Home

hero_057fbd12-bd0d-430b-8fed-7d2b021ab105Religion and conflict seem to be more prevalent than ever in contemporary global politics and society. So often in public debate we hear that religion is either violent or it is peaceful, that it is oppressive or it promotes justice. But are these the only two ways of thinking about religion and conflict? In today’s post, Marjo Buitelaar, Kim Knibbe and Erin Wilson consider some possible alternatives and invite you to join them to explore these issues further in a free online course.

“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.” – Blaise Pascal

“The whole purpose of religion is to facilitate love and compassion, patience, tolerance, humility and forgiveness.” – Dalai Lama

“Religion is like a knife: you can either use it to cut bread, or stick it in someone’s back.” – Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu

Religion and conflict seem inextricably bound together in our contemporary world. From actors and groups such as Anders Breivik, Boko Haram, ISIS, Christian Identity and the Army of God, to issues such as freedom of religion and belief, gay marriage, ritual slaughter, euthanasia and circumcision, there seems no end of examples that suggest that religion inevitably produces conflict.

At the same time, there are equally as many examples of religious individuals and groups working for peace and justice in the world – Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr, Desmond Tutu, Love Makes A Way, Pope Francis, the World Council of Churches, Islamic Relief, Religions for Peace… the list goes on. How are we to make sense of such seemingly contradictory phenomena? Is religion inherently violent or is it really about peace? Does religion contribute to oppression and exploitation, or is it a powerful influence for achieving justice and emancipation?  Is this the only way of looking at this problem? Are we stuck with the same old stereotypes of religion as good or bad, peaceful or violent? Or are we asking the wrong questions…? If we ask whether religion is violent or peaceful, we are only ever going to get one of four answers – either it is violent, or it is peaceful, or it is both, or it is neither. It doesn’t take us very far beyond the existing stereotypes and clichés that dominate political decision-making, news coverage and public debate about this important issue. Yet there are a number of problems that inhibit our capacity to understand this problem when we focus primarily on whether religion is violent or peaceful, or oppressive or emancipatory. In the following, we will discuss four of these problems:

  1. How we understand concepts like “religion”, “conflict”, “violence” and “peace”
  2. The context (or lack thereof) in which we examine the relationship between the two
  3. The normative values and assumptions we ascribe in asking such questions
  4. The question of who or what has power and agency in relation to religion and conflict.

If we want to really understand the interconnections between religion and conflict, we need to move past these clichés and start asking different questions.

  1. Understanding

When we ask a question such as “Is religion inherently violent or is it really about peace?” there are a lot of definitional issues that come up. Firstly, the question seems to assume that there is one thing that we can identify and define as “religion” – but what exactly do we mean by that? Ask ten different people what religion is and you will get ten different answers. How do we take account of the many different “religions” in the world – are Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, New Ageism, Zoroastrianism, etc etc all essentially the same? It is almost impossible to maintain such a claim in the face of the immense diversity that exists across these different traditions. Further, how do we factor in the vast differences that exist within the various religious traditions, across the plethora of denominations, sects and sub-branches that have emerged over time? This suggests that simply asking if “religion” is violent or peaceful is not going to produce an answer that adequately accounts for this wealth of plurality in religious beliefs, experiences and practices.[1] This raises an additional definitional issue – what exactly do we mean by violence and peace? Is all violence physical and direct, such as that which takes place in a war, when someone loses a limb, or is shot, or can it also be systemically produced and indirect, when a person lives in abject poverty there entire lives, through no fault of their own? Is it only violence if a person is physically harmed, or also psychologically? And what then is peace? Is it simply the absence of violence, or is it, as Jane Addams, Martin Luther King Jr, Johan Galtung and numerous others have asserted, the presence of justice, “the nurture of human life”? Thinking about the kind of “peace” that we mean and want when tackling these issues is another important part of developing alternative approaches, analyses and solutions.[2]

