty. Traditional left-right politics is on the decline, with moral, ethical and single-issue politics on the increase. Religious ideology is taking centre stage due to the corporate controlled mass media exploiting it to cover up for the real socio-economic issues of traditional left-right politics. They are able to achieve this due to the bitter rivalry between the Christian Fundamentalist Bush Administration and the Islamic Fundamentalist Al-Qaeda. With this taking affect on a global scale, increasing amounts of people are scrutinising religion in all forms (since the media rarely scrutinises itself).
It is seems that there is no option except either with religion (neo-conservatism) or against religion (neo-liberalism).
Karl Marx is famously quoted as saying:
"Religion is the opium of the masses"
Sadly for the real intention of this social observation, it was viewed by many centralist figures as an attack on religion and implying it should be eradicated just like a drugs problem. The people, who interpreted this quote in this way although maybe not far right, still preach and agree with religious intolerance. This goes back to the unfortunate fact the corporate media use religion as a smoke screen for the real problems in society, primarily that of inequality.
However like all drugs problems the cause of it is missed. Karl Marx's real intentions for the previous quote were not to create an entirely secular society devoid of all religion are clearer in a lesser-known quote:
"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."
This is a very alternative look on religion. Most centralists suggest that religion in its simplest form is the cause of inequality. Marx makes the suggestion that religion is in fact the by-product of inequality within a society, that a secular society is only possible as long as the oppression and suffering within societies are exterminated. Upon reflection of this, it is clear there is in fact a strong correlation between oppressed societies and religious fundamentalism.
The proof for religion being a by-product not cause of ills in society are vivid within modern day societies (as well as the former feudal societies). Why is it that religious fundamentalism arises only in societies with large amounts of inequality. One example would have to be America. It is prudent to use America as an example because it is an industrialised nation and claims to be at the fore-front of progress and therefore cannot fall to the argument that it is simply a backwards society. However it is one of the most divided countries in the world (proven by the aftermath of hurricane Katrina) and within it lays a large contingent of Christian fundamentalists. Compare it with other industrialised nations, religious fundamentalism seems close to non-existent, due to a greater level of equality and social support.
The less prudent example would be the middle east as many people on the far-right say it is a backwards society and naively believe that underdeveloped societies develop religious fundamentalism. However, the Middle East can be used as an example of how an exploited society will resort to religion as a means to escape the exploitation. Therefore, the societies themselves are not to blame. Instead it is the exploitative societies (mainly western) that are creating this feeling of desperation particularly within the youth. The situation I am referring to is the West's cravings for oil. As a result of this dependence, the Iraq conflict emerged. This resulted in (at the time of writing) approximately 35,000 civilian deaths in Iraq (source: Iraqbodycount.org based on average of minimum and maximum possible deaths). As a result, just like many downtrodden societies, they turn to violence and due to American military dominance the most available outlet for this violence is "martyrdom". The west has no one else but itself to blame for the increase in terrorist activities. Even before the conflict, there was oppression and as a result, fundamentalism occurred. However before the intervention of western societies, although religion was still there as it was a feudal society, it had not suffered the oppression which capitalism inflicts, hence less extreme responses to poor conditions.
One issue that is raised is that, isn't Bush religious and at the same time the oppressor? Yes, it is true that Bush is religious however not the extent of fundamentalism. Like most oppressors, he uses people's fears to seize control. In the case of American public opinion, he uses religion to either defend his actions or uses it as a way of creating a smoke screen for his failures (for example raising the issue of same sex marriages to cover up for his economic failures). He is simply yet affectively playing off the inequality that lies within American society and re-creating the old witch hunting attitude of either being with us (patriotic) or against us (enemy of the state) with little or no room for questioning his regime among the masses.
This leads to Marx's meaning that religion is simply an outcry against injustice. Since the fall of feudalism as the class divides have started closing in religion has been on the decline. Marx is saying, don't eradicate religion, eradicate social injustice and inequality as that is the cause of religion and people will no longer feel they have to resort to religious fundamentalism. It is a good lesson to learn that acceptance and tolerance can lead to peaceful societies, whereas hatred and apathy lead to injustice, exploitation and inequality. Religious and social tolerance is key to a fairer and peaceful society. People will not feel as though they have to resort to such extreme measure such as martyrdom or preaching hatred, as they would feel accepted and an asset to society.
I hope this article evokes people to research the relationships between inequality and the phenomenon of religious fundamentalism. My wish would be for this to lead to a greater understanding of religion as not simply a scorn on the Earth, instead it being a voice for the unheard, a lifestyle and something to be admired for all the benefits it has brought to societies. Lastly for the extreme practices of religion to be viewed with a level of understanding and empathy, for people to realise that suppressing it, will only fan the flames further.
