Category: Free Essays

The ethical issue of euthanasia, which confronts our society today, is evidence of our culture’s pervasive concern with finding an easy way out of a moral dilemma. The question of freedom and autonomy of the human being is radical in the discussion of euthanasia. In the name of social justice and freedom of mankind, euthanasia becomes the solution to avoid pain, and escape suffering, in order to reach the so-called desirable “quality of life”. The quality of life argument, at times, has been used scripture narrative, by way of engaging the text politically but which has resulted in its misinterpretation. Moreover, the politicizing of scriptures lacks clarity of the author’s intention. On the other hand, the Catholic church continues to interpret scripture in order to defend the autonomy of human beings as the unique image of God according to revelation and creation. The role of social justice in the writing of the prophet Isaiah will be discussed in this essay and it will be argued that euthanasia is opposed to social justice, as described in the scriptures and the teaching of the Catholic Church.

The prophet Isaiah and social Justice

The social ethics of the prophets were thoroughly grounded theologically in Israel’s historical experience of God and the ongoing struggle of the people to deal with the faith experience in their everyday life. For Israel, social ethics was related to their understanding of what it meant to be God’s people and how they should live in the world. Both for the prophets and for the Torah traditions, that understanding was theologically anchored in the Exodus [1] .

Justice, for example, describes how the people were to live in the world. They were to practise justice toward others. In this sense, Justice does not carry the legal meaning sometimes attached to it. It is not ensuring that everyone gets exactly what he or she deserves based on the law. There is some acceptance of other traditions, where justice is what God brings to those who violate his Torah. However, in the prophets, justice means to practise grace and mercy towards those who have no power to secure them for themselves. It means to protect and defend those who are helpless and powerless [2] . One of the most powerful passages about justice comes from Isaiah of Jerusalem, as a condemnation of the city of Jerusalem (1:21-27):

How the faithful city has become a prostitute! She that was full of justice, righteousness lodged in her– but now murderers! Your silver has become dross, your wine is mixed with water. Your princes are rebels and companions of thieves. Everyone loves a bribe and runs after gifts. They do not defend the orphan, and the widow’s cause does not come before them. . . . I will smelt away your dross as with lye and remove all your alloy. . . . Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city. Zion shall be redeemed by justice, and those in her who repent, by righteousness.

This text considers two important things: first, the terms “righteousness” and “justice” are closely linked. Second, justice is absent when corruption, bribery, failure to defend the orphans and plead the widows’ cause is the social norm. In the patriarchal social structure of Israel, those without family to care for them, widows and orphans, were the most vulnerable people in society. Corruption in leadership most often preyed on those who deepened the most on that very leadership for equity and fairness, usually those without the resources to seek them. Here, justice is the failure to function socially in a way that respects others and defends the weak and powerless of society [3] . Isaiah clearly expresses what God really desires from his people to act upon, as a demonstration of their righteousness (58:6-7):

Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of injustice, to undo the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke? Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover them, and not to hide yourself from your own kin?

Again, Isaiah communicates Israel’s mission to the world metaphorically as light to the nations. Here, as in other places, Israel’s own well-being finally depends on how she treats other people (58:8-11):

Then your light shall break forth like the dawn, and your healing shall spring up quickly; your vindicator shall go before you, the glory of the LORD shall be your rear guard. Then you shall call, and the LORD will answer; you shall cry for help, and he will say, Here I am. If you remove the yoke from among you, the pointing of the finger, and the speaking of evil, if you offer your food to the hungry and satisfy the needs of the afflicted, then your light shall rise in the darkness and your gloom be like the noonday. The LORD will guide you continually, and satisfy your needs in parched places, and make your bones strong; and you shall be like a watered garden, like a spring of water, whose waters never fail.

The prophets did not just condemn leaders for lack of justice or see it as a future dream for the people. From the earliest days of the writings of the prophets, they linked social justice with righteousness as God’s people. They called for both righteousness and justice to be a present reality among God’s people.

Biblical analysis of euthanasia

Biblical understanding of human life was built on the fundamental belief that man is created in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:27: 5:1-2), therefore all human life is sacred. Furthermore, the Bible specifically condemns murder (Exod. 20:13) and this would surely include active forms of euthanasia [4] . Another foundational principle is a biblical view of death; modern medicine defines death primarily as biological, whereas scripture defines death as spiritual. Death, according to the Bible, occurs when the spirit leaves the body (Eccles.12:7; James 2:26) [5] . This revealed fact has a definite bearing on the prohibition of direct killing: “He who sheds Man’s blood shall have his blood shed by man for, in the image of God, man was made” (Gen. 9:6). The Old Testament reveals that all human beings are made in the image of God, but The New Testament adds that a Christian enjoys a special new likeness to God, the indwelling of the three Divine Persons, through inter-personal communion with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The internal transformation of body and soul that makes this new life possible is based on our sharing in the Divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4) [6] .

