Whichever way we understand the terms “good” and “bad,” it is helpful to keep in mind that it is people who are good or bad. It is people who make enemies, who fight, and who kill—and it is people who make friends, who love, and who enrich life. Religion doesn’t do anything. Religion is not a conscious living being like you and me. It is people who do things.
That may be true, but what about people who claim that they are religious? Isn’t religion responsible for whatever such “religious” people do?
This raises a set of thorny questions. Such as, what is meant by a religious person? Who amongst us can claim to be completely authentic representatives of our respective religious traditions? What does it mean to “belong” to a religion—or to have a specific religious identity? There are answers to these questions, but none of them is definitive, and every answer can be contested and is open to debate.
There is also a more basic question: what is religion? Again, no easy answer. Who determines whether something is a religion or not? Does a religion become a religion just because someone says it is? Can anyone with a random set of beliefs and ideas start a “religion”—or is there something more that is needed for a religion to be truly a “religion”?
Keeping all these ambiguities in mind, it is still possible to speak about the origin of religions. Questions about life, existence, meaning, and purpose have always cropped up in the human heart. Various answers emerged over time in different parts of the world and evolved into different religious traditions. These timeless answers were not the result of mere intellectual activity or group discussions: they are believed to have had a divine, transcendent origin. The authenticity of these religious traditions is confirmed and validated in every generation by people who take the teachings to heart and live according to them. Such people have experienced deep inner fulfillment, peace, freedom and joy. Every true religion continues to produce enlightened beings in every generation, even if the numbers may be minuscule compared to the large numbers of those who claim to be religious. Clearly, static religious piety can be distinguished from dynamic spirituality.
When the teaching of a religious tradition resonates with the head and heart of someone, that person identifies with it and acquires a sense of belonging to that religion. To him or her, it becomes “my religion.” The process usually begins when we are born in a family that already belongs to a religious tradition. Such inherited identification may last through life or may change if, for whatever reason, some eventually begin to identify with another tradition or with no tradition at all.
Religious identity comes in various hues. Some people don’t really “do” anything to affirm their religious identity. They identify with a religion merely to be able to identify with something rather than with nothing. Most inherit their religious identity from their family and, even when they are indifferent to religion, many are too lazy or uninterested in actively dis-identifying from it. The religious identity of some others is limited to socializing, for religion offers a community which fosters friendships and encourages networking. Some refuse to think of themselves as religious, but whatever else they passionately get involved in tends to become a kind of “religion” to them.
At least a few in every tradition, though, take their religion seriously: some among these may focus their attention on scripture and theology, some others on ritual and sacraments, and yet others on contemplation or serving the community. The identification-spectrum thus runs the gamut between the casual-superficial to the serious-profound practitioner. Even the most serious practitioner may find it challenging to practice his or her own tradition in its entirety.
Along this spectrum of people identifying themselves as “religious” are found other competing interests and agendas (often fed by struggle for survival, inner insecurity, perceived threats, hunger for revenge, and greed for power and control) that also demand attention and claim allegiance. These compulsions can be political or economic or cultural, or a mix of them. It is these that sometimes make people manipulate and mobilize others by employing religious language and symbols, providing quasi-religious justifications, and masking the whole enterprise as a religious endeavor. When this kind of packaging leads to unwholesome activities and results, religion gets a bad rap.
The next time we hear a religion being stereotyped or condemned, it may be wise to step back and spend a moment in reflection. We may discover that it is not religion that is bad, but extraneous factors and people with a variety of agendas that misuse religion for their purpose. Religion can never be bad because, if it’s bad, it’s simply not religion. It is something else.
Let us not dignify what is bad by calling it religion and let us not vilify religion by identifying it with what is bad. Good or bad people? Yes. Good or bad religion? No.