  1. Context

The second problem with the existing clichés and stereotypes about religion and conflict is the lack of consideration of context. They assume that you can determine whether religion inevitably leads to conflict or not without taking into consideration other important factors like political dynamics, prosperity and poverty, pre-existing societal traumas and suspicions from previous injustices, environmental degradation, access to education, healthcare, water, food, the basic necessities of life. The problem of religion and conflict when thought of as part of daily, lived, messy reality cannot be analysed in isolation, because it is entangled with other issues and problems that also impact on whether and how religion becomes part of the dynamics surrounding a conflict or not. We cannot adequately understand the phenomenon of IS, for example, without taking into consideration the complex political, economic, cultural, historical, environmental, as well as “religious” factors that have affected the emergence of this group. We cannot adequately understand the conflict over Freedom of Religion or Belief in the Hobby Lobby case in the United States without understanding how religion and religious freedom feature as part of US national identity. Context is critical.

  1. Assumptions

A third problem relates to the normative values and assumptions that underpin the prevailing clichés and stereotypes about religion and conflict. When we ask “Is religion violent or peaceful? Does religion always lead to conflict or does it lead to peace?”, we are implicitly ascribing normative values to both religion and conflict. We assume that religion has to be either “good” – contributing to peace – or “bad” – leading to violence.[3] We also assume that “conflict” is “bad”. But neither religion nor conflict is inherently and always either good or bad. Peace studies scholars have highlighted that conflict can in fact have positive outcomes and is not always a “bad thing”.[4] It depends on how people respond to conflict as to whether it produces positive or negative outcomes.

  1. Agency

And this relates to a fourth problem with the existing ways we think about religion and conflict – the issue of agency. Conflict in and of itself does not “produce” anything – it is the people involved in conflicts that have agency and are therefore the ones producing outcomes through the ways in which they choose to respond to conflict. The same is true of religion. In asking whether religion contributes to conflict or whether religion is violent or peaceful, we assign religion an agency, an essence or a force that exists externally from its adherents. Arguably, however, the question should not be about whether religion is violent or peaceful, good or bad, but should focus instead on how and why people in certain situations, contexts and times respond to both religion and conflict in the ways that they do. Why, in the case of the conflict in Bosnia, for example, did some actors turn to religion as a means to justify violence, while others used it as a way to build understanding, reconciliation and peace? Why in South Africa did some Christian denominations argue that Christianity justified apartheid, while others argued that Christianity promoted equality, peace, justice and reconciliation? Why are some individuals inspired to work for peace while others read the same sacred texts, for example, and are inspired to enact violence? Why do some groups, religious or otherwise, respond to conflict and tension by escalating to violence, while others engage in mediation, negotiation, reconciliation and peacebuilding? Such questions inevitably complicate this issue. And asking such questions means we will never arrive at a definitive answer as to whether religion is violent or peaceful. But then again, we hadn’t arrived at a definitive answer by asking the same old questions anyway, so maybe it is high time we tried a different approach, one that does justice to the complexity and nuance of these pivotal issues in contemporary global politics and society.

Interested to learn more? In our free online course, starting the 13th of April, we develop a step-by-step approach towards a nuanced understanding of the relationship between religion and conflict in the contemporary world. Watch the trailer and register here

Dr Marjo Buitelaar is Associate Professor of Contemporary Islam  

Dr Kim Knibbe is Senior Lecturer in Sociology and Anthropology of Religion

Dr Erin Wilson is Lecturer in Politics and Religion and the Director of the Centre for Religion, Conflict and the Public Domain (CRCPD), of which Dr Buitelaar and Dr Knibbe are also Fellows. They are all employed by the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Groningen and teach the online course “Religion and Conflict”.

[1] For more on the issue of defining religion, see T. Asad. ‘The Construction of Religion as an Anthropological Category’ in M. Lambek (ed.) A Reader in the Anthropology of Religion (London: Blackwell, 2002), p. 116; Kocku von Stuckrad, ‘Reflections on the Limits of Reflection: An Invitation to the Discursive Study of Religion’, Method & Theory in Study of Religion 22 (2010), p. 156.

