Under the Influence of Religion - Term Paper Example

Under the Influence of Religion As we look at the world around us, we cannot help but be mindful of the influence of religion faiths in the world. It is religion that is at the root of much of the world’s turmoil right now: Darfur, Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Syria, and Iran. All of these countries are either experiencing, or threatening to take action at the base of which is religious fundamentalism or differences. The world has come a long way towards being able to accept one another culturally, but we have not overcome our religious differences in a way that lends itself to world peace. We have let religion separate us, and there is no greater influence than that which can keep mankind separated, and, thusly, from fulfilling the mission of our religious tradition, and our intellectual capacity of humanity over inhumanity (V.M. Kelkar and Y.D. Vaishnav, 2001, 24). The religions of the world have common stories, like creation in common, and other commonalities, that are ignored by inflexible fundamental religious leaders. This fundamentalism keeps us separate in the task delegated us by our religious traditions. This paper is a brief look at the influence that religions like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and even Zoroastrianism has over us. This paper will look to understand how people are moved against one another in the name of religion, and how they are brought together in the name of religion. This paper will attempt to shed some light on those things that religions have in common, and why when our religious messages are the same, we remain separate in ideologies, even making war over ideologies that are much the same in the messages they hold for us. The Faith of Three Books The three major religions of the world have in common at least one factor: each one is a religion of the “book.” Meaning that the oral tradition of the religion was, at some point, put into a written form and passed on from generation to generation of the religious group. They also have in common the basic principle which guides the religious members: monotheism. They have one God, and their God, though it remains how in each of the three books the “one” God is different from the other religious book’s God. What the reader comes away with, is a sense that each of the three books is talking about the same God. Each interpretation of God, however, has different laws and traditions that His religious groups are expected to abide by and to observe. Researchers Jacob Neusner, Bruce Chilton, and William Graham (2002) say that Judaism, Christianity and Islam manifest the same basic problem (Neusner, Chilton, and Graham, 1). This difference, on the religious level manifests itself between the Orthodox versus the Reform Jews, the Shiite and Sunni Muslims, and in Christianity the Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants and Evangelicals (1). Beyond the religious group, however, we find that as a group, they overcome differences in defense of the religious movement ideologically and physically, yet they each have the same basic problem as ideology matched for ideology: “which among the three do we compare to which among the others (1)?” The researchers says that the best way to answer this question is to step away from the complexities of the traditions that would ensnarl any effort to answer the question, and “We compare not the histories of the ideas in here and now of the social order but the systems viewed as ideal types (1).” This immediately takes us back to the monotheistic nature of each ideal, and the fact that each has been put into a written format for purposes of sustaining them in perpetuity as ideologies. Then, we would have to go to the traditions and look for the strongest commonalities of their messages, beginning with the explanation of their theology, because the books are very different in that respect. Is it the theology that keeps us separate as members of one of the three religious groups? Joel Ryce-Menuhin (1994) presents the Jung perspective on the first element of the theology of the Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Jung is still being studied as to his conclusions on the theology of the three, but some progress has been made, and we will look at that here for purposes of that level of expertise on the subject being studied here. “Jung raised fundamental questions for psychology as well as for religion, which in his mind are intimately linked. These questions can be answered only by looking at Jung's complex personality, at what he was and what he did. He was activated by two conflicting tendencies within himself, equal in intensity. One side of him was remarkably open to immediate numinous experiences: from childhood on he had dreams and visions with religious overtones, and he was aware of their significance. One dream, the earliest he could remember, and one vision are of particular importance for the long-lasting effect they had on Jung, as they foreshadowed his mental and emotional development. He was convinced that such manifestations came from God, and that it was up to him to make sense of them (Ryce-Menuhin, 7).” Jung had knowledge and well studied understanding of the three religions of the books. Jung paid particular attention to the fact that all three religions of the book created good versus evil scenarios of which mankind was always involved in. This same conflict is found Manichaeism, and is described as the realm of light over the realm of darkness. It is found, too, in Zarathustra, the domain of the Lord of Light, Ahura Mazda, and the realm of devilish Angru Mainyu (Ryce-Menuhin, 45). So while these religions succinctly define evil, it is never really defined in the three religions of the book (45). “Interestingly enough, it is never clearly stated at first, either in Judaism or in Christianity or in Islam, what evil actually is. Rather, it is taken for granted that man knows all about it. That is why it is up to him alone to decide which path he will choose (Ryce-Menuhin, 45).” Jung found then, that the concept of evil as not defined was a commonality between the three, but that each assumes that man manifests an awareness of that condition as he is experiencing it. In fact, Jung did conduct experiments involving his own conscious and subconscious, and believed he had worked out the sense of this as it is held by the three. This is an important factor, that the three religions which are probably the most influential religions, hold that evil is defined by the individual, and when the individual experiences that condition, the individual also have an awareness of that condition (145). Conclusion It is not the religious traditions that influence us to remain separate by way of our religious traditions, but our religious leaders whose interpretation we accept as guidance in faith, and in whom we credit for having a greater knowledge of faith and the destiny of mankind. There are, however, some experts in religious studies who suggest that there has always been dialog between the three books and other traditions, such as Buddhism (Mohammed, Ovey, 1998, 122). V.M. Kelkar and Y.D. Vaishnav (2001) find similarities between Hinduism and Judaism (24). What we find is that there are connections by dialog or tradition between the three monotheistic books of faith, and many other influential traditions around the world. This should be proof enough that the traditions are intended to bring mankind together in dialog, not to keep us apart. What is found in this brief study is that there is a message in each of the three religions of the book, and in the other influential religions, like Hinduism, Buddhism, and Zoroastrianism that attempt to bring mankind together in common mindedness and common goal of good over evil. That Jung held adamantly to the idea that the three books defined evil and good in a way that the other religious traditions do, suggests that evil for mankind resides within the conscious mind of men and women, and that they are aware of their evil. Evil, the other traditions explain for us, is that darkness which casts a shadow over the light of goodness. Therefore, to war and remain separate by ideology is an evil, because the impact of that is a shadow against the light of truth in common humanity. Mankind shares his humanity, and that humanity is intended to bind us, not to divide us. This is to suggest, too, that to overcome the division is overcoming the evil, because as we stand divided, we are aware that that which divides us is evil, especially when it leads to causing harm of others. Each of the three books, as well as the other influential traditions emphasize a need for good to win out over evil. The only way to do that is to accept the differences between us as we do the commonalities, and to work to resolve the differences in a peaceful way. We know that war in the name of religion is evil. Works Cited Chittick, William C. "11 The Islamic Concept of Human Perfection." Jung and the Monotheisms: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Ed. Joel Ryce-Menuhin. New York: Routledge, 1994. 154-165. Questia. 29 Nov. 2008 . Kelkar, V.M., and Y.D. Vaishnav. "Commonalities in Hinduism and Judaism." International Journal of Humanities and Peace 17.1 (2001): 24+. Questia. 29 Nov. 2008 . Mohammed, Ovey N. "No Other Gods: Christian Belief in Dialogue with Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam." Journal of Ecumenical Studies 35.1 (1998): 122+. Questia. 29 Nov. 2008 . Neusner, Jacob, Bruce Chilton, and William Graham. Three Faiths, One God: The Formative Faith and Practice of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Boston: Brill, 2002. Questia. 29 Nov. 2008 . Ryce-Menuhin, Joel, ed. Jung and the Monotheisms: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. New York: Routledge, 1994. Questia. 29 Nov. 2008 . Read More