Recently I was listening to a program on ABC RN, with this title (without the exclamation mark). To tell you the truth, although as you know I’m critical in no small way of part of the beliefs and practices of the church I belong to, I was shocked that someone could say such a thing.
Naturally I do know many people are atheist (that is the lack of belief that a God or some supreme entity exists, or belief that God does not exist), agnostic (meaning the existence or otherwise that a divine entity cannot be proven) and others. Although not all religions have a God or gods, having someone argue that man would be better off not having a religion shook me to the core, not least as in my life I have always seen the good that can come out, and in fact does, by people or organisations with religious inspiration (of all types).
I state this without denying for a single second the scandals and sordidness that can be committed, and in fact are, by people or organisations with religious inspiration (of all types), a denial that unfortunately is made by some whose faith cannot be described otherwise than blind.
The program was in fact a repetition of a broadcast made in 2008 from the series Big Ideas, whose format consists of a debate by a panel of two or three speaking in favour of a motion, and the same amount against, with a vote of the audience being held at the start and the end of the program to determne whether there was any shift in opinion and if so in which direction.
The arguments that impressed me most were the list of fights, wars and similar actions that were carried out throughout the ages inspired, at least in part, by religious beliefs. We all know about many examples of these: the conflict between Protestants and Catholics in North Ireland (Christian), head chopping of people not sharing the same beliefs (Muslim), the ruthlessness of Buddhists against the Muslim Rohingya population in Myanmar rendering the latter stateless, the Jewish occupation of the lands of Palestine and others.
On a lower yet still serious level one could add the discrimination against minorities, such as immigrants who are likely to have different beliefs than the long established (if not indigenous) residents of the place, or those having a different sexual orientation; the shunning of people who have changed their views about their faith and in fact end up isolated from their community’s cultural and social apart from religious ties. Naturally, this discrimination is all justifiable by beliefs.
I have to say all this is true. Nevertheless I have never accepted, and won’t start doing so now, that these actions or attitutes are necessarily representative of the religion that one embraces.
Anyone having his eyes and ears open, and is ready to listen, will realise that in each religion there is a warm and vigorous debate, sometimes carried out in private, about how words and events written in the holy books are to be interpreted, this hundreds or thousands of years after being penned.
For example, Islamic terrorists mention that the Quran permits the killing of those who are not Muslim, and we have seen the cowardly result of this belief. On the other hand, more conventional brances of Islam declare that this is a perversion of the message, which was written during a time of persecution of the Prophet and had only identified 5 tribes of the time.
I had also mentioned Buddhists in Myanmar and their participation in the crisis of the Rohingya, with the murder of many of the latter and their banishment to Bangladesh in the last few years. Buddhism is a religious tradition minimally associated with violence, after the Buddha had condemned the killing or injuring of other people. So how could I see participants in this massacre of Rohingya as representative of Buddhism?
No, the carrying out of bad acts by some, even by many, even when carried out in the name of a religion, does not reflect on the religion but on the perpetrator.
It is enough for me to note the many good deeds carried out by others with religious inspiration – charity, dedication of causes for the good of humanity, the oft-heroic struggle against discrimination and in favour of the weak and downtrodden, and often the ones benefiting from such deeds do not even have the same faith.
I do not wish to imply that these positive actions are the prerogative only of those that are religious. I recognise that those having no religion can also have a sensitive humanity, be generous and do good in society.
Those embracing a religion are not any less.
-------------------------
Dan l-aħħar inzertajt programm fuq l-istazzjon tar-radju ABC RN, b’dan it-titlu (mingħajr il-punt interrogattiv). Biex ngħidilkom id-dritt, għalkemm bħal ma tafu jien kritiku mhux ftit ta’ parti tat-twemmin u tal-prattika tal-Knisja li nappartjeni għaliha, ħassejtni xxukkjat li wieħed jista’ jasal jagħmel stqarrija bħal din.
Naturalment naf li hemm ħafna persuni huma ateji (jiġifieri n-nuqqas ta’ twemmin li Alla jew xi entità suprema teżisti, jew it-twemmin li Alla ma’ jeżistix), anjostiċi (jiġifieri li l-eżistenza jew le ta’ entità divina ma tistax tkun ippruvata) jew oħrajn. Għalkemm mhux kull reliġjon għandu Alla jew allat, li wieħed jargumenta li aħjar bniedem ma jkollux reliġjon daħħalni daqsxejn f’qoxorti, mhux l-inqas għax f’ħajti dejjem rajt it-tajjeb li jista’ jitwettaq, u fil-fatt jitwettaq, minn nies ta’ ispirazzjoni reliġjuża jew organizzazzjonijiet direttament reliġjużi (ta’ kull tip).
Dan nagħmlu mingħajr ma niċħad lanqas għal sekonda l-iskandli u l-ħniżrijiet li jistgħu jitwettqu, u fil-fatt jitwettqu, minn nies ta’ ispirazzjoni reliżjuża jew organizzazzjonijiet direttament reliżjużi (ta’ kull tip inkluża tiegħi), ċaħda li sfortunatament issir minn xi wħud li l-fidi tagħhom ma tistax tiġi deskritta ħlief għamja.
