RELIGION
Religion is considered by many a necessity to life. But Rushdie disagrees, and I disagree along with him. Religion is not a necessity, because it does not contribute value to life. It is not successful in uniting people, in fact it is only successful in separating them. It is true that all members of a certain religion do have some bond, but it is also true that they lack this bond with members of another religion. Why stratify society more than it already is? To make matters worse, some religions consider themselves above other religions, better people, with a better God. They also try to convert other people to their religion. In all, this causes more trouble than there would be if religion was non-existent.
On the other hand, there should be no boundaries to belief, and I disagree with Rushdie’s idea that a greater being does not exist. He states: “They didn’t get it right. There was no celestial churning, no maker’s dance, no vomiting of galaxies, no snake or kangaroo ancestors…” (518). But he offers no alternative to these beliefs. He offers no “right” answer, and in this he negates his argument. People don’t believe in these stories because they actually consider them possibilities, but rather because there is a need for explanation, and a thirst for knowledge about how we did come to be. So, if we cannot find the true explanation, we settle for stories, which do not only exist to explain, but also to entertain.
But while there are no boundaries to belief, there can be no religion. Religion sets these boundaries by stating in firm law that these specific rituals must be completed, that those specific prayers should be recited, and in general, that this God should be believed in. Perhaps it would be alright if people could choose which God to believe in, which religion to believe in. But more often than not, we are born into a set of beliefs, and blindly follow them until they become our reality. We have no opportunities to step out of the cycle, and find out for ourselves what truly is and isn’t. Rushdie is right in saying that when you are not trapped by a set of beliefs, “at once the sky’s the limit” (519). Once you are not guided and spoon-fed by parents and the community of loving but smothering adults around you, opportunities are endless.
I also agree with Rushdie’s idea that some religions are too radical. It is even possible to take it a step further by saying that being a religion, all religions are too radical, because they offer no escape from traditions that have lasted centuries. They seek to change the world with what they offer, but they all offer these ideas, so it is impossible to know which one is right. To make matters even more confusing, every religion proposes itself as the right religion, either through violent force, or through subtle messages. Some religions are more obvious than others in doing this. Islam is known for being a more forceful religion than many, Muslims known for being strongly set in their beliefs. But Buddhism and Hinduism on the other hand are more peaceful religions, preferring to allow other religions to coexist with them without putting up a fight. However, they still project themselves as the “correct” path to choose, in fact using their peaceful approach as propaganda.
There is no right or wrong to an argument to which there is no correct answer. Each person must see for themselves which side they choose to take. As for me, I choose a path in the middle, to believe in a greater being, but not to constrict myself to only one way of believing. I don’t choose a religion, but rather just believe for the sake of belief, and not for the benefit of my family or my community. I would rather believe for the benefit of myself.
