In 1519 Herman Cortes and his conquistadors invaded Mexico, hitherto an
isolated human world. The Aztecs, as the people who lived there called
themselves, quickly noticed that the aliens showed an extraordinary interest in
a certain yellow metal. In fact, they never seemed to stop talking about it. The
natives were not unfamiliar with gold –it was pretty and easy to work, so they
used it to make jewellery and statues, and they occasionally used gold dust as
a medium of exchange. But when an Aztec wanted to buy something, he generally
paid in cocoa beans or bolts of cloth. The Spanish obsession with gold thus
seemed inexplicable. What was so important about metal that could not be eaten,
drunk or woven, and was too soft to use for tools or weapons? When the natives
questioned Cortes as to why the Spaniards had such passion for gold, the
conquistador answered, ‘Because I and my companion suffer from a disease of the
heart which can be cured only with gold.’
These are some interesting lines
that I came across the other day while reading Sapiens –A Brief History of Humankind (by Yuval Noah Hariri). These
lines help to get insight into the systems that thrive in societies and how its
captures common people in its tentacles, severely degrading their world. The
obsession with useless yellow metal is a construct of greed that is based on
hallucination of its value by influential few this then spread across the zombie
populace over time. The astronomically spiked value of useless metal gold and
the obsession around it is another instance of how much degraded human
societies have become. If a mutually agreed subjective context has any value
and is a source of some positives then it is acceptable, even then it must be kept
on probation forever and evaluated with changing realities and understandings. Religion
is such a construct that has been exaggerated as an insight into some kind of
objective reality, some even venture it as unquestionable ultimate truth. Critical
scrutiny over the ages has called the bluff even then the frailties of people
and vested interests holding power has spread it as sacred that cannot be
questioned. Books with amazing level of nonsense are elevated as holy and
posited as lynchpin of faith hence religion, and we are told to be sensitive
while the followers play havoc through regressive ways and attitudes. Some even
take this context of buffoonery by killing people who have purported to have
hurt their sentiments. Blasphemy has become a serious human right threat. Indeed
killing and immense atrocities in the name of religion has a fertile tradition,
that it finds traction in modern world is amazing and must be dealt
stringently. Inanimate objects like books and constructions like holy sites, as
also animate (like cows and pigs), verses etc. get precedence over human life
under this extrapolated sensitivity. Sites become sacred while lives become
negotiable. The pernicious form of religion, with increasingly rare strands of
enlightened thoughts or introspective consideration, is hitchhiking ego driven
inconsiderate section into many part of the world. While the fluffs sequestered
in luxury, untouched by much of realities of life, and with axe to grind on the
mainstream (which maybe good or bad depending on the context) take these religious
nonsenses as definitive references for human rights and go for crusade without
as much an understanding on what is in store. It is proposed that religion is
sacrosanct hence religious people’s stake on sensitivities are much higher as
compared to normal people. And we are to
tolerate since they can go rabid, and with increased numbers the threat is much
real, nothing really explain Saudis in human right commission. As ethics,
indeed basic human values, gets threatened and redefined in the assault of
intrusive religion the loss is of humanity and enlightened ways gained through
immense struggle and sacrifices over the centuries. This will be resisted.
Tolerance to increasingly intolerant context is not the way diversity is
understood. Human rights therefore get bludgeoned into narrowed frame squeezing
out the humanity. Misanthropist (effortlessly misogynist) and regressive ways
are being resuscitated as faith.
We are told that “faith is
impossible for an outsider to enter into” really? And what is not being into
any structure or miracle driven nonsenses (read religion) has anything to do
with not being into faith? It seems semantics have been usurped in favour to
maintain religion as sacred. Everyone has faith, and everyone also has beliefs.
It is basic human nature. What one seeks to belief and put faith in differs
from people to people and changes with contexts. If it is individualised then
it is alright as it part of personal growth or understanding that has
consequences that individual will face and is responsible for. The problem is
when these contexts of faith is communitarian, reduces humans into followers
and further down as numbers, this then starts to have impact on society hence
severely degrading democratic institutions. This therefore need to be scrutinised, and
surely cannot be taken on face value. Religions have rarely been benign,
history is testimony to it. Its anachronistic presence will have to be severely
checked. That it is sacred traditions or that is part and parcel of holy books
directly presented from above (or below!!) means nothing. Clearly, in the last
two decades with immense level of technological developments and insights
through globalization world is very much local and local has become global.
Primitiveness and unenlightened ways emerging from different corners of the
world cannot be benchmark for further progress, as it seems that we are hitting
the wall every time in the garb of faith driven sensitivities, that vehemently and
viscously seek to restrict the world. We cannot be trapped by faith and
believes that is stuck in the sacredness of words frozen in time. This will not
do, and any attempt to resuscitate these in the name of religion will be
resisted. Religion is not, and cannot, be seen as human identity. It is a
construct that doesn’t even pass basic critical scrutiny. Indeed it is a
juvenile premise that is laughable if not the immense damage it is doing.
Few years back I held the view
that religion based symbols need be kept in its sacred context while ideas or
traditions should be severely questioned. Now though I understand these are
quite intertwined and creating space for intolerance as also ferociously
trapping young into its primitive fold. The breaking point came when few
cartoonists were brutally killed in Paris, and significantly some section, that
vouch for liberty and freedom, were seen justifying the killers. Patronising is
something that comes quite easy for West, particularly when one is cushioned in
colonial angst filled luxuries, now though they are crossing the lines and
entering into horrendous. It is having serious ramification as common people
are shedding egalitarian ways, acquired through centuries of history and
struggle, as they perceive significant threat hence reverting to atavistic
references. The centre is significantly shifting to right. As beautiful an
endeavour as EU is losing out. If crude unaesthetic insensitive presences are
about faith and therefore common people are to tolerate these then careers of
this primitiveness will also have to show some tolerance (decency is a big thing
in arrogant driven faiths that always evaluated itself as superior hence the
followers as entitled). Since religion is brought into public space and is
having significant impact on mainstream narrations there must be therefore be complete
freedom to tarnish religion and sacred symbols in public space. Because that
what shrinks our world we have all the right to retaliate to that world. There can be nothing blasphemous. If
tolerance and decency has to find a place then blasphemy must be done in every
nook and corner. Indeed blasphemy is sane response to increase intensity of
pernicious religions in public space. And
religion, as also followers, will have to learn to tolerate. More pernicious the
religion, that has no respect for rational and reasoning, the bitter must be
the most response. When the reasoning is negated with unverified claims of
higher truth that is severely degrading human being then the response has to be
urgent and harsh. Future of humanity is very much dependent on defending these spaces
that has evolved with immense struggles, it really cannot be, and will not be
allowed, to be diluted for ludicrous fictions. Tolerance is not one way street.
What you find as religion I find nonsensical and increasingly despicable idea,
indeed all scrutiny proves it beyond doubts to be too infantile that is living well
past its expiry date. It’s become a burden to human society. All the nutcases
from white supremacist to terrorists to casteist scoundrels find inspiration
and justification. Not only that, people
are increasingly loosing the critical ability to judge and reason what is true
and what is not, what is reliable, what is not reliable. Ramifications are
dire.
