In response to Roy's post about religion, poverty and North Korea...
There are people who embrace their religion with enthusiasm, and
follow it to the letter of whatever bible version to which they
currently adhere. Some of these inspired people take things to an
extreme and wear their religion as a crown that somehow raises them
above the unwashed heathen masses. Others utilize their
beliefs as a means to live as close to their Creator as possible.
There are people who embrace religion only on Sundays and never seem to
fully grasp how to apply it in their daily lives. For them, it is
enough to go to church - weekly, or whenever they are moved to attend.
For some, religion is a status symbol. They are "good Christians"
because they go to church.
There are those who feel compelled to spread the Word to all who do not believe as they do. The bible tells them this is the
way to Heaven: to convert as many as possible and spread the word of God. All those who
do not follow their religion are doomed.
There are zealots who twist religions
to suit their own purposes, who use religion as a weapon against those
who they believe to be weak or inferior. Sometimes these zealots
manage to convince large numbers of the weaker-minded to join them in
their quest for spiritual dominance.
There are those who
choose to completely ignore religions. Religion may be construed as a
lie, or a way of controlling the masses. For these people religion
offers no solace, no support.
Then there are those who fall
between the cracks. These are the ones who struggle to make sense of
religion - any religion. Some are not certain what they want in a religion and will
spend their lives searching for something to believe in.
Some seek religious enlightenment but are not willing to swallow any
particular religion, preferring to sample religion as one would a
buffet. For these people (I am one of them), it is important to learn
what each religion offers, and to sift the good out of all systems of
belief, then find a way to apply that to their daily existence.
Each
is following a path that makes daily living as bearable for them as it
can be. Faith may comfort them, lift them when they fall, support them
through the difficult times, and inspire them. It may offer some a hope
of everlasting life beyond this existence.
The problem, as I see it, arises when religions begin to threaten
people, to alienate them from life and loved ones, to suggest that any
one particular religion is THE religion and all other paths lead to
condemnation. When a religion segregates you and attempts to control
your thoughts and actions beyond simply teaching, it begins to enter a destructive realm.
Many
of todays religions are treading on this very ground; some have been
exceedingly controlling in the past. However, with the continued spread
of information in our now-global community, this control is more
visible. Some will cherish control because it lends
structure to their lives. Others
will recoil from control and seek a path that offers more
freedom.
It is all good.
Religion is meant to offer
inspiration to each of us, individually. We do not speak the same
language, so why would we worship exactly alike? The Christian bible
alludes to this individuality when it speaks of spreading the word of
God to everyone, each in their own tongue.
Part of the problem is interpretation. The Judao-Christian bibles have
undergone interpretation and re-writes many times and, as our language
changed, so did the interpretations. What we have today in the various
bibles is, in my belief, far from the original words. I have often
thought that if the Almighty himself were to read these books today he
would scratch his head in amazement and say that was not what he said
or meant.
The belief that to be a good Christian means spreading the word of God is
not wrong in a basic way. However the bible has been literally
interpreted to mean that teaching about God must be by promoting the
Word and must be directed at people who believe differently than you
do, often bombarding them with the inadequacies of their own belief
system in order to convert them. At a minimum it is a single-minded
path that does not allow for sharing ideologies or learning new ideas.
At its worst, it is arrogant and egocentric.
Ideally, simply LIVING one's religion is the best way to teach others
about one's faith. It is not necessary to embrace an entire religion to
be inspired by the good it has to offer. Observing someone live their
lives with grace, dignity, compassion, kindness and charity is far more
inspiring than any words, from any religion.
Which leads to the discussion of global poverty. As with religion,
there is a belief that "our way" is the right way and those who do not
follow "our way" are wrong. For years developed countries have tried to
force their beliefs upon the less developed nations, and the results
have often been tragic. I recall the Canadian government's
pathetic attempt to "help" the Inuit people by building houses up
north, providing furniture, taking away their need for hunting by
giving them food and then leaving them. Unfortunately, they never
thought to provide the Inuit with hydro so when winter came the Inuit
were forced to burn their free furniture in their free stoves so they
could cook their free food. Nor did they think about what would happen
if the supply of food could not get through the frozen north during
winter. The good intentions were not thought out to a logical
conclusion. Only one step was taken, with no vision towards the future.
The solution to world poverty is not simple, nor is it a one-time,
one-action process. The hungry must be fed -- that is a given. Starving
people cannot begin to help themselves. However this is only a first step.
In most of the areas severely affected by this magnitude of poverty the
physical realities of drought, crime, corrupt governments etc. must be
balanced with the dispersal of food. There is no one easy solution and
the problem will not go away with a few well-meaning concerts and some
government handouts. It will take years to affect a measurable change.
Education, agriculture, government changes, are all needed before
poverty in these areas will end. It will take long-term commitments by
the Haves towards the Have-nots.
That brings up the balancing of "help" with "change".
Offering assistance does not give the
developed nations carte blanche to force their way of life upon these
people. To do so is to take advantage of them at their weakest.
Cultural evolution will happen -- it is inevitable. Whether that
evolution follows "our" path remains to be seen. The most we can do is
help those less fortunate to get back on their feet and then, as one
would their child, let them walk the path they are meant to walk even
if it isn't "our" path.
Having
said that there are a few exceptions to this. If a society is
threatening the well-being of it's people, the global community, or the
planet, then change become a necessity. A country that endorses
genocide/ethnic cleansing etc. is a danger to its people. No one should
have to live in that kind of fear. It stops being a political issue and
becomes a humanitarian issue. If a country's actions threaten the
global village then changes must be brought about within that country.
An example is the spread of avian flu in some Asian countries. Open-air
markets with livestock in varying degrees of poor health packed into
tiny cages, and disease spread throughout by the heat and unclean
conditions, becomes a danger to the global community through people and
travel. Not only is this situation absolute cruelty to animals, but it
is a potential epidemic waiting to happen. If a country threatens the
future of this planet, that too must change. Here in Canada, with the
overfishing of the Atlantic seaboard, and the desire of the First
Nations to continue fishing in these waters, the issue must boil down
to the survival of the planet. Annihilation of species of wildlife to
support ages-old traditions must change. We, as a species, do not have
absolute right over all life forms. We share this planet -- the
operative word being SHARE -- and must find a balance by which we all can live.
Throughout civilization cultural changes have occurred,
either by force or by nature. This change is inevitable and will
happen within all cultures eventually. We must strike a balance between
assisting those who need assistance, and affecting change when change
is most needed.
Roy
also wrote about the situation in North Korea. Unfortunately I have
very little knowledge about that issue so will not even attempt a comment.
I commend Roy for upholding his system of beliefs. Having the
strength of ones convictions is an admirable trait and one not often
seen these days.
And supposedly his computer has a faster processor than
my Intel Celeron 1.3 GHz processor. That, too, is not right!!! 