Religion—A threat to Liberty?

The question “Religion—A threat to Liberty?” is a very interesting inquiry and one that has been debated for more than three centuries and still remains unsettled. The basic reason appears to be the intrinsic human weakness of not being able to completely reject religion nor accept it as it is.This dichotomy may continue for generations to come unless the human yearning for liberty and spirituality disappears completely. The debate whether religion is a threat to liberty is being conducted in many different forms and dimensions. Some of the important expressions are “Tradition & Modernity”, “Spiritualism & Secularism”, “Divine & Mundane”, “Temporal & Eternal”, and so forth. All these debates are basically built around the human inability to reject one and adopt another without hesitation or discomfort.

I do not consider myself competent to deal with this subject because Liberalism is not my field of study. Nevertheless, being a student of religion and an advocate of individual liberty, I cannot refuse to speak on this topic. In general, I may answer the question “Is Religion a threat to Liberty?” both positively and negatively, depending on how one defines “Religion” and “Liberty”.

The definition of “Religion” differs from one religious tradition to another and from time to time. Similarly, the meaning of “Liberty” also differs from place to place and according to chronological evolution. Thus without specifically defining “Religion” and “Liberty” one cannot analyse whether these two contradict or complement each other. In presenting my viewpoint, I would like to refer to three recent definitions of “Religion” with which I am inclined to agree.

(1) Professor P. Paniker defines “Religion” as:

“Religion. This word encompasses, in my opinion, a threefold aspect:

Religiousness or the human dimension concerning ultimacy, wherever we may believe this ultimacy to lie in;

Religiosity or the social institution (not necessarily an organization) in which the religious dimension of human life embodies;

Religionism or the more or less closed system of ultimate beliefs appertaining to one particular collectivity.

The three aspects should be distinguished but they are not separate. For our purpose I shall use the word mainly as connoting an “organised re-linking with the sacred”. But without forgetting religion is transcendental to any of its expression.”

This definition of “Religion” is broadly accepted by most religious traditions as they exist today, although it may not be an accurate definition of “Dharma” as understood by the Buddhists. In any case, a religion must be instrumental in spiritualising the individual into a boundless and holistic nature.

(2) Leonard Swidler further strengthens this view:

“At the heart of each culture is what is traditionally called a Religion, that is: An explanation of the ultimate meaning of life, and how to live accordingly. Normally all religions contain the four Cs: Creed, Code, Cult and Community structure, and are based on the notion of the Transcendent.”

Creed refers to the cognitive aspects of a religion; it is everything that goes into the “explanation” of the ultimate meaning of life.

Code of behaviour or ethics includes all the rules and customs of action that somehow follow from one aspect or another of the creed.

Cult means all the ritual activities that relate the follower to one aspect or other of the Transcendent, either directly or indirectly, prayer being an example of the former, and certain formal behaviour toward representatives of the Transcendent, like priests, of the latter.

Community structure refers to the relationships among the followers; this can vary widely, from a very egalitarian relationship, as among Quakers, through a “republican” structure like Presbyterians have, to a monarchical one, as with some Hasidic Jews vis-à-vis their “rabbi”.

(3) A third definition of “Religion” appears to be more precise—that of Jiddu Krishnamurti. He sums up the meaning of “Religion” as “…something that cannot be put into words; it cannot be measured by thought…” On another occasion, he said, “The religious mind is the explosion of love. It is this love that knows no separation. To it, far is near. It is not the one or the many, but rather that state of love in which all division ceases. Like beauty, it is not of the measure of words.” This is a remarkable statement, if we really understand this, there is no question of whether Religion is a threat to Liberty or, for that matter, anything else.

Similarly, “liberty” in recent times it has been generally considered a concept of political philosophy and identifies the conditions in which an individual has the ability to act according to his or her will. “Positive Liberty” is the freedom to act, and “negative Liberty” is to protect[s] individuals from external compulsion, which hinders their freedom.

The important question here is what do we mean by “the individual freedom to act according to one’s will? Since humanity’s will is so diverse and infinite, will it be considered as “liberty” for any totalitarian regime or dictator to arbitrarily exercise illegitimate authority, violating human rights, acquiring others’ property and so on? In other words, how do we differentiate between “liberty” and “anarchy”? There are also the age-old arguments of the Socialist concept of “liberty” as equal distribution of wealth, and that wealth cannot be evenly distributed without force being used against individuals.

On the other hand, the Liberals advocate achieving equality of wealth by free and fair competition, with trade operating in a market free of constraints. However, neither of these two principles, in practice, is free from invisible and structural domination or violence. Keeping the above-mentioned points in mind, my definition of liberty is the individual freedom to act in accordance with one’s legitimate will.

Parameters to determine whether a “will” is legitimate or not may differ from time to time and from community to community. But there is an eternal crosscutting yardstick to judge whether acting at “will” directly or indirectly harms any other individual or causes any domination over others’ legitimate will. Here, too, there might be different ways of determining the priorities of various interests: individual, group, community, nation, and humanity as whole.

For an individual to acquire the wisdom to discriminate between legitimate and illegitimate “will”, and to invoke an indomitable “will”, not yielding to or acting against an illegitimate “will”, there must be an instrumentality to create such a mindset. It may be education, secular ethics, self-discipline, or a religious mind. For any individual whose mind is religiously evolved and free from the conditioning of religiosity and religionism; in other words, for one who has evolved with a creed, and thereby acts in accordance with a code, but not conditioned by a cult or community, Religion is not a threat to liberty, but a real source of liberty.

On the contrary, for a person who is very much involved with the institution of religion but has lost the religious spirit, the “religion” label is the real threat to liberty.

In the 21st century we claim to be living in a post-modern civilization. Liberty, modernity, secularism, and individual freedom are considered to be well established, but at the same time pure religious traditions have been almost extinguished from the face of the earth. For example, the real Buddha Dharma exists in a very insignificant number of practitioners, although it is believed that there are some 350 million followers of Buddhist teachings worldwide. This might be true of other religious traditions as well. In reality, in the absence of a religious mind, or religiousness, the “religious” institution, in the name of religion, has become not only a threat to liberty but has caused division and conflict by so-called “religious fundamentalists”. Although the latter is a self-contradictory expression, in that a religious person can never be a fundamentalist, nor can a fundamentalist ever be a religious person, yet we go on using this expression and confusing the “institution” for “religion”. This confusion must be cleared up. Whenever the religious spirit decays, the institution should also cease to exist. But, unfortunately, the institution lingers on and becomes stronger long after the religious spirit is gone.

In the former Soviet Union and China, after a long spell of communist rule, we are now witnessing various religious institutions that are being resurrected, almost forcefully. Why is it so? This needs to be examined. In today’s world, the majority of politicians feel proud to call themselves secular persons, but they very much hesitate to declare themselves as non-believers, although they are not touched by a religious mind or religiousness even in the slightest. If individuals become free from this kind of mental handicap, then real liberty can be established and Religion will not be a threat, but a source of Liberty.

(This lecture was delivered by Prof. S. Rinpoche at the International Conference in Berlin, Germany, on 21st May 2008 on the occasion of 50th anniversary of Friedrich Naumann Foundation.)