comparing religion and guns (which sounds completely unrelated, but not really!!)

I remember coming across some meme on 9gag quite a long while ago that meant to mock the paranoia over the whole gun restriction laws debate after the Newtown shootings in the US. it said something along the lines off "Guns don't kill people, people kill people!" and suggested there wasn't much point in restricting arms trade because that wasn't the root of the problem. my first reaction was: obviously guns aren't the root of the problem! but by taking away the means in which the killers carry out the massacres, they can't go around on their killing sprees as smoothly as they'd want to. With less access to all these guns that can be so easily bought at the supermarket or whatever, at most the killers could use were like knives and shit, which would at least give victims a fighting chance of survival. this is not a new argument, I know, but I still think it's a pretty valid and solid one. The root of the problem, I think, is probably something to do about the mental health of American kids in general (I'm not saying they're crazy, I'm talking about things like mental stress from social problems, or whatever. something to do with their environment, maybe?) that compel them to do such stuff. another significant cause is also their police force, which doesn't seem as good as many other countries. I've seen jokes on the internet mocking US policemen because they only went into this profession 'cause their grades in school were lousy, and they hadn't much of a choice. And there's also the perpetuating image of fat American policemen eating donuts in their police cars. I don't know how true this all is, but it's giving me a fairly bad impression :x anyway, again, the whole point is that by cutting off the access these people have to the means or medium of violence, there's pretty much little they can do about all those supposedly violent thoughts in their head.

on to religion, and how both issues seemed similar at first to me. My stand on religion has always been that: religion isn't the root of evil and violence. Religion has just been a tool, used as a front by religious fundamentalists as a means to their own ends, and used to justify the violence they inflict. I've always thought this was fairly obvious, and I would say many of the people I'm surrounded with have similar opinions, whether they had a religion. Even most atheists in school who like to bash on religion for being illogical would agree on this point.  It probably has a little to do with GP lessons in class, also, but anyway, I still find many comments on the internet (Youtube, 9gag, Facebook, etc) denouncing religion because it's "the root of all evil".

Somehow, when I thought of my stance on the guns issue and my stance on religion, it suddenly struck me that they were kind of contradictory viewpoints. here's the thing: I put down the idea that guns are the cause of violence, but think they should be done away with for the most part because they're the means in which people achieve this violence. but when I look at religion, I don't put down religion in the same way - even though, I just realized, religion is also kind of the means in which people go around inflicting violence! Without religion as a front, I'm fairly certain there would be at least somewhat fewer supporters of religious fundamentalism in places like the middle-east, because religion is one of the factors that everyday people can more or less relate to. I'm sure without religion these fundamentalists would still find other ways of achieving their goals, but it would receive much less support (which was already on decline since the beginning of the twenty-first century I guess). For a while I was wondering if I was such a hypocrite.

I did find a way to reconcile those two different viewpoints in the end, though. Although removing access to the means does solve (or at least improve) most problems, the thing is these means are, in other situations, the cause of other benefits to society as well. There's a fundamental difference between guns as a means to violence and religion as a means to violence. guns are tangible, direct means of inflicting violence on others. It's difficult to solve violence with even more violence, which the NRA in the US seems to think is a good idea: more guns to protect citizens from others with guns. it becomes a self-perpetuating cycle. Religion, on the other hand, is not just a medium for violence. it's also a means of spreading goodwill just as much as violence. Religion is more complex in this sense. When people denounce religion for spreading violence, I doubt those people concerned actually consider all the good things religion has brought to many victims around the world. Muslim religion might have been used to justify terrorism by some, but Muslim religion has also been used in goodwill: organizations like Red Crescent, the equivalent of Red Cross for Christianity, are always helping out victims of natural disasters or whatever. There're plenty of other similar Muslim organizations as well but I don't remember them. Whatever the issue at hand, people only ever really notice the negative impacts but neglect the good ones.