[2] See, for example, Galtung, J. 1969. “Violence, Peace and Peace Research” Journal of Peace Research 6(3): 167-191

[3] Elizabeth Shakman Hurd refers to this as “the two faces of faith” – “dangerous religion and peaceful religion”. See E.S. Hurd. 2012. “International Politics after Secularism” Review of International Studies 38(5), p947

[4] Brunk, Conrad G. 2000. “Shaping a Vision: The Nature of Peace Studies” in Fisk, Larry J. and John L. Schellenberg (eds). Patterns of Conflict, Paths to Peace. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp11-34

Advertisements

34 thoughts on “Religion and Conflict: Beyond Clichés and Stereotypes

  1. I think the primitive human tribalism is the key. If you are part of say the Jewish tribe your instinct is take the land from and kill members of the Palestine tribe. The Palestine tribe feels the injustice and wants to attack the Jewish tribe. The same thing happens with football supporters hopefully without too much killing.
    The local derby, the game against your nearest enemy tribe always generates the most violence. Tribalism is the most basic of human instincts that lies close to the surface and erupts any time any opportunity arises. Religious beliefs give a basic set of rules that people live by without question. Too often you hear people that is what is says in the bible to Koran and cannot be argued with.
    Ancient primitive laws are used as an excuse for violence.

    • One of the basic rules of the Jewish and Christian (and Muslim? sorry for my ignorance) scriptures is “Thou shalt not kill” There are no modifying clauses and yet…

      • The ironic thing is that in the story of Moses, when he came down from the mountain with the first tablets, it already had this enscription: “Thou shalt not kill”. And what was the first thing he did? Slaughter three thousand people because they had cast a golden calf to worship and they danced in a way that he thought was not appropriate.

        I still can’t make heads or tails from these kinds of cherry-picking moralist stories.

      • Sorry Eelko,
        I am totally in disagreement with you on your statement about Moses. The Quran does not mention anything about what you are relating and since I consider the Quran the last of all the revelations, for me is the first and most reliable reference in order to know all about the life of the prophets.

        Historically speaking, since Moses got his revelation many other civilizations subjugated the jews people. They are the Egyptians 1312BC, the Neo-Assyrian Empyre 740BC, Babylonians, 597BC or Alexander the Great 332BC. Therefor, it is highly improvable that what we know nowadays by the Torah had remain intact since the Moses´s time. In addiction, the Jesus´s mission was not to fund a new religion, but to remind the jew priests that they had lost the straight path which Moses showed to them. But they refused to listen to him, and this is the main reason why the jews do not accept Jesus as a prophet till today.

      • Thank you Andres for your comment about the differences between the Torah and Koran accounts. I have not studied the Koran so I wonder if you could tell me where the relevant texts are so that I can look them up and read them myself. I would be grateful for your help.

      • Hi Jan,
        it will be a pleasure to help you. Currently, I am reading a Quran English edition and it seems to me very good.

        THE MEANING OF THE GLORIOUS QUR´AN by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Ed. DAR AL-KITAB AL-MASRI or DAR AL-KITAB ALLUBNANI

      • I am most grateful for your help. I managed to get a Kindle edition and I will read it with great interest. Thank you again.

      • Hi again Jan,

        I forgot to tell you that you must be very carefull when choose a Quran translation because some of them are biased to one side or another, others lack a lot of important commentaries and others simply are awfull translations.

        Another important point that you have always to keep in mind when read the Quran is that you are not in contact with the real book, but with a human translation. The Quran was originatlly revealed in Arabic, neither in English nor in Spanish.

        Please let me know whatever doubt appears in your mind, if I can, I will try to help you.

      • Thank you for your help.
        I have the “English Translation of the Qur’an” by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, published by Peace Vision . I see that the thing that started this thread, the deaths of 3000 people after Moses returned from the mountain is at 2. Al Baqarah. 54.

    • ” your instinct is take the land from and kill members of ” – strange idea of ‘instinct’, to my humble opinion.

      • Good point Eelko.
        It is also notable that Moses literally broke the 10 commandments by breaking the tablets of the law. Maybe Moses realised that the people were not ready to receive them and had to be purified first. When the ring leaders of the rebellion had been purged he went back and got a new copy of the tablets and presented them to the people. Maybe it was once the people had assented to the law and the covenant that they became binding.
        That doesn’t help with the subsequent actions of the Israelites when they massacred other tribes and peoples unless you subscribe to the idea that they didn’t regard non-Israelis as human.
        I agree with you, it’s all very messy and deeply distressing.

