Many people who abhor religion sometimes contend that it is
debasing and stifles individualism namely freedom of thought and liberty to
begin anew - not conforming to
traditional values and standards – without societal restrictions, pressure,
shunning, mockery and even in the worst case scenario physical assault.
It would be grossly unfair or better still simply gross to
make this an overarching generalization but it is a well-known fact that one of
the reasons why many a people still resent religion is due to the explicit
though well-intended suppression of individuality and the full expression of
the inner self that incredibly a wider diversity of religious institutions are
noted for. Life, human life is meant to be lived for its own sake.
Honestly, I must confess that I share the same sentiment if
not a stronger one. Growing up in a highly religious background, I realised
that though religion professing to offer freedom needlessly restricted me in
ways more than one. In spite of the fact that the unlived life within me was
crying painfully to find full expression, religion covertly insinuated that
‘you cannot live fully as it will lead to spiritual lethargy and slumber, which
are perfect catalysts for sin’. SIN? Who cares?
Indeed, the greatest
and most painful injustice to one’s own soul is shrinking back from living
fully; denying the inner self the freedom of fully expressing itself through
the outer giving rise to terrifying and terrible conflict within the self, as
the inner and outer selves are in complete disharmony. It is both soul-crushing
and soul-shattering.
True, the greatest battle that was ever fought was against
the self. It is only when the self is
successfully crucified that man can begin to walk on the shining path towards
true freedom, enlightenment, peace and glory. And this is where I believe
Religion ought to step in to assist man to overcome his foibles and weaknesses
in order to walk on a more enlightened spiritual path.
Religion not in the sense of mere institutions, unnecessary
dogmas and creeds and elaborate yet useless ceremonies, but in the sense of a
spiritual way of life guided by divine instructions leading to a better and
more fruitful relationship between man and His maker (the source of his
life-giving spirit).
Yes, humans need to be held back, to be regulated by some
moral laws. A failure to do that will send people ruthlessly exercising their
bona fide freedoms to dangerous degrees in pursuit of their own interests. That
is why I find it extremely difficult to agree with advocates of Individualism,
an extremely human-centred stance originally taken by the serpent back in Eden.
I believe individualism is not the answer to finding
ultimate human happiness as its principal objective of self-gratification only
wax into the greedy and selfish pursuit to constantly fulfil the burning and
unquenchable base desires of the fallen flesh leading to disastrous
consequences for society as a whole (Perhaps, the increasing spate of bizarre
shootings in the United States is a case in point.
You can count this as one of the reasons why fundamental
societies have fiercely opposed and resisted the universalization of the
western model of society which places undue and sometimes extreme emphasis on
individual liberty vis-à-vis the maximization of the individual
well-being. As a friend diplomatically noted, "There is
much in modern western society which although affording ‘liberty’ in the near
term, can only lead downhill so far as the maximization of human well-being in
the long term is concerned”.
Selfish way of life premised on sheer individualism will
only lead one on a one-way road that only ends in a cul de sac – death.
Besides, individualism will destroy social cohesion and insidiously erode the
very moral fabric of society. Thus, humanity will be digging its own vast mass
grave. The centre will no longer hold if every Tom, Dick and Harry is allowed
to follow his own odd, unconventional way, all in the name of individualism,
human rights and liberties.
This should not be crassly misinterpreted that I’m against
individual freedoms and liberties. God forbid. I’m just concerned about extreme
form of individual liberties where ‘everything goes’ due to excessive
permissiveness. I’m concerned about
individualism born out of the much cherished truism of the fundamentality and
the universality of the much touted concept of human rights that would only
serve to obliterate humanity by engendering and fostering fierce and unhealthy
spirit of competition, ruthless and fatal selfish pursuits and –not least – the
abhorrent exaltation in the ironically fabled king of destruction, pride.
Needless to say, we ought to take cognisance of the fact
that no one individual exists in a vacuum. We are all interconnected species.
Hence, we do not need a psychic to let us in on the open secret that the
actions of one whether or not responsible have severe repercussions for the
whole.
Therefore, shouldn’t we diligently uphold, respect and adopt
the selfless spirit of sacrifice in order to achieve the greater good? The
raison d’etre of sacrifice is true love upon which the foundation of the whole
universe is firmly placed by a conscious yet causeless cause. Without
sacrifice, nothing meaningful or good can be achieved and this undoubtedly
includes the good life or the good society which “is the complete political
good.”
The secret of the political success of the proverbial
kingdom of God does not only lie in the fact that it has a proactive,
omniscient, omnipotent and wise God as king but principally because the
denizens of the kingdom reflects the spirit of pure love, and their willing
self-sacrificing course naturally produces a serene and sweet-scented
atmosphere of utopian peace, boundless joy, saccharine companionship and begets
more love which then begins the virtuous cycle all over again.
