In Continuum.

Ligatures and Ligaments

In light of how my sister has been leeching my knowledge of the environmental crisis, I've been forced to think about the various pollutants that our environment is so vulnerable against. We are speaking of pollutants here, gallons of waste and untreated water being poured into the ocean day in and day out, as if the problem with the oceanic temperature rising isn't already a serious threat by itself. But this entry isn't going to be about how humans are destroying their own environment, or what we should do to save our good Earth. This entry is going to be about one of the pollutants that I jokingly mentioned, but made surprising sense in a senseless sort of way.

The pollutant I referred to was religion, which may come as a surprise to most as we've all socially agreed that religion is a form of belief, something that brings people with differentiated backgrounds together. While I do agree with that aspect of religion, I cannot agree with how many people have come to distort the truth behind religion, and turning them into their own interests. Any issue can be easily solved if we just put our minds and hearts to it. But whenever an issue involves religion or politics, it becomes too sensitive to resolve all of a sudden. They are like pollutants on the already polluted sea, and this fact is not stopping any religious extremists from pouring their own beliefs down the throat of others. Personally, I am not somebody who has a religion to boot, but that doesn't mean that I have to put down the religion of others, like a certain individual would at school. I guess in the process of opening up their minds to the world through religion, these people have in turn narrowed their minds to the size of a pinhead.

In an effort to encourage discussions and interactions in class, our UGC lecturer decided that we should be grouped together every week, and forced to discuss a topic posed days before the actual lesson. This is how it is supposed to work: Ten students would be chosen during every lesson, while another ten would be their observers. These observers would take note of how their partners are doing in the discussions, and give points to examples cited, elaboration given, etc. The speakers on the other hand would be speaking of various issues faced by the world today, in relation to a certain topic we are studying in world civilizations. Everybody gets a chance to speak, nobody whether you have an opinion about anything at all. This week, we had our discussion on whether it is possible to separate the church from state, and the mentioning of the word 'church' almost guaranteed that classmate of mine to speak out about his own opinions about Christianity. I don't have a thing against that religion, or any other religion for that matter. But it is just a little coincidental how extremists in my social circle are almost always from that religion, and they are like pests that roams every inch of our lives.

It was generally agreed upon that there is a gray area in which the church cannot be separated from the state. That is to say, you cannot fully separate religious laws from governmental laws, simply because they are complementary of each other, very much like coffee is to cream and vice versa. There is no black or white in this matter, and that was a sentiment shared by most speakers - which inevitably caused the discussion to be rather dull and predictable. At the end of our discussion, the lecturer asked the opinions of the observers on what could have been improved, and what points were left out from the discussions itself. Due to the fact that the topic involved the sensitive subject of religion, the extremist spoke up as predicted by all, and stirred up quite a cloud of dust in the process.

The extremist's argument is that we forgot to touch on the topic of morality, and how that has a great tie to the separation of governmental laws and religious laws. He argues that religious laws are important - and in some cases more important than the state laws - because they instill values to the believers. He cited an example of the Vikings, and stated how their laws never saw 'murder' as being wrong, or unrighteous. To the Vikings, killing is all part and parcel of their culture, and therefore it stands above all rationality. Then he proceeded to talk about how religion has a part to play in instilling certain values into people, and he was speaking in particular about Christianity as usual. He implied that people who have a religion would then have the right mindset for values, and thus see murder as being wrong in our society. Whereas those without a religion - like the Vikings - did not have any values and thus, saw killing as being a part of life. That statement stirred up a few voices in the crowd even after the official discussion ended, and here's why.

I think it is preposterous to assume that people who do not have a religion, are in turn without values. There are a significant number of people in this world who do not possess a value, but at the same time they do not go around killing people just because they feel that it is right to do so. There are also people with religion killing others for a multitude of reasons, and it is clear that these religious people are not following their so-called religious laws. The extremist clearly forgot a part of the human history that involved the bloodshed of a million Muslims and Christians, known as The Crusades. I am sure those people had a religion, and they killed also in the name of their religion. So where is the line drawn between the right and the wrong, when you are carrying the banner of your religion and slaying your enemies mercilessly?

I do suppose that it is unfair to make a sweeping statement like that, while possessing the full knowledge that there are people in the audience without a religion. Then again, I suppose it then becomes justified for us to take our our pen knives and stab him in the throat, if we are really as valueless and barbaric as he claims us to be. But in truth, we are still people with values, and we know how to differentiate between the right and the wrong, not because of any religious interferences but rather the existence of a social agreement. I suppose the values that we possess as of today, is merely an agreement by the majority as to how we should act and how we shouldn't act. The nature of a murder does not depend on what your religion tells you, but rather what your mind tells you to belief as a right thing to do. And what should be the dictator of our minds is the agreement of our society, rather than words that are religious in nature.

The irony is that the extremist devotes a large proportion on the teachings of the religion, which was based on the teachings of ordinary humans. Of course, nobody can deny that the Bible was actually written on humans. I believe that anything based upon the acts of humans cannot be flawless or correct in every way, and that claim extends out even into the field of religion itself. The truth is, I feel, is that the truth is merely relative, and that it is dictated by the winners and not the losers, very much like history. The winners tell you what they want you to know, and what they want you to believe. The authors of the Bible were merely the winners in an arms race, and they came out on top and managed to write a book that convinced half the world that they are right - that they are flawless. Of course, the essence of the book is to tell us to do good, to love one another like how God loves us. But people - humans - have the tendency to take anything beautiful and manipulate them into their own interests. Even religious laws were written based upon an agreement by humanity as a whole, so I don't suppose a person without a religion should be equated to as one without humanity.

To me, I do not have a religion, although I do believe in the existence of a superior being. That makes me agnostic, but at the same time does not guarantee me a ticket to Heaven when I expire. However, that does not necessarily mean that I have to get a religion right now, just in case the tunnel of light opens up to the gates of Hell. I do agree with Alan Moore - one of my favorite writers - in his ideas on religion. He states that - as you will see in the video below - religion has the same roots as the words 'Ligament' and 'Ligatures', which means 'to bind'. He thinks that if we are to believe that every individual is unique in our own ways physically, mentally and emotionally, then it would be rather disturbing to have us be common spiritually, a point which I strongly agree. Then again, it is not like I am going to pick up his religion of Glycon anytime soon.

In any case, I do not like the idea of being bound to a certain belief with anybody else, and certainly not how some people might attempt to shove their beliefs down the throat of others. We are still cool with each other in school of course, but we do have our disagreements when it comes to the subject of religion, which I try to avoid from time to time. He does things with good intentions, but his executions may require more care and attention. With all due respect, do shut up in class. We know your beliefs, and we know that they are strong. But we have ours just like you have your own, and do respect that about us. We are not savages just because we do not have a religion. We are humans, only humans.

Alan Moore shares his ideas on religion and Glycon.