Abhijit Naskar's Blog - Posts Tagged "religious-philosopher"
Right to Religion is Human Right, but on one condition
Right to religion, is an actual basic existential right of humankind, at least, at its present evolutionary condition. I am beginning this piece, with this, perhaps a bit radical statement, because it would reveal to you your own deep stance on religion without any ambiguity. It would either enrage you fueled by your illustrious atheistic superiority, or it will soothe you, fueled by your innate closeness to your own religion. But to go deeper into this piece, neither of these two extremes would do.
You would have to take off your glasses before you begin – the glasses of theism as well as the glasses of atheism. And when I say “have to”, I do not mean it as an obligation, rather I mean it as a necessity. Because broken souls cannot perceive wholeness. And both the theist and the atheist have obvious perceptual limitations because of their innate brokenness – because of their innate loyalty to a label. Labels may help you feel comfortable in a certain domain, but to see the whole picture, these tiny internal domains must be destroyed first. If, and only if, you are willing to do that, then we can proceed with utmost naivety, with no thesis or antithesis in mind.
What is a right – is there any such thing? The term “right” only exists in a society where people don’t have something that’s necessary for sustaining existence. If this were the animal kingdom instead of a human society, we would not need the term “right”, instead we would simply fight and acquire what’s necessary or die fighting. We use the term “right” in a so-called civilized society, because we want to acquire it with as little fight as possible. In a truly civilized society, we would not need the term “right”. Think about it. You breath in air all the time for its content oxygen, which is necessary for existence. But what would happen, if clean air becomes scarce, like it has become in China, and slowly becoming in India! Then clean air would be manufactured, like some companies are already doing. Hence it becomes a product, which you may or may not have access to. In the extreme case that you do not have access to it for free, clean air which clearly is an existential necessity for humans, would become a matter of right. But it would ultimately depend on the companies whether or not to give their product of clean air away for free – or to be more specific, you would be at their mercy. You may feel access to clean air is your right, but in reality, you no longer have that luxury. Because the companies manufacturing the product, have the ultimate right to that product.
Religion is not much different from clean air, for religion is basically the psychological counterpart of clean air. Clean air is a physiological necessity, whereas religion is a psychological necessity. Here you may think of the term “religion” to be a very simply term with very specific common meaning to all humanity, but in reality, no other term could have as diverse array of meanings as the term “religion” has in the psyche of the humans. But when I say “meanings”, I am not talking about etymology – etymology does not say anything about the place of a term in the human mind. Here I am talking about the wide range of human perceptions of the very term religion. What is this whole religion phenomenon – is it a kind of shampoo – is it a kind of smartphone – is it a kind of computer – or is it a kind of ideals! I don’t think anybody would see it as a shampoo, or a smartphone or a computer even, but perhaps some or perhaps most humans would see it as a kind of ideals and beliefs. Let’s be a bit articulate here. Most humans see religion as a set of beliefs, sustained through rituals. This is what you know as organized religion, that is, an organized structure where an institution of fake superiority determines the lifestyle of a group of people. These institutions say – “give your life to us, to our savior, or to our prophet, and you will have peace.” And they call it religion, by it, I mean this blind obedience to a fake authority, in the hope of psychological security and well-being. Most people are too entangled at a deep subconscious level with this sense of illusory security, hence they shall do everything in their power to defend their beliefs, which to them are synonymous with “religiousness”, if confronted with refutal.
Now the real question is – if this is the global idea of religion and religiousness, can it be hailed as a basic human right! Hard as it may be, a civilized human being would have to be willing to recognize the basic need for this so-called organized religiousness of the humans as a basic human right. But – yes, there is a “but” involved – not the double t one, you dirty fella! This little “but” is involved because, this very religion that we are talking about here, is a messed up form of religion, and has a lot of negative implications on the human society as a whole – here I am referring to the global human society, not a specific group of people. The problem with organized religion is that, because it involves, its own customized god, its own messiah, its own prophet, its own scripture – it inadvertently induces its followers to foster a kind of implicit hatred or simply a sense of conflict towards people of other organized religions. So, though right to practise one’s own religion, may be a basic human right, by all means, it must be watched over by the very humans practising those religions, so that they do no let hatred creep into their heart, no matter how many verses in their beloved scripture proclaim people of other religions to be infidels.
If the humans are able to keep hatred out of their religious practise, then and then only it’s a religious practise – and then only organized religion as it is, can be hailed as a basic human right. But any religion that endorses such hatred, instead of trying to eliminate them, has no right itself to be a part of a civilized human society. Anybody who says – my religion is the only true religion, all others are fake or inferior, has no right to any religion whatsoever, for this creature is not a human – it’s ancient animal living in a modern society under the skin of a human. Religion is for humans, not animals. And any religion that advocates its own supremacy over all other religions, is not religion, rather it’s merely a sophisticated form of tribalism, which belongs in the jungle, not in the human society. So in short, a human can have right to religion, only and only if, that human, as well as the religion he or she wants right to, do not endorse any kind of conflict, either explicit or implicit. Which means, a human has a right to religion, not an animal with self-imposed superiority. Bear in mind, religion must bring oneness, otherwise it’s not religion, but merely a cheap parody of religion. And that’s the religion, every single human being of pure soul has the existential right to – or to simplify even further, without the religion of oneness, there shall be no human life in human body, but only animal life in human body.
