Let’s define this "religion" thingy then, shall we?
I’ll add something so as to get this a bit more precise.
Describing a fixed set of beliefs about the universe and its creation and management, tied also often to rituals or maintenance of a relationship with the divine.
This excludes some strains of Buddhism, by the way.
Now, we have the divine as another undefined factor there. I’d define it as the belief in a number of entities from 1-n who, by nature of their being, control, create, influence, care about or otherwise meddle with the material world. These entities do not exist in this plane we live in, but on another plane. One of the central properties of this other dimension is it’s elusiveness as to any experiments conducted by us. Actually, this plane could no longer exist if it were provable, because it’s defined by not being part of our perceived reality (the material world.)
So, we actually have quite a few logical flaws in there, most importantly the exclusion of logic. (Assuming the existence of something which can by definition never be observed in any way.) Can everybody agree with this? Religion is per definitionem not logical.
Then we have religious institutions . These comprise elements of society. If we furthermore believe society to be controlled not in equal distribution by it´s members, but by different members in different amounts according to their pecuniary worth, it is probable to assume these institutions to be largely governed by the interests of those in power.
Christianity is a wonderful example for this phenomenon, the whole "turning of the other cheek" thing is very comfortable for the one dealing the blows. (Pardon me for that stale argument, I just can’t help myself. It’s meant mostly as a symbolic illustration of the plight of the European plebs for just about the whole of the Middle Ages and beyond. Also very interesting in that respect: Martin Luther and the reformation’s ties to the duchies of Germany). Well, enough of that, back to the point before endless bickering over whatever ensues.
The point being: Religions, because of their illogical nature, tend to project that view of the world on their perceived reality. (Using a set of assumptions on a set of data produces results according to these assumptions.) If one assumes divine intervention to be omnipresent (I guess this is a quite common belief, although probably not shared by animistic belief systems) then the status quo is to be seen as the one created by the divine, making it divine per se.
The rules about changing the status quo and human free will differ greatly, even in the big three ( Christianity, Judaism, Islam ) there’s disagreement on that point.
Now, to get the gist of this: As soon as the religion has reached the status of a dominant institution, it will act as a dominant institution, and accordingly change its belief system so as to accommodate the needs of the ruling elite. This can be legitimized easily by the inherent properties of divinity. Please note the changes in the Roman Catholic Church (before and after becoming the official church of the Roman Empire), or the different permutations of Buddhism.
Now for some rambling:
As a religion gets older, it loses much of its power because of the logical flaws between its teachings and its actions, only to be supplanted by a religion with more fervour and more fanaticism, to speak with Nietzsche: with the lust, will, need for power.
The illogical foundations of religion serve to power an illogical state of governance, of hierarchy, of servitude. (Of course, mostly after it’s permutation to an institution of some sort. ) Back to everyone’s favourite example, the Christian church: At the beginning the doctrines were quite "revolutionary", in the sense of eliminating social differences (everyone equal before god, the good Samaritan etc...) Then came the kings powered by god, obey thy master as a central virtue, the "ablasshandel", etc... Some of these doctrines have been eliminated, but only some.
I hope I made my point clear this time without offending anyone. |