    • You are right, but only to a certain extent, why?

      As you have well mentioned, you are reading a Quran commented by a concrete Quranic interpreter, right? That does not prove anything, since there are many quranic interpreters, and each one of them has his own meanings or opinions of the Quran. So consequently, no one can say that God says such or such thing in such or such verse because the last and oculted meaning only and always belongs to God, who, by the way is The all knowing.

      On the other hand, I think you should pay attention to the end of this verse because there rests the final argument which has lead many of the interpreters to conclude with the final peacefull Moses decision concerning to this issue, one of these interpreters is Yusuf Ali.

  2. My contention is that spiritual faith (a belief in a higher power which interacts in some way with people) is a good and positive influence for peace. I also contend that formal religion in the form of religious institutions is the corruption of faith for the advancement of political power and that is destructive and violent.
    That is, I contend that Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, etc, as faiths, are benign or positively good and inspirational but the religious institutions which regulate sects and sections within these faiths are destructive and promote violence.
    I hope to test these ideas in this course and look forward to exploring these ideas with people of faith. (Atheism is a faith too.)

    • Atheism is NOT a faith. It is in fact a distinct lack of belief in anything without evidence. Don’t believe in Thor or Odin? Then you are atheist as far as Thor and Odin goes. They simply don’t cross your mind at all on a daily/weekly/monthly etc etc basis, right? Just as the Judao-Christian god doesn’t cross an atheist’s mind unless the subject is brought up very much like Thor or Odin. A distinct lack of faith – belief without evidence – is what atheism is.

      • I beg your pardon. I didn’t mean to offend anyone. Faith is defined as a strongly held belief
        OED http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/faith
        I thought Atheism was the belief that there is no higher power. Consider the argument ” I cannot prove there is a God so my belief in God is an act of faith. You cannot prove there is no God so your disbelief in God is also an act of faith”.
        Perhaps this course will help us both to find a better understanding of our positions.

      • Some Buddhists believe in a God or Gods but that is beside the point perhaps. Buddhism is still a faith, that is, it is a strongly held system of belief. I think this is one of the important distinctions we need to learn to make, the difference between religion and faith. Can someone give us a clear definition of these concepts please?

    • With regard to atheisme and question of proof concering anything so called ‘supernatural’ …. the philosopher Bertrand Russell said: “I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.”

      Russell’s teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell’s teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

      Source: wikipedia

  3. I agree that all terms such as “religion” and “violence” need to be considered within the every changing human dynamics. They are not static concepts. As Wittgenstein famously commented “all our words need to be sent to the dry cleaners to try to remove the accumulated “dirt” that they always accumulate”.

  4. As nicely suggested by this introduction, let’s be careful with approaching such concepts, or else we will keep falling in the trap of simplistic and biased analyses that we find in the media and political discourses (more often than not).

    Presenting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a tribal issue is misleading and indeed simplistic. As a matter of fact, many Israelis/Jewish people support the Palestinian cause and boycott products manufactured in Jewish colonies, while on the other hand there are Israelis of Arabic and Muslim origins who decide to volunteer for the Israeli army which puts them at odds with their brothers and sisters in faith. True, sports can be identified with religions in the way they hold rituals, and beliefs, and a sense of belonging etc., but the reverse affiliation leads to underestimate the intricacies of religions and divine beliefs in their sociological, political, societal, cultural and ethnical contexts.

    Which also leads us to reflect, for sure, on the notion of religion/belief. Affirming that atheism is not a faith/systel of beliefs is extremely biased. A person who affirms that there is no such thing as a God/gods, or anything that can be identified as a supra-human authority/power/worth of worship entity, does so from her or his own belief, and atheism is therefore a system of beliefs (calling it a faith sounds odd because atheism is associated with nihilism, but essentially, it is a form of faith, a faith in life, in the non-divine, in the random, in coincidental facts, or even simply a faith in Oneself as the only one in control of one’s life, etc.). Presenting atheism as outside of the realm of faith makes it impossible to fully grasp and analyze the notions at stake here, because, even though these facts are less media savvy, a lot of people do act (whether positively or negatively) in the name of their belief that we shouldn’t believe in anything. Moreover, if we are to take a sociological approach, then atheism or agnosticism and the likes have to also be considered as systems of beliefs, or else our analyses are biased and leave out quite a big fraction of the world population, which does also take part in the religion/conflict/peace triangle.