That partly informs my conviction that sometimes the
individual freedoms of one or few must be overlooked in order to safeguard the
common good. To satisfy just one individual, a group or few groups of people is
to endanger the lives of many, which I honestly believe is the apotheosis of
immorality of the highest degree. It is very costly, nay, fatal to please each
and every individual all the time.
For instance, to protect the sanctity of a universal and
divine institution like marriage which is the bedrock and bulwark of cohesive
societies, so as to achieve strong and stable families, holistically developed
and law-abiding citizens and ultimately better societies, it will be far from
wrong to overlook the legitimate sexual rights and liberties of say, the LGBT
community. Even though I admit it is very very difficult, Individuals must be
prepared to sacrifice for the greater good.
There is no gainsaying the fact that life must be fully
lived and fully enjoyed. I believe that was why humans were created in the first
place – to live and enjoy life. But extreme individualism is equally if not
more dangerous. Thus, I’m of the view that our lives should find full
expression within the confines of transcendent and objective moral codes agreed
by all and punishable by an agreed-upon penalty.
But, the Gordian knot that would be most daunting to untie
is: “where do we get the transcendent and objective moral codes from - from a
transcendent being whose unlikely existence is only accentuated and/or exceeded
by his deafening and annoying silence, from ‘well-acclaimed’ immoral
governmental authorities, fractious religious bodies, or somewhat archaic
traditional societal values?
If we decide to go strictly by the moral injunctions issued
by God, then we run into a terrible conflict between our humanist-driven moral
intuitions and conscience-driven moral injunctions. This problem of
contradiction was properly noted by 19th century philosopher Mikhail
Bakunin: “This contradiction lies here: they wish God, and they wish humanity. They
persist in connecting two terms which, once separated, can come together again
only to destroy each other”
In other words, how are we going to find a perfect balance
or harmony between upholding the divine commandments or transcendent and
objective moral codes for the benefit of society and “following our own heart”
for the pursuit of individual freedom and happiness? Hard to say, though, the
pursuit of individual freedom and happiness in this case must pave way for
divine moral injunctions if the greater good is to be attained.
This is where the persuasive assertion of Bakunin that God
would serve human liberty best by refusing to exist – that is if he existed in
the first place- really comes into play. But why would God elect to conceive
and create a beautiful world where his existence apparently conflicts with the
liberties of his intelligent and sentient created beings?
But then again, if
the creator of the Universe is love, shouldn’t love compel his intelligent
creation to sacrifice or restrain themselves from exercising their legitimate
liberties for the greater good? Of
course, our legitimate rights and liberties ought to end somewhere if we truly
want to live in a civilized society where not only our own rights and liberties
would also be respected by others but all forms of injustices would be
willingly avoided so that we can live and enjoy meaningful lives.
Going forward, I concur with many people that a
God-administered judicial system that rewards conformists and punishes
offenders only after death (as preached by most religions) will only serve as a
disincentive to morality and open the floodgates of immorality of all sorts. However,
instant execution of sentences on wrongdoing on the other hand, as demonstrated
by the Old Testament God (who is ironically the same as the New Testament God)
is understandably very harsh, unmerciful and worst of all, induces
fear-inspired obedience to God which I believe is the very antithesis to the
love-inspired form of obedience that God craves.
Actually, it is evidently clear that solving the puzzle of
creating a more just society which is hinged on a universally recognized and acceptable
moral injunctions and effective judicial system are beyond the capabilities of
mere man. How then can someone blatantly refer to men as gods in and of
themselves whether or not there is a higher authority in the universe?
Nevertheless, a strictly humanist approach swathed in the
concept of human rights towards achieving a just society for all is not the
best one. The fact still remains that;
humanity will shoot themselves in the foot if extreme individualism is
continually encouraged. Sooner or later, the very basic moral foundation of
humanity laid down by god/nature and firmly guarded and supported unflinchingly
by various societies of past generations will wobble and collapse.
Consequently, the shaky ground on which humanity stands will
only cave in, sending all and sundry swiftly yet sadly down into the bottomless
pit of anarchy, mutual obliteration and an inevitable total annihilation, much
worse than the most famous infamous subterranean inferno, in a highly but not
unanticipated desperate quest for survival.
Probably, this might be the last stage in the evolution of
human societies which the good old book helpfully referred to as the great
tribulation. Due to individualism-induced total breakdown in the moral fabric,
Society is going to deteriorate gradually until it culminates into a jungle
stage where it becomes completely uninhabitable, a period where life itself
becomes “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. ARMAGEDDON is indeed nearer than we
thought…………
No comments:
Post a Comment