Actually this post seems quite dumb and redundant. I just creating a dilemma in my head that no one else would think of (comparing religion and guns) and then just solved the dilemma in my head on my own, where there was no real issue at all in the first place. hahaha!! I just went round in one big circle. I have too many discussions with myself in my head ):

modernization and religion

first off, in case I'm misunderstood as some blindly religious fanatic, I want to clarify that I identify myself as agnostic, and not with any religion in particular.

anyway, moving on. earlier on today (or yesterday, since it's a little past midnight) I happened to be talking with two of my friends about religion. one is christian, while the other is catholic. the focus of our discussion aside, I was struck by how differently many religious followers my age talk about their own religion versus those from the older generation (mainly those middle-aged and upwards). some middle-aged Christians I've happened to meet tend to sound more preachy, and talk about the topic presumptuously - for instance, when they try to promote Christianity to non-believers, they talk as if all alternative viewpoints of how the world possibly works is invalid and not worth considering. Not all, but many do. they don't usually say it explicitly, but it's implied in their tone and language; phrases like "how did the universe come into being? obviously there MUST be some higher being up there!" or whatever often pops into the conversation (which ends up one-sided most of the time while the dude rambles on and on). On the other hand, I find that more believers from the younger generation talk about their religion with a more objective tone. I think that sometimes it's a concerted effort, but most of the time it seems more unconscious when they say things like "for Christians, we think that..." that shows more awareness of other viewpoints. 

I don't really know why I've only noticed this so late, when people have been talking to me about religion frequently enough. in any case, the most significant takeaway I've gotten from this is this: that modernization (i.e. advent of science and better education) actually creates more sincere and faithful religious followers, even though there's lots of shit going on about how people haven grown so materialistic and less in touch with their spiritual side. (And there's also the other point about how modernization has led to a growth in religion in other areas instead, because people want to be more spiritually rooted precisely because of all this focus on material wants and needs.)

It was actually a significantly long process before I reached this concluding idea. I wasn't even thinking about it while I was chatting with my friends. but how I progressed here in my head was this:

stage 1: observing what I just said in the second paragraph about objective tone and awareness of other viewpoints.

stage 2: being aware that since they've probably considered other viewpoints, they've questioned at least certain aspects of their own religion as well. this wasn't just the result of stage 1, but something I've noticed at other times as well; some of my religious friends have mentioned that at certain points in their life their faith was weak because they began to doubt the validity of their own religion. some people end up giving up on their own religions and turn to atheism, but others end up with stronger faiths after they've overcome their doubts. what I observed in stage 1 was somewhat just a reminder of this.

stage 3: is the older generation more deeply entrenched in their own religious beliefs partly because they question it less, being less inclined to consider other viewpoints and influences? the difference in the ways both groups talk about their own religion is striking. the younger generation has mostly received fairly better education, and most of us are more likely to believe in more concrete facts and evidence rather than blindly believe superstition. I know many middle-aged adults don't do the latter, but I'm fairly certain more of this type exist in their generation as opposed to ours. also, I find that more younger kids are more religiously tolerant than the older generation, especially with Singapore being a multi-religious society where most of us and taught to respect other religions not our own, even if we don't agree with them. I HAVE seen many people where this type of thinking has not got to them, and find it cool to jump on the bandwagon in bashing on religion because everyone else seems to be doing so , but that's another issue. anyway, since we're all more oriented to believe in hard facts and science, isn't it worth wondering how people can still strongly cling on to faith, which is immaterial and isn't based on logic? 

I really respect people who are so committed and faithful to their own religion (minus religious fundamentalists), but are still able to respect non-believers (mostly by not trying to unreasonably impose their own views on others); and have also gone through this whole process of questioning and doubting, but managing to overcome all that. This kind of thing is evident of how people can mature emotionally and spiritually through religion. and when I say 'overcoming doubts', I'm not referring to questioning your own religion, but then successfully shaking off this 'bad feeling' just because you feel guilty for having such thoughts. I'm referring to people who face up to their own doubts, and find their own answers for these questions. whether their answers are right is another issue altogether (plus this kind of thing is subjective anyway). the main point is that they've gone through the whole thinking and maturing process, and they've come out as even stronger believers. 

because science and education come as a result of modernization, and science and education teaches us to question, that's how I came to the idea that modernization creates more faithful and sincere religious followers. I think it also kind of sieves out people who are religious just because they're raised that way. 

*also: whatever observations I made about the older generation and the younger generation doesn't always apply to everyone, or even just the majority, which I get. I'm just comparing the proportions of those types of people in both generations. like: I've also seen plenty of subtly aggressive Christians my age, when I went to church sometimes, or was in Girls' Brigade (which I hated and ended up skipping most of the time) - when they're trying to convert you. it's bloody annoying, leave me alone to decide for myself if I want to become a believer!! I'm less likely to be convinced if you keep insisting how great your Lord is or whatever, which kind of implies it's my loss if I don't become a Christian, and other shit. what the hell. I effing hate preachy people.