    In short, black v white, right v wrong (and the likes) conclusions will serve no purpose if we want to have meaningful research and analyses, and understand what is going on in the world.

  5. Obviously nuanced questions require nuanced thinking. I thought a lot of the points brought up in this blog (and by other commenters) were especially interesting and necessary. Context always matters, as do assumptions and understanding. But I think the most crucial factor brought up is that of agency. I’d even argue that the importance of agency in and of itself transcends understanding, assumptions, and even context (though they certainly have important parts to play).

    While I obviously can’t convince anyone of this without some sort of Mount Everest of evidence, I do think it’s safe to say that for a person to be personally responsible and accountable for their actions, they must possess agency.

    The reason why religion provides a helpful framework with which to do violence is that it eliminates agency. And it has been pretty conclusively shown in psychological studies–most prominently in the Millgram experiments–that when you remove responsibility from the actor–i.e., agency–they are more likely to commit actions of a morally questionable nature, which includes atrocities (thus answering the question of why normal people can take part in genocide like in Bosnia). This obviously applies to political movements as well as religious ones, but I think it’s safe to say that politics, ideology, and religion all fall under one category of human behavior: that of belief.

    But this doesn’t fully explain why people do morally just things in the name of religion. Because religion–like any belief–by its very nature removes agency from personal actions, why would someone turn to it to explain why they fought Apartheid? Perhaps a sense of humility? More likely, I think it has to do with facing down what seems to be an invincible foe. In order to be part of a cause that could very well be hopeless, it does very little good to turn to numbers, since they will often show a loss you might find unacceptable. However, if god is on your side, the numbers won’t matter. Those losses are for a greater good and there may even be a bit of a cushion for those who fall, aka heaven. It’s a rallying point.

    • I can’t accept the proposition that religion induces people to abdicate their sense of responsibility.
      Instead, it seems to me that religion empowers many believers to take responsibility for things they otherwise would consider themselves unqualified to act upon.
      .
      The Caliphate ideology of ISIS, for instance, seems to imbue its followers with the belief that they are enlisted in a grand struggle on God’s behalf.

      This makes the mass execution of kafirs not only permissible, but makes it imperative.

      • Strange, isn’t it, that people who believe in an all powerful God think He needs them to fight His battles and defend His honour. If God is offended can’t He be relied on to sort it out Himself?

      • Hi Robert,
        in every religion exist people who follow literal streams. Islam is not free of this illness and despicable groups.

        The Quran, exactly the same as all the holy scriptures, deals with war and violence, that is truth. Some people who read the Quran, they read it without taking into account the whole context of the book. In other words, they atomize those verses in which they are interested in, so they can fullfil their interests and what is still more important, using this trick they can convince those persons who don´t have any knowledge about islam in order to obtein their dreadful goals in an easy and quickly way.

        Perhaps, one of the most complicated task a person can undertake might be reading and applying the Quran on his daily life due to several reasons:

        In the first place, the reader of the Quran has to have full knowledge of arabic grammar and arabic language. Second, the reader has to own a vast knowledge about the reasons by which was revealed each verse. Third, the reader has to know vastly the prophetic tradiction; these are almost at the same level of importance than the Quran. Forth, the reader has to master to certain degree at least one of the four Islamic Law School of islam. Five, he also has to master the science of “fiqh” or jurisprudence, what is known by “sharia”.

        The knowledge of Sharia is crucial in order to implement islam within a certain territory. And believe me, Sharia is a huge ocean to sail. It is not a simplistic treaty, but thousands and thousands of treaties which were written and are still being written from the desert of central Asia to the desert of central Africa, from the Himalayas to the Pirineos in what is now Spain.