We live in a climate of political uncertainty. Traditional left-right politics is on the decline, with moral, ethical and single-issue politics on the increase. Religious ideology is taking centre stage due to the corporate controlled mass media exploiting it to cover up for the real socio-economic issues of traditional left-right politics. They are able to achieve this due to the bitter rivalry between the Christian Fundamentalist Bush Administration and the Islamic Fundamentalist Al-Qaeda. With this taking affect on a global scale, increasing amounts of people are scrutinising religion in all forms (since the media rarely scrutinises itself).
It is seems that there is no option except either with religion (neo-conservatism) or against religion (neo-liberalism).
Karl Marx is famously quoted as saying:
"Religion is the opium of the masses"
Sadly for the real intention of this social observation, it was viewed by many centralist figures as an attack on religion and implying it should be eradicated just like a drugs problem. The people, who interpreted this quote in this way although maybe not far right, still preach and agree with religious intolerance. This goes back to the unfortunate fact the corporate media use religion as a smoke screen for the real problems in society, primarily that of inequality.
However like all drugs problems the cause of it is missed. Karl Marx's real intentions for the previous quote were not to create an entirely secular society devoid of all religion are clearer in a lesser-known quote:
"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."
This is a very alternative look on religion. Most centralists suggest that religion in its simplest form is the cause of inequality. Marx makes the suggestion that religion is in fact the by-product of inequality within a society, that a secular society is only possible as long as the oppression and suffering within societies are exterminated. Upon reflection of this, it is clear there is in fact a strong correlation between oppressed societies and religious fundamentalism.
The proof for religion being a by-product not cause of ills in society are vivid within modern day societies (as well as the former feudal societies). Why is it that religious fundamentalism arises only in societies with large amounts of inequality. One example would have to be America. It is prudent to use America as an example because it is an industrialised nation and claims to be at the fore-front of progress and therefore cannot fall to the argument that it is simply a backwards society. However it is one of the most divided countries in the world (proven by the aftermath of hurricane Katrina) and within it lays a large contingent of Christian fundamentalists. Compare it with other industrialised nations, religious fundamentalism seems close to non-existent, due to a greater level of equality and social support.
The less prudent example would be the middle east as many people on the far-right say it is a backwards society and naively believe that underdeveloped societies develop religious fundamentalism. However, the Middle East can be used as an example of how an exploited society will resort to religion as a means to escape the exploitation. Therefore, the societies themselves are not to blame. Instead it is the exploitative societies (mainly western) that are creating this feeling of desperation particularly within the youth. The situation I am referring to is the West's cravings for oil. As a result of this dependence, the Iraq conflict emerged. This resulted in (at the time of writing) approximately 35,000 civilian deaths in Iraq (source: Iraqbodycount.org based on average of minimum and maximum possible deaths). As a result, just like many downtrodden societies, they turn to violence and due to American military dominance the most available outlet for this violence is "martyrdom". The west has no one else but itself to blame for the increase in terrorist activities. Even before the conflict, there was oppression and as a result, fundamentalism occurred. However before the intervention of western societies, although religion was still there as it was a feudal society, it had not suffered the oppression which capitalism inflicts, hence less extreme responses to poor conditions.
One issue that is raised is that, isn't Bush religious and at the same time the oppressor? Yes, it is true that Bush is religious however not the extent of fundamentalism. Like most oppressors, he uses people's fears to seize control. In the case of American public opinion, he uses religion to either defend his actions or uses it as a way of creating a smoke screen for his failures (for example raising the issue of same sex marriages to cover up for his economic failures). He is simply yet affectively playing off the inequality that lies within American society and re-creating the old witch hunting attitude of either being with us (patriotic) or against us (enemy of the state) with little or no room for questioning his regime among the masses.
This leads to Marx's meaning that religion is simply an outcry against injustice. Since the fall of feudalism as the class divides have started closing in religion has been on the decline. Marx is saying, don't eradicate religion, eradicate social injustice and inequality as that is the cause of religion and people will no longer feel they have to resort to religious fundamentalism. It is a good lesson to learn that acceptance and tolerance can lead to peaceful societies, whereas hatred and apathy lead to injustice, exploitation and inequality. Religious and social tolerance is key to a fairer and peaceful society. People will not feel as though they have to resort to such extreme measure such as martyrdom or preaching hatred, as they would feel accepted and an asset to society.
I hope this article evokes people to research the relationships between inequality and the phenomenon of religious fundamentalism. My wish would be for this to lead to a greater understanding of religion as not simply a scorn on the Earth, instead it being a voice for the unheard, a lifestyle and something to be admired for all the benefits it has brought to societies. Lastly for the extreme practices of religion to be viewed with a level of understanding and empathy, for people to realise that suppressing it, will only fan the flames further.