The society that we live in consists of many stems that control our everyday lives; how we interact with other people, how we think about the world but most importantly it controls and moulds our way of thinking towards ourselves and what we want to achieve in our lives. So how do we define the right way of thinking?
The answer to that, in my opinion, is that there is no right way of thinking. The right way is what we perceive to be the right way in our own minds. What we think is right ultimately becomes the values in which we keep stepping forward, but if one society were to teach each individual who resided in it a similar set of rules, would that lead to each individual moving in the same direction as every other individual also in the very same society?
If this were true, then why does everyone have a different way of understanding what life is all about. From where I stand, freedom is where your parents lead you, and for others, freedom is where you lead yourself whether it is within your parents choice or not, These values then become your religion. Through this statement, it seems that your religion, in other words, your values, becomes easy to follow as you are the individual who has created these values from experience.
The reason why I link religion to values is due to the perspective of Emile Durkheim. This originator of functionalism strongly believed that the norms and values of which you carry with you are the same as the religion you follow. The rules integrated with religion can be seen as the same as your norms and values.
However through my way of thinking, following my religion becomes the most difficult thing to follow, as the more and more I see I understand my values are changing. If that were true, that would also mean my religion is changing with me. This conflict with the base religion and my own religion brings along the question, is the base religion true and if followed does it lead to, for many religions, heaven or for Rastafarians, Zion or for buddhists the true realisation of everything in this world? Thus do my values become my religion or not?
Written By,
Jawaad Saleem
I know that you used Durkheim to support your views but I suggest you read "Civilization and its Discontents" by Sigmund Freud to ans ur questions about society and values.
ReplyDeleteAlso, have you read Marxs' views on religion? His famous quote was, "religion is the opium of the people". There really is no one meaning to his views b/c ppl interpreted it differently since it was originally written in german, I think. But it basically means that society is not optimal but religion is.
If you want, you can read my essay on religion in marxs' views. It's pretty detailed. But I really liked how you critically thought about it and correlated society and its impact on values and belief systems and vice versa. Nice!
I will definitely read that.
ReplyDeleteI have read marx's views on religion, but he also believed religion to be a structure that influenced the mind's of individuals in an oppressive way. Hence my question to these theorists, through my article,is that something as spiritual as religion, how can it be structured to fit your norms and values. Because values change, does that mean religion would also change?
Religions or their interpretations change a lot. Take for example christianity: For ages the clergy could argue for crusades, witch hunts and inquisition with quotes from the bible, but now, as society has changed and therefore our views on things like war, women's rights, religious freedoms and so on, Christians read different things into the bible (or get out of it).
ReplyDeleteOr take slavery: Before the US civil war there were Christians on both sides arguing for and against slavery and both sides were quoting from the bible. In my humble opinion, both sides could be justified from the bible. The abolitionists just had more "progressive" values than the slave holders, and so nowadays modern society as well as Christians abhor at the thought of slavery. The values have changed and thus the interpretation of the bible. The religious text on the other hand has not changed at all. Long story short: Religious texts don't change, the world around them and with it the societies and their values do.
@Hira
I am not sure if I understood you correctly, but Marx was not saying at all that "religion was perfect" (unless you mean: religion is a perfect tool to control the masses, which is more what he meant by the famous quote.)
Addendum: I strongly disagree with the point of view that moral values have their root in religion. I consider myself an atheist and also a person with values and moral. Moral values and religiosity are two totally independent entities in my humble opinion.
ReplyDeleteHey Till, sorry for such a late reply and thank you so much for your opinion. I agree with you on the fact that values and religion are different that is why my article was based on questioning those theorists that do. Marx is also included within the theorists I question.
DeleteThe reason being is that Marx explained religion to be a structure in society to help the bourgeoisie to oppress the proletariats. This being this structure, in Marx's opinion works but in the future this will change. As I am talking about the time where religion is used to oppress and that it works for the bourgeoisie we can also assume that Marx is that implying religion has taken control over the proletariat.
The reason the proletariats do not fight back is only because their values (religion) says no.
Hence I question that, the fact that we are all different only definitely means that our values change with us but our religion will always stay the same. So I agree with you.
It seems as if you make no sense in the beginning. Its like you just strung some smart-sounding words together to seem intellectual. Only in the beginning because later on it began to make a little bit of sense just a little. how old are you? 16?
ReplyDeleteThank you for your honesty but no. My study in sociology helped me write this article and my conflict with theorists only enhanced my question against the structure vs spiritualism theme within this article.
Delete