Religion: Merely a Socio-political Construct
Posted by: LeaT in Culture, Religion, SocioPolitical, tags: atheism, Catholicism, Christianity, Religion, Religion and Spirituality, religious identityWhen we talk about religion, we always see it as something cultural, even as a cultural phonomenon perhaps. Religion is however quite far from it, especially when we actually talk about religion and not so much about its practices (although we will get there too). Religion is first of all a political tool. Religion is used as a banner to divide or unite people, and it has been excused as a justification in warfare many times. Religion is also secondly a socio-political identity.
However, to understand what this means, we must first understand that religion in a political context is not always as much as believing or having faith in god(s), but merely faith in something, whether it be a divine being or not. The definition of religion is:
1. A belief or faith in something
2. Rituals
3. Rules
Suddenly the word religion gains a very broad meaning, and can span more than the world religions which be invoked in our thinking when the word religion is mentioned. As such, many of our current cultural phenomena can be seen as a religion. One of those can be the animal right activist groups. To be an animal rights activist, you should first of all share a belief that animals are equal to or better than humans, rituals might involve to not eat meat or consume any product taken from dead/living animals and lastly, rules that forbid you to say, eat meat. This is all put into an overarching system and also gives the animal right activist an identity with other animal right activists by following this agenda. Thus, to truly be an animal right activist means that you actually follow a religion of sorts, in a purely political context. The only reason why you or anyone else would declare yourself an animal right activist is only to politically prove you share the idea of these typical ethics and morals mentioned (animals are of equal or above equal worth compared to humans, you follow a vegetarian diet, you do not consider any form of research conducted on animals ethically correct etc), thus, declaring yourself an animal rights activist outside a political context is useless. Obviously, the idea also unites other animal rights activists under certain organizations such as WWF but also creates a we vs them mentality, let’s say, the evil factories that pollute the rivers and seas so fish will die.
It is also very evident that religion is also more strongly envoked upon when a political identity is needed. I saw a short three-part documentary called We Are All Neighbours today, conducted by anthropologist Tone Bringa in a small village in Bosnia. 1/3 of the population was Catholic, the remaining 2/3 Muslim. It is recorded during the early 90s, (1993) and the conflict between Croatians and Muslims over Bosnia has just begun. At first, the conflict can be heard because of gunshots and shelling, but it is only in a distance and remains so for quite a while. While the villagers are worried the war will break out and soldiers will invade their village, they still don’t understand much of the basic idea of the conflict, that different ethnical groups (Croats, Serbs, Muslims) struggle to gain politcal control over a country (Bosnia). Croats, Serbs and Muslims have lived peacefully in this village for quite some time, and they don’t understand why the fuss. Sure, some of them have different faiths (Catholics vs Muslims) but they still believe in the same god. They also openly declares they don’t understand how you can attack your own neighbour for belonging to a different ethnical group. However, as the violence draws closer it eventually escalates in a bloodbath, where neighbour stands against neighbour, and eventually the Catholics kill their Muslim neighbours when the Croatian soldiers arrive (Croatia is more strongly associated with Catholicism). We can clearly see as the violence draws closer the villagers also keep more and more to themselves; Muslims to Muslims and Catholics to Catholics, despite many of them being good friends before the war begun. They often excused their own newly gained animosity with that “they might consider me a spy” or equally farfetched reasonings. In a world of paranoia however, it doesn’t seem as impossible as it would have before the war.
Here, we can clearly see how one’s religious identity becomes more important to strengthen one’s national identity (Catholics associate themselves with Croatia and support the Croatian army, Muslims the Bosnians and Serbs). Thus, religion is merely a political construct, and when you openly declare you are this or that, you also openly declare a political stance. It might not sound very rational to claim, especially if we look at something such as Atheism.
However, Atheism maybe more than anything is a political construct and many ideas in Atheism support this. First of all, there is a “belief” in science, that at least science is more superior to any other way to view the world. Science is associated with a secular society, and in turn associated with freedom of thought. Here, we can slowly see how Atheism is taking upon more and more political leanings, since freedom of thought often reconciles with freedom of speech. Atheism also often stands for many other common ideas in secular societies, such as a more social welfare model as well as Liberalism (which has partly been mentioned with freedom of speech). Religion on the other hand, is often associated with Conservatism (in a political sense but also culturally) and then that religion’s internal structure (ie rules and rituals) will decide how a Conservative society will look like.
Of course, I am not going so far as saying it is always this way, this is merely shown to point out an example how many Atheists might actually consider themselves, and that at least in a political context, their lack of belief in a god will actually create such as strong socio-political identity that it can be considered a religion, and how the word religion in turn is merely there to express one’s raher ethical, moral and political views than actually your ideas of faith.
Welcome! If you're new here, before you open your mail program to fire up a nasty email, you may want to first read our FAQ to avoid being ignored. If you like the content, we hope you will to subscribe to our RSS feed. Stay open minded!
If you don't like the content of this website on the other hand, kindly fuck off.
The Antichristian Phenomenon

![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=b81b432d-5bae-4886-bcad-b76cbcf72807)


October 17th, 2008 at 8:34 am - Edit
"Atheism maybe more than anything is a political construct and many ideas in Atheism support this."
Huh?
You might as well write "Disbelief in Ghosts maybe more than anything is a political construct and many ideas in Disbelief in Ghosts support this." Makes just as much sense.
October 17th, 2008 at 11:11 am - Edit
Just because a lot of atheists seem to also be liberal in their politics does not mean that atheism is "merely" a political construct. In some cases, it seems, the politics is rather a natural outgrowth of the atheist's philosophical understanding of the world.