Keep in mind, my friend – “We are not divine beings in mortal bodies, We are mortal bodies in pursuit of constructing divine perfection within us.” (quote from Lord is My Sheep: Gospel of Human)
Further Reading
Illusion of Religion: A Treatise on Religious Fundamentalism
Lord is My Sheep: Gospel of Human
You would have to take off your glasses before you begin – the glasses of theism as well as the glasses of atheism. And when I say “have to”, I do not mean it as an obligation, rather I mean it as a necessity. Because broken souls cannot perceive wholeness. And both the theist and the atheist have obvious perceptual limitations because of their innate brokenness – because of their innate loyalty to a label. Labels may help you feel comfortable in a certain domain, but to see the whole picture, these tiny internal domains must be destroyed first. If, and only if, you are willing to do that, then we can proceed with utmost naivety, with no thesis or antithesis in mind.
What is a right – is there any such thing? The term “right” only exists in a society where people don’t have something that’s necessary for sustaining existence. If this were the animal kingdom instead of a human society, we would not need the term “right”, instead we would simply fight and acquire what’s necessary or die fighting. We use the term “right” in a so-called civilized society, because we want to acquire it with as little fight as possible. In a truly civilized society, we would not need the term “right”. Think about it. You breath in air all the time for its content oxygen, which is necessary for existence. But what would happen, if clean air becomes scarce, like it has become in China, and slowly becoming in India! Then clean air would be manufactured, like some companies are already doing. Hence it becomes a product, which you may or may not have access to. In the extreme case that you do not have access to it for free, clean air which clearly is an existential necessity for humans, would become a matter of right. But it would ultimately depend on the companies whether or not to give their product of clean air away for free – or to be more specific, you would be at their mercy. You may feel access to clean air is your right, but in reality, you no longer have that luxury. Because the companies manufacturing the product, have the ultimate right to that product.
Religion is not much different from clean air, for religion is basically the psychological counterpart of clean air. Clean air is a physiological necessity, whereas religion is a psychological necessity. Here you may think of the term “religion” to be a very simply term with very specific common meaning to all humanity, but in reality, no other term could have as diverse array of meanings as the term “religion” has in the psyche of the humans. But when I say “meanings”, I am not talking about etymology – etymology does not say anything about the place of a term in the human mind. Here I am talking about the wide range of human perceptions of the very term religion. What is this whole religion phenomenon – is it a kind of shampoo – is it a kind of smartphone – is it a kind of computer – or is it a kind of ideals! I don’t think anybody would see it as a shampoo, or a smartphone or a computer even, but perhaps some or perhaps most humans would see it as a kind of ideals and beliefs. Let’s be a bit articulate here. Most humans see religion as a set of beliefs, sustained through rituals. This is what you know as organized religion, that is, an organized structure where an institution of fake superiority determines the lifestyle of a group of people. These institutions say – “give your life to us, to our savior, or to our prophet, and you will have peace.” And they call it religion, by it, I mean this blind obedience to a fake authority, in the hope of psychological security and well-being. Most people are too entangled at a deep subconscious level with this sense of illusory security, hence they shall do everything in their power to defend their beliefs, which to them are synonymous with “religiousness”, if confronted with refutal.
Now the real question is – if this is the global idea of religion and religiousness, can it be hailed as a basic human right! Hard as it may be, a civilized human being would have to be willing to recognize the basic need for this so-called organized religiousness of the humans as a basic human right. But – yes, there is a “but” involved – not the double t one, you dirty fella! This little “but” is involved because, this very religion that we are talking about here, is a messed up form of religion, and has a lot of negative implications on the human society as a whole – here I am referring to the global human society, not a specific group of people. The problem with organized religion is that, because it involves, its own customized god, its own messiah, its own prophet, its own scripture – it inadvertently induces its followers to foster a kind of implicit hatred or simply a sense of conflict towards people of other organized religions. So, though right to practise one’s own religion, may be a basic human right, by all means, it must be watched over by the very humans practising those religions, so that they do no let hatred creep into their heart, no matter how many verses in their beloved scripture proclaim people of other religions to be infidels.
If the humans are able to keep hatred out of their religious practise, then and then only it’s a religious practise – and then only organized religion as it is, can be hailed as a basic human right. But any religion that endorses such hatred, instead of trying to eliminate them, has no right itself to be a part of a civilized human society. Anybody who says – my religion is the only true religion, all others are fake or inferior, has no right to any religion whatsoever, for this creature is not a human – it’s ancient animal living in a modern society under the skin of a human. Religion is for humans, not animals. And any religion that advocates its own supremacy over all other religions, is not religion, rather it’s merely a sophisticated form of tribalism, which belongs in the jungle, not in the human society. So in short, a human can have right to religion, only and only if, that human, as well as the religion he or she wants right to, do not endorse any kind of conflict, either explicit or implicit. Which means, a human has a right to religion, not an animal with self-imposed superiority. Bear in mind, religion must bring oneness, otherwise it’s not religion, but merely a cheap parody of religion. And that’s the religion, every single human being of pure soul has the existential right to – or to simplify even further, without the religion of oneness, there shall be no human life in human body, but only animal life in human body.
Keep in mind, my friend – “We are not divine beings in mortal bodies, We are mortal bodies in pursuit of constructing divine perfection within us.” (quote from Lord is My Sheep: Gospel of Human)
Further Reading
Illusion of Religion: A Treatise on Religious Fundamentalism
Lord is My Sheep: Gospel of Human