Clarifying the terminology of euthanasia

Euthanasia is a term that has no consistency in our contemporary society. In classical Greek, the term means “good death.” In modern usage, it has taken a different, more specific meaning and has come ‘to mean that one person intentionally causes the death of another who is terminally or seriously ill, often to end the latter’s pain and suffering’. Euthanasia takes the following forms: Active Euthanasia: usually when euthanasia is mentioned it means active euthanasia. It is taking action with the intention to cause death. Passive Euthanasia: is used to describe the action of withdrawing and withholding treatment, with the result that death occurs as a natural consequence of the disease process. Involuntary Euthanasia: is a compassionate act to end the life of a patient, who is perceived to be suffering and could make a voluntary request, but has not done so. Non-Voluntary Euthanasia: euthanasia in this form occurs when another person, out of compassion, act with the intention of ending the life of a suffering patient where the patient is unable to make a voluntary request [7] .

Church analysis of Euthanasia

The Declaration on Euthanasia of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states that “The pleas of gravely ill people who sometimes ask for death are not to be understood as implying a true desire for euthanasia; in fact, it is almost always a case of an anguished plea for help and love. What a sick person needs, besides medical care, is love” [8] . Love for God sends us out to serve others, and it moves us to feel responsibility for those who suffer. It moves us from living as individual to being connected as one body of Christ. We should encourage the sick to discover the redemptive value of their suffering (Rom 12:1, Gal 2:19-20), which will ensure entry into the kingdom of God (Phil 3:10-11; Acts 14:22), by making us worthy of it (2 Thess. 1:4-5). The moral greatness of human life is bound up with our intimate relation to God, the Creator, who stamped an inherent dignity on our nature as persons, making us like him in operations, and he enhanced that dignity even further by the incarnation of the Word [9] .

One of the important features in euthanasia is the need to elucidate the distinction between killing a person and letting them die. To defend the justifiability of distinguishing between the two, we must define euthanasia clearly. Pope John Paul II terms it “an action or omission, which of itself and by intention causes death, with the purpose of eliminating all suffering” [10] . Since both the moral object and the subject’s intention are evil, the action itself is evil. This moral distinction may be criticised seeing it as reflecting a natural law view of morality. The Catholic doctrine on euthanasia is predicated on the idea that life is “good”, but that our highest good and ultimate end is God, the author of life. While death and suffering are most certainly evils, they are not the ultimate evil. Eternal separation from God is the ultimate evil. Therefore, suffering should be seen as a means of self-conquest and authentic self- surrender to God [11] .

Life-and-death issues have usually been addressed on the basis of personal rights. The assertion of freedom presents a challenging obstacle to those who oppose the pro-choice position. Freedom in Christianity is the ability to direct oneself to God and his service (Gal 5:13, 1 peter 2:16-17) and that we use our freedom well, by loving and trusting God’s will, imitating Jesus’ example of trusting abandonment to the Father. Therefore, suicide is an isolated act of troubled human beings who feel the “good life” has eluded them. The question whether or not one ought to commit suicide is already to answer in the negative, because to take one’s life is not a liberating act. Persons requesting euthanasia have, in some way or other, refused to allow God to be the master of their life [12] .

More attention needs to be devoted to the matter of choice, with respect to the issue of personal freedom. Who can or will develop the rules for making the choices regarding the beginning and end of life? The criteria will depend on who is asking the question and why the question is being asked. The lawyer and the physician may both be interested in determining the beginning and end of life, but for different reasons. For example, the physician is interested in the moment of death for the purpose of harvesting organs. The lawyer is interested in defining the moment of death in the interest of a client’s access to an inheritance. The chronically-ill individual may be interested in the moment and choice of death as a possible solution to unbearable suffering. The physician may have techniques of prolonging or shortening the process of dying, but his use of them may be determined by the threat of lawsuits [13] .

An answer to the justification of euthanasia in the Bible
Killing is explicitly condemned in the Bible

The sixth commandment in the Decalogue is an emphatic negative prohibition, “You shall no kill” (Exod 20:13). The word “kill” occurs 38 times in the OT. The NT quotes the sixth commandment extensively (Matt 19:18; Mark 10:19; Luke: 18:20; Rom 13:9). Thus, the NT believer is under obligation to obey the commandment, “You shall not kill”. The question arises concerning the application of this biblical teaching from the sixth commandment to the euthanasia debate. To be able to answer the question, we shall classify the Biblical concept of murder, which seems to be: intentional, premeditated, malicious, contrary to the desire or intention of the victim, and is against someone who has committed not crime deserving of capital punishment. They reason that euthanasia would not be characterised by maliciousness; they believe they are doing an act of mercy. However, as was shown above, the prohibition in the sixth commandment encompasses accidental death, a killing that does not have malicious intent. Therefore, euthanasia is prohibited by the sixth commandment [14] .

Suicide is implicitly condemned in the Bible

Suicide, the act of self-killing, is never directly addressed in the scriptures. Though examples of suicide are recorded in the Bible, it is important to note that a single word for suicide does not exist in Hebrew of Greek, making it impossible for the Bible to refer to it directly. However, the condemnation of “self-killing” is usually inferred from the sixth commandment. If to shorten the life of another through killing is wrong, then to kill oneself is also wrong. But today, this understanding of suicide as biblically prohibited killing has come under intense attack. The argument is built on the three biblical cases in support of the assertion that Scripture permits some suicides [15] .