October 18th, 2008 at 4:51 am - Edit
Atheism is merely the disbelief in any god. One can be an Atheist and believe in homeopathy instead of Science. One can be an Atheist be either Conservative, Liberal or Socialist.
But Atheism is not a religion.
You are looking at the symptoms and trying to extrapolate to the cause from there. Yes, many atheist also happen to have the skepticism meme, which makes them very open to the scientific method. But it's not a belief. It's simply a necessity for someone who does not have a higher authority to tell them what to believe.
October 18th, 2008 at 7:15 am - Edit
For me, belief and faith are different concepts, and it seems nonsensical to speak of a lack of belief as itself a belief.
I consider the term "belief" refers to cognitive content held as true based on evidence, whilst the term "faith" refers to belief without or despite the evidence.
As a datum, consider that the Raëlian Church is atheistic yet religious. Hence, Raëlians are atheists, yet their worldview is nowhere near congruent to mine, though I too am an atheist.
October 19th, 2008 at 4:44 am - Edit
And yet, even this does not hold. For example. For a Libertarian Atheist is against social support. A Stalinist Atheist is against liberalism and secularism. A Marxist atheist is against the State etc.
There is nothing inherent in atheism that includes something. Not scepticism, not trust in science, not belief in secular society. You just jump to this conclusion simply because of the opinions prevalent in the Atheosphere.
October 19th, 2008 at 4:40 am - Edit
But that is the problem. Atheism is not a cultural movement. An atheist can have so many different views on life, economy or anyting, simply because "Atheism" has no cohesion.
It is like saying that people who do not play poker are a cultural movement.
October 18th, 2008 at 6:36 am - Edit
What I am more trying to say is that's it a part of the Atheist's worldview, and that actually to declare yourself an Atheist in a context where such a thing like Atheism does not exist, it becomes meaningless. There are ideas and symbols behind Atheism just like there are with Theism, and people in general might associate Atheism with liberalism and social support, to be Atheist almost seems equal to believe in a secular society, or at least live in one.
I tried to give you an example of how religion in an anthropological sense does not only mean faith or lack of faith in a divine being, but it can be merely a strong idea of anything which is so prevalent within a specific culture that maybe yes, we can talk about it as a faith. I know that many Atheists try to declare there is no faith in science, but yet, Atheists believe more strongly in science than any other worldview. Yes, we can explain it with "science is more logical", but even if there would be a more correct alternative to science, would you still prefer science over this more alternative view, despite this view being more correct?
I can definitely feel a refusal with Atheists to admit that there might be any idea which correlates to faith in any sort of way, because "atheism is the lack of faith". or at least live in one.
October 18th, 2008 at 6:38 am - Edit
If you actually read the beginning where I said that religion is 1) a political contruct and 2) Atheism follows certain criteria to be classified as an anthropological view on religion, then it makes very much sense. It's easy to buy that animal rights activists might be religious in that sense, but Atheists are never religious even when I tried to put the word religion in a different context which has got nothing to do with theism.
October 18th, 2008 at 6:39 am - Edit
I am mostly talking about Atheism as a cultural movement. You can be Christian and believe in science over ID. There are certainly ideas in Atheism if you view it as a culture itself, and this is what I try to describe.
October 20th, 2008 at 1:19 am - Edit
I wholly agree with db0's statements. I get a nasty itch whenever somebody claims that atheism is anything more than the disbelief in gods.
There are of course certain political actions associated with atheism, but they are not rooted in atheism itself. Example: in Iran, pork is banned because the Abrahamic god forbids it in the Qur'an (this concept is taken from the Old Testament) and because Iran is governed by Islamic law (Sharia). An atheist would find themselves robbed of the liberty to eat pork. If he should attempt to gain the freedom to eat pork (and drink alcohol, while he/she's at it) these actions are rooted in secular and/or libertarian political philosophy – not atheist philosophy, because it does not take any stance on any issues other than the acceptance of the existance of gods. (Note the difference between atheism and secularism!)
December 23rd, 2009 at 3:48 pm - Edit
How about religion as a business or occupation? Think about that first man or woman who perhaps was a lousy hunter or gatherer, yet found a way to get the rest of the tribe to feed them in exchange for charms or talking to the spirits of animals. Of course, they might have been respected for actual knowledge, too, such as ability to predict animal migrations based on watching the movement of stars. Anyway, being a priest or shaman sure beats physical labor. I feel religion is based more upon gaining power and prestige for individuals, and the socio-political identity stems from that. Even the lowest individuals in the congregation derive some benefit- they can participate in a group identity in church, even if they are failures at finding good jobs or mates. So, both preachers and congregation can be desperate to preserve their religious group. As for the mega-church preachers, you could say they have had a revelation I call the Nostradamus affect: When a smart, manipulative person is struck by the realization that it is easier to gain income and prestige by fleecing the gullible than by working a normal job. No tedious exams or boards to pass, just learn your way around one book, and let the blarney roll. Look at the way preachers are treated in interviews vs. how scientists are treated, and you'll see that people are still a bit afraid of the shaman.
July 12th, 2010 at 3:22 am - Edit
For Atheist, no God at all. They purely believe in Science but kindly explain who created all these things in the world? How this world evolve? But, I must admit that often times religion are being exploited in politics to gain the sympathy of people.
July 12th, 2010 at 8:09 am - Edit
Atheists don't "purely believe in Science [sic]". You are begging the question by asking "who created all these things in the world". The correct question is: "how did all the things in the world get here?". Do you see the difference? You are presupposing a being. And to be an atheist, you don't even have to know the answer, because it is an argument from ignorance that you are putting forward.