faith

religion seems to be a constant point of conversation in malaysia. the interesting thing is that it’s not a discussion of the religion itself, but of what religion someone is and how that helps others build expectations around the person. when it comes to discussing religion i am used to a discussion of the points of religion, i take this as natural coming from the compare and contrast environment of catholic college. that doesn’t seem to be comfortable here in malaysia, although there are many who do not have deep knowledge their own religion or of the others around them. you would think it would cause people to ask and question, but that desire seems to have been squeezed out of many malaysians. maybe malaysia is afraid of what i saw as a kid, i remember my highly devote nana talking about religion with my much less devote father. the conversations would tend to end with raised voices and strained feelings. its true this country does not need more bad feelings.

religions are built on a set of beliefs shared among a community. within my area of the US we used to discuss the rights and wrongs of one religion verses another. in most cases, those differences were minor procedural issues between christian sects; closer to each other than they are different. the world has grown for the US, today it is made up of christian, jewish, asian and islamic groups who are attempting to live side by side. they do this by replacing the religious belief that separates them, with a secular set of shared beliefs that keep them together as a whole. this may only happen for the secular parts of their lives, but it’s the duality that allows the groups to US to be multi-cultural.

secular beliefs are easy, they have been written down, and many times they are open to change with the times. a process of change was built into the constitution of the US. it allows the government and its people to pass or repeal laws as previous laws become outdated. as the people find that laws are no longer applicable, they are changed. as the government finds that a law unfairly affects a minority group, it is systematically reversed.

this is what i like about secular political beliefs, at least in the stable western world, they adapt to the times and the situation. they are living and breathing and are applied to the problems at hand, not to the situation they were written to address. the core belief that holds this together is in the openness of the process. everyone knows there is a process, one that is applied fairly no matter who you are or what your other beliefs may be. the process is a guarantee that you are treated as fairly as the next guy, no matter who either of you are.

you can contrast this with religious belief. the core tenets of a religion do not change easily over time. many of the core beliefs of judaism, christianity and islam are shared and from older religious traditions. the christian church with its many schisms has had a good track record of growing with the times, but even with the marketing message of these as progressive change with the times, there is a real history of blood shed in the name of stopping heretical views from growing. fundamentalists are still closely tied to a classical or literal reading of the text. this literalism is what attempts to stop change over time, or as history shows what makes it a dangerous and painful exercise.

western religious beliefs are normally based on revelation of one or more prophets which are hard to later contradict. this prophetic message is then tied to belief based on faith. you are told as a child or a convert the words of god, and are expected to follow his directions. failure to do so can put your soul, or your life, at risk.

faith is commonly defined as belief without proof. within the religious realm it is this tradition of faith that helps us accept that we are told things, made promises of salvation or inner peace, which can be ours if we believe with our complete hearts. there is also a tradition of assigning the failure of the promise as one of faith. the believer who did not trust deeply enough was the cause of the failure rather than a failure of the god.

all of this has been rolling around in my head as i compare these two traditions secular and religious faith with the idea of having faith in people. we know people, some we know very well and we have faith that we can trust them. but how reasonable is that? how many people in the world do you have faith in?

i am sure the answer is, it depends on what kind of faith we are talking about. is it faith not to steal your hand phone if you leave it on your desk? is it faith that they would never tell you a lie? is it faith that they would go out of their way to help or protect you, even if it put them in a difficult position? is it faith that you have the shared goals and will always move together?

relationships are more personal than the religious experience. you know these people; you have the ability to judge for yourself if they are making promises they are able or willing to keep. relationships are less formal than the secular environment. there is no constitution or set of laws that are required to be followed, no set of judges to prosecute offenders when disagreements over behavior happen.

relationships change over time, you grow towards or away from people, and you gain or lose connections. we do this without formal rules on how it’s done. relationships come with faith, in the person, their intentions and motivations, the process, the future and the shared agreement. but there is no distant and unseen god who can remain blameless. when things go wrong it is the fault of one or both of the actors.

believing in church, community or close personal friends are all difficult for the cynic to do. but how do you live your life without trying, without giving someone the benefit of the doubt and then watching what happens. now add that you come from different communities, you are from different religions and you have differing views on the rules of interpersonal relationships. things can get difficult quickly.