I am a Christian, by name and in practice. Born in a conservative religious family, I grew up going to church every sunday, missing one would give me a guilt-feeling. Educated in a catholic school, this has deepen my faith and love for Christ. My idealism and values were molded my Christian traditions and beliefs.
During my university years, I came across some other people in the development world. Working with the poor, the oppressed and the marginalized gave me a sense of purpose. . This has given me a microcosmic level of the world I live in.
After university, I got a teaching job at the Ateneo de Davao. Working in Mindanao was a challenge most especially at that time when the Sasa pier and the Davao airport were bombed. The bombers were identified by their religion, and yes .. they were Muslims.
I kept on asking why? Why would some people identified by their religious affiliation commit such?
Until now, I cannot find any concrete answers, only observations..
Studying in Europe for two years now, the question still bothers me. My constant association with people with different political and religious background made the picture clearer.
In an academic question, how does religion shape politics?, Ive learned to know that this question can even be answere in a microcosmic level.
One of the defining feature of politics is that it consists of "social relations involving authority or power". How do people impose their authority? Through political avenues such as government, protected and supported by policies.
In human relations, where does the source of power emanate? Under which instruments is it legitimized? Through traditions, beliefs, practices and religion.
Religion is an institution of faith and faith is a matter of believing. It is a process of believing because it does not need any solid evidence or proof. Christ told us in the Bible" Blessed are those who didnt see but believed."
Beliefs can grow and penetrate to the deepest of our bones that we carry it until we die. Muslim suicide bombers die with their beliefs. If these beliefs are false or not, it is for us not to judge.
Religious ethnocentrism reflects who we are as people. When one religion claim that his religion is the one and true religion, the other also does. and because this is a matter of faith and believing, no one wins in the end. Because in believing again, proofs are not necessary.
In a social sense, this has caused conflict of people coming from different religious affiliation. Because we think that our beliefs are true and the others are false, it creates conflict, it creates division. This clashes of ideology creates conflict in actual practices. This is precisely for the reason that beliefs are expressed in practices.
Religious intolerance is either intolerance motivated by one's own religious beliefs or intolerance against another's religious beliefs or practices. It manifests both at a cultural level, but may also be a formal part of the dogma of particular religious groups.
The mere statement on the part of a religion that its own beliefs and practices are correct and any contrary beliefs incorrect does not in itself constitute intolerance (ie., ideological intolerance). There are many cases throughout history of established religions tolerating other practices. Religious intolerance, rather, is when a group (a society, a religious group) specifically refuses to tolerate practices, persons or beliefs on religious grounds (ie., intolerance in practice). Religious intolerance may be purely religious, but can be a "cover story" for an underlying political or cultural motive.
The world has aged, but the old problem on religious conflict has never been given any solution. If we try to think about it, time has never changed. History repeats itself. We may have grown as people technologically, but the dogma that we live by, pushes us back where we were centuries ago.
Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=17054.0
