Religious ‘opiates’ cloud humanity and reason

Last week, religiously observant politicians were the target of an emotional outburst as their morality, conscience and ethics were challenged. They were charged with the fraudulent crime of advertising their adherence to the commandments by wearing a kippa, but then acting and behaving in a manner that contradicts some of the elementary basics of Judaism.

When someone wears a kippah in public, they are making a specific statement of affinity with the Jewish people. They could place themselves anywhere along the scale of religiosity, but all in all, they are displaying a clear and visible sign of their Jewish identity. Regardless of the intensity or stream of their religious practice, there are basic fundamentals that support the foundations of Jewish faith such that Judaism “must be so conditioned as to…enable him to leave the world better for his having lived in it” as Mordechai Kaplan put it. In short, our Covenant with the Almighty is a reminder of the pure and simple commitment to repair the world and make it into a better place.

This Jewish obligation was drilled into me from a young age both at home and in my religious education. Daily practices were important in my traditional upbringing, but they were essentially just tools to remind me of my commitment and responsibility to remember the bigger picture. For example, I learned that saving a life was the highest mitzvah that one could do, eclipsing the dogma, rites and rituals of religious Judaism.

Judaism “must be so conditioned as to… enable him to leave the world better for his having lived in it”

The recent past has confronted my entire Jewish philosophy. I live in Israel. I strongly believe that we should be building an Israel that will be a “light unto the nations” (Isaiah 42:6), but the actions, statements and behaviours of numerous religiously observant people in positions of power have reached shameful and unforgiveable planes. It is not for me to comment on other people outside of my dominion. My duty is only to look around me and at my people and urge us to stick to our principles to reach for our ultimate goal. We must only compare ourselves to the people we want to be. So, if I remember my tutelage correctly, what on earth is going on? How has the yearning for power allowed Jewish integrity to be cast into a shameful, hypocritical abyss?

This is not an Israel-specific phenomenon. Across the globe, followers of the world’s monotheistic religions have been abused and exploited by a wide spectrum of rulers and clerics hellbent on maximizing their power and extending their ideological influence. Although Amos Elon wrote “not faith, but moral behaviour is the essence of all religion”, we have seen the essence of religion blatantly tainted by an overabundance of immorality and unethical behaviour. Likewise, a peculiar blend of modern liberal economics is coupled with an archaic divinity that echoes behaviour of centuries gone with devotees needing only an inkling of encouragement to ignite their ferocious zeal if they are made to believe that their access to the eternal is under threat.

The religion prism hypnotizes the masses to defend, justify and endorse irrational sanctions by tyrannical leaders. Perpetrators deviously pick and choose scripture, manipulating its ethos to defend their actions. In some of the most extreme scenarios, dedicated disciples have stooped to unfathomable levels of cruelty and barbarism, à la ISIS 2014-2015. The (so-called) ‘advanced’ nations of the world condemned these executions. They express shock and horror and feel the needs to ‘protect’ their citizens from the horrific scenes by censoring the footage. They effectively turn their eyes away from witnessing these acts, but still judge them as backwards and primordial, and rightly so.

‘moral behaviour is the essence of all religion’

Despite the revolting nature of the specific deed, it is more important to analyse the principle that allows one to get there. There is a line between the need to defend yourself and your people, and abusing the maxim of ‘attack being the best form of defence’. We may ratify any action in defence of our society, but when any religious philosophy or texts are applied as justification, a slippery slope of complicity and responsibility is never far away. Accordingly, we have to acknowledge that is easy to become a bystander, and that we may not notice harmful daily changes incrementally cultivating around us.

When we are aware of developments that challenge our moral compass, what is our responsibility? We are warned by Isaiah (53:7) not to be “led like a lamb to the slaughter” or to be “silent, as a sheep before its shearers”. Accordingly, it is we who allow tyrants to abuse and exploit the democratic process when we gave them their power. Consequently, we have an ethical duty and a democratic responsibility to openly object when the same elected representatives renege on their promises. After the election, members of a liberal democracy do not simply become the lackeys for politicians. All citizens are bound together in a social contract, both the electorate and the elected representatives, each of us with our roles and responsibilities collectively accountable to build a just and virtuous society.

The basic theme here is that we are all partners in the process. There are no officials in power that did not gain the endorsement of the electorate, however, did they honestly and accurately present their manifesto to the voting population? Each of us can ask if we knew the manifestos of our chosen representatives, and we each need to ask ourselves whether we feel that they are representing us accordingly. In any case, once polling day is over, the typical civilian becomes complacently apathetic. Politicians correctly expect little challenge from a population who respect the electoral process, and who are conditioned to believe that their only opportunity to contribute towards change is on polling day. That is why we have formal ‘checks and balances’ in the democratic system as our protection against fraudulent lawmakers.

Now that the position of the ‘citizen’ is laid out, who are our politicians? In a liberal democracy one cannot progress without popular support, so which inspirational elected officials do we choose to represent us? Who do we entrust with the responsibility to act in the nation’s best interest? There are many virtuous people who make it their mission to improve society and choose the political route to realize their vision. There are also individuals representing religious groups are increasingly infiltrating the political sphere. Their electoral success is guaranteed due to the full support from their inculcated factions who probably have little or no comprehension of the manifesto they are endorsing but they would never even dream of controverting their spiritual gurus in any case.

Karl Marx insightfully referred to religion as the “opiate of the masses”. He was suggesting that religion can obscure rational and independent thought. To appreciate it in the current reality, Marx argued that power-hungry politicians can prevent the masses from revolting and dissenting through abuse and manipulation of faith. Essentially, tyrannical leaders can disempower and suppress the drive for political emancipation by ‘inebriating’ the people through the deceptive manipulation of their faith-driven beliefs. Whether the leaders are genuine spiritual clergy or simply duplicitous politicians manipulating the passion of the electorate, the results are the same. Opium is a drug. It is a drug of addicts that develops comprehensive dependency and leads to abuse.

‘Opium is a drug. It is a drug of addicts that develops comprehensive dependency and leads to abuse.’

I am by no means suggesting that all people will get to the condition where they will become another ‘Jihadi John’. Let’s assume that the average person is not obsessed, and is in control of their emotions, and they live in a country where one or more of the Abrahamic religions is present. Now let’s invite the theories of 17th century French mathematician and philosopher, Blaise Pascal who wrote “let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering over God…” i.e. by ‘betting’ on God you have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Pascal’s observation fits snuggly as a compliment to Marx’s intuition. We have no better explanation, so one is effectively ‘drugged’ by those that can answer all of life’s unanswerable questions. The ease of simplicity breeds calm and tranquility away from the traumatic challenges of a complex world through the tempting allure of the “opiate of the masses”. Soon they are hooked. Their spiritual leaders go from teacher to divinely-chosen sage; from counsellor to irrefutable authority.

Religion is supposed to be about making the world into a better place. That is the founding Jewish principle of the State of Israel and it is clearly stated in the 1948 Declaration of Independence. We have an opportunity to build a country based on our own principles and ideology as written and practised by our ancestors, but many have lost their way in the balance between primordial forces of religion and the modern democratic world. Radical leaders are contradicting the doctrine that they purportedly represent and fouling the scrolls from which they read by preaching principles to the masses that undermine the fundamentals of their faith, whilst the flock is listening and acting without checking their own integrity. The alarm bells have been ringing for a while now, but it appears that the people who are intoxicated in their ‘opium dens’ may never wake up. Eventually, the results will be catastrophic. However, as with all drugs, if addicts chose to recapture their individuality and manage to traverse a period of complete withdrawal, the deceptive shroud that clouds their judgment would be torn away, and rational judgment could triumph.