      • Robert, just because you can’t accept it doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Religions are made up of individuals, but most people–especially followers of religions–consider religion to be a body greater than that of individuals. It’s a monolith, an authority. Other experiments, mostly responding to that done by Milgram in the 1950s, have replicated the results across cultures and have thus shown that bodies of authority by DEFINITION abdicate responsibility. Belief is a conscious abstract concept, and thus can’t override basic human nature. For more reading, check out this study:

        http://www.stanleymilgram.com/pdf/understanding%20behavoir.pdf

        Finally, I don’t want to make assumptions about you personally, but I really hope YOU’RE not saying that the assassination of kafirs is imperative. There’s no justification for murder. If you’re not saying that, I apologize for assuming.

  6. Human being is a free choice and rational being, so he can decide whether to do good or evil, kill others or help others and so on. It is not right to attribute such or such set of ideas or spiritual practices to such or such behaviour, since the ultimately decicision of an act always lays on the human being, not on the religion or whatever.

    Another important aspect to speak of, it is which is the real nature of religion. Let me illustrate to you a very graphic and real example:

    Everyone knows that Buddha was a very peaceful and compassionate indian who not even wanted to harm the most insignificant insect, was not he like that?
    All right, the important point is whether are we in a possition to put the blame on Buddha for all the atrocities have perpetrated and still are perpetrating the buddhist of Myanmar against their muslim neighbours during many years?

    The last point I want to remark is the next one. As far as religions are supposed to come from God and as well as many people could agree with me, God is perfect, always fair, worthy of love, all hearing, all seeing and so on. On the other hand, the human being nature is imperfection, so consequently, he or she is unfair, incompassionated,rich or poor, lovely or hateful and so on.

    Should we also attribute the despicable acts of human beings to God?

  7. Although when one reads “scriptures” all (?) religions advocate peace and acceptance of others throughout the ages religion has almost always been the reason, or excuse, for conflict.

    Why is there this difference between ideals and reality ?

    Surely we cannot simply blame extremists.

    • Hi John,

      as we have seen in the above article there are many circunstances that provoke human beings to react either in one direction or in another. Mahatma Ghandi, for example was a very elevated human being, spiritually speaking. Very little people is able to behave as he did under the circunstances he was living. In other words, he had under control his reptilinian brain which is, by the way the most primitive brain of the three brains we have according to human being physiology.

      This brain is the responsible of reacting to the primary necesities, so it only works through stimulus-reactions. Such necesities or sensations are for instance cold, hunger, danger and so on. As I mentioned you above, very little people is able to control this brain, these persons are mostly prophets or people who have achieved the control of themselves, what is called in islamic terms, al yihad al-akbar or what is also the the most valuable fight a human being can undertake. Scientifically speaking, it means to stop using the reptilinian brain and start using the two highest brain, the emotional brain and the rational brain or neocortex.

      Sadly, very little people is capable of reach this spiritual or rational levels. Now, we, as western citizens, living peacefull lifes in our peacefull countries, is´nt it?. But, at the very same moment many people all over the world are suffering enormous torments.

      I will ask you to put yourself for a moment in the skin of an Afghan grandfather who has lived three invasion: UK invasion, URSS invasion and finally and US invasion. He has seen with his own eyes how many people, perhaps relatives, friends, even some of his beloved sons or daughters, arround him has been brutally killed, at the same time he does not have enough money for feeding his family and many other awfull circunstances. Now, I will ask you again, will you remains calm and motionless or will you do something in order to change your reality? Because this same thing is exactly what the reptilinian brain does to seek solutions to your most urgent problems.

      I hope to have answered your question John

  8. Interesting article & interesting comments. Would be fascinated to know if anyone thinks there is a difference between faith & religion?

    • Hi Anne,

      faith is a synonym of the word trust. For instance, you have faith in the bus driver, because what you expect from him is that he takes you to the right bus station. On the other hand, religion is a set of ideas, practies or attitudes that help you day by day to be in peace with yourselves and the others. For instance, most religions encourage us to be patience against life´s adversities.

      I hope my explanations had been helpful to you.

  9. Reblogged this on Crumbs and Paper and commented:
    I cannot escape from religion. Sometimes I feel this is the field I am ment to research. You know, like a calling 😉 Well, if I ever learn to not be so annoyed with religion. I’ll have to work on that..-_-

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s