Il-programm fil-fatt kien repetizzjoni ta’ xandira li kienet saret fl-2008 mis-sensiela Big Ideas, li l-format tiegħu jkun dibattitu fuq panel ta’ tnejn jew tlieta min-nies jitkellmu favur mozzjoni, u l-istess ammont jitkellmu kontra, u jittieħed vot tal-udjenza fil-bidu u fl-aħħar tal-programm biex jinstab jekk kienx hemm min bidel l-opinjoni tiegħu u jekk iva f’liema direzzjoni.
L-iktar argumenti li laqtuni kienu l-lista ta’ ġlidiet, gwerer jew azzjonijiet li saru matul iż-żminijiet li kienu ispirati, tal-inqas f’parti minnhom, minn twemmin reliġjuż. Ilkoll nafu b’ħafna eżempji minn dawn: il-ġlied bejn il-Protestanti u l-Kattoliċi fl-Irlanda ta’ Fuq (Insara), il-qtugħ tal-irjus ta’ min ma jħaddanx it-twemmin tiegħu (Musulmani), il-ħruxija tal-Buddisti tal-Myanmar kontra l-popolazzjoni Musulmana Rohingya li spiċċaw mingħajr stat, l-okkupazzjoni Lhudija tal-artijiet tal-Palestina u oħrajn.
Fuq livell inqas imma xorta gravi wieħed jista’ jżid id-diskriminazzjoni kontra minoranzi, bħal immigranti li aktarx ikollhom twemminijiet differenti min-nies stabbiliti (jekk mhux indiġeni) tal-post, jew dawk li jkollhom orjentazzjoni sesswali differenti; it-twarrib ta’ persuni li jkunu bidlu l-fehma tagħhom u li fil-fatt jispiċċaw maqtugħin minn rabtiet kulturali u soċjali minbarra dawk reliġjużi. Naturalment, dan id-diskriminazzjoni kollha tkun ġustifikabbli mit-twemmin.
Jien ngħid għalija, jekk irrid inkun sinċier ngħid dan kollu huwa minnu. Madankollu qatt ma aċċettajt, u miniex se nibda issa, li dawn l-azzjonijiet jew attitudnijiet huma neċessarjament rappreżentattivi tar-reliġjon li dak li jkun jgħid li jħaddan.
Jekk wieħed ikollu għajnejn u widnejn miftuħa, u lest li jisma’, jinduna li f’kull reliġjoni ikun hemm dibattitu sħiħ jew jaħraq, kultant fil-moħbi, dwar kif għandhom ikunu interpretati kliem u avvenimenti li jkun miktuba fil-kotba mqaddsa, u dan mijiet jew eluf ta’ snin wara li jkunu nkitbu.
Per eżempju, it-terroristi Islamiċi jsemmu li l-Quran jippermetti l-qtil ta’ dawk kollha li mhumiex Musulmani, u rajna r-riżultat viljakk ta’ dan it-twemmin. Mill-banda l-oħra, fergħat iktar konvenzjonali tal-Islam jistqarru li din hija perverżjoni tal-messaġġ, li kien inkiteb waqt żmien ta’ persekuzzjoni tal-Profeta u kien jidentifika biss ħames tribujiet partikolari.
Eżempju ieħor li semmejt huma l-Buddisti ta’ Myanmar, u l-partiċipazzjoni tagħhom fil-kriżi tar-Rohingya, bil-qtil ta’ ħafna minn tal-aħħar u t-tkeċċija tagħhom lejn il-Bangladesh f’dawn l-aħħar snin. Il-Buddiżmu huwa tradizzjoni reliġjuża mill-inqas assoċjata mal-vjolenza, wara li l-Budda kien ikkundanna l-qtil jew il-feriment ta’ persuni oħra. Allura kif nista’ nara lil min ipparteċipa f’dan il-massakru tar-Rohingya bħala rappreżentattivi tal-Buddisti?
Le, it-twettiq ta’ azzjonijiet ħżiena ta’ wħud, anke ta’ ħafna, anke meta mistqarr f’isem reliġjon, ma jirriflettix fuq ir-reliġjon, imma jirrifletti biss fuq min iwettqu.
Biżżejjed nara tant opri tajba li jitwettqu minn oħrajn b’ispirazzjoni reliġjuża – il-karità, id-dedikazzjoni għal kawżi b’riżq l-umanità, il-ġlieda kultant erojka kontra d-diskriminazzjoni u favur il-batut, u ħafna drabi dawk li jibbenefikaw minn opri bħal dawn ma jkollhom l-istess fidi.
Ma rridx nimplika li dawn l-azzjonijiet pożittivi huma l-prerogattiva biss ta’ min huwa reliġjuż. Nagħraf li min m’għandux reliġjon ukoll jista’ jkollu umanità sensittiva, jkun ġeneruż, u jagħmel ġid fis-soċjetà.
Min iħaddan reliġjon ma għandu xejn inqas minn dan.
No comments:
Post a Comment