Five cases of suicide appear in the OT: Abimelech (Judge 9:54); Saul’s armour bearer (1 Sam 31: 4-5. 1 Chron 10:4-5); Ahithophel (2 Sam 17:23) Zimri (1 Kgs 16:18). The Biblical narrator reports each of these self-killings with neither commendation nor condemnation, which opens the possibility for arguing that, in ancient Israel, the act of suicide was regarded as something natural. However, if the biblical author gives no comment of the suicide, how can a positive evaluation be the assured conclusion? Furthermore, it is true that OT narrative usually records events with no evaluation, but the biblical reader must consider the whole presentation made, in order to draw a proper conclusion, because in biblical narrative, a proper examination of the suicide shows that it is an act of a rebel against God, not the heroic final act of a faithful person [16] .

The NT records one clear case of suicide, the death of Judas (Matt 27:5; Acts 1:18). In this narrative, the biblical text contains no statement concerning any repentance of Judas. Judas suicide was the culmination of spiritual rebellion that led him to betray Jesus into the hands of His enemies (Math 26:12-16). The suicide of Judas was not the result of repentance, but because of his lack of repentance. Thus, the six biblical reports of suicide do not convey a sense of acceptance and moral approval; rather, the overall context demonstrates an atmosphere of spiritual disobedience. Therefore, the Bible does not condone suicide, and any act of voluntary euthanasia, whether passive or active, is an act of disobedience against God, because suicide is implicitly condemned in the Bible. Thus, for those who base their ethical standards and behavior on the Scriptures, any act of euthanasia is to be rejected as direct disobedience to the Word of God [17] .

How to read the bible in the light of contemporary issues

Most biblical writings are contextual, in a far narrower sense than simply being historically and culturally conditioned, for they addressed very specific situations or they were occasioned by very particular circumstances. Therefore, it is unusual to establish connections, parallels or analogies between the situations addressed by particular biblical writers and situations, which typically confront us now.

As readers of the Bible, we are first of all eavesdroppers. This means that a proper interpretation of the biblical writers’ ethical statements presupposes the prior task of reconstruction of the situation that a given biblical writer was addressing at that time. We may need to reconstruct the unrecorded side of the interchange, to stand any chance of understanding what is being said in the biblical text, and with what nuances or emphases, in order to be reasonably sure that we are not getting the wrong end of the stich altogether. In the case of a few biblical writings, the quest for a reconstructed dialogue partner may be misguided; in the case of others, it may be desirable but impossible, for lack of clues; but in most cases, the clues are there and it would be disingenuous to ignore them [18] .

Conclusion

Essentially, from the Biblical perspective on euthanasia, is the understanding of the sanctity of human life, which was practiced in Western culture particularly Christian, unfortunately this view is moved to the “quality of life” argument. The disabled, retarded and infirm were seen as having a special place in God’s eyes, whereas today, the medical view depends on a person’s ability to perceive such a quality of life or lack of it. Life is no longer seen as sacred and worthy of being saved. Patients are evaluated and lifesaving treatment is frequently denied, based on subjective and arbitrary standards for the supposed quality of life. If life is not judged worthy of being prolonged, people feel obliged to end that life [19] .

Christians are called upon to return to fundamental beliefs that, because man is created in the image of God, all human life is sacred. Society must not place an arbitrary standard of quality of life above God’s absolute standard of human value. This means that decisions ought to be guided by an objective, absolute standard of human worth.

The evidence analysed in this investigation suggests that Thomas Cranmer established various aims to help further the English Reformation. He met with both successes and failures. The extent to which his successes outweighed his failures will determine how important he was for the progress of the Reformation. A careful analysis will be made of his work regarding introducing the English Bible, helping reform church institutions, doctrine, liturgy. In addition his contributions as a reformed theologian including the durability of his accomplishments will be considered. Other figures also helped spur on the Reformation such as King Henry VIII, Thomas Cromwell, and Queen Elizabeth I. To further evaluate the importance of Cranmer’s contributions this investigation will compare his work with these other personas of historical importance.

Cranmer set out to achieve various goals during his life regarding the English Reformation. Cranmer assumed an important role in the introduction of the English Bible. He endorsed the “Great Bible” in April 1539 was issued to the public for the first time. By late 1541 five more additions of the “Great Bible” had been released. (Dickens 1989, 152) He even contributed a preface to the second edition. Bromiley states in Thomas Cranmer: Theologian “Of all his achievements in the earlier period, the introduction of the English Bible was perhaps the most far-reaching and influential” (xiv)

The archbishop of Canterbury also helped reform the church institutions. He was involved in diplomatic work as he wanted to link England with international Protestantism. Cranmer believed true catholicism (universality) was the unification of the scattered churches of the reformation. Hence catholicity meant unity. He attempted to bring in foreign reformers to England. He successfully brought in Martin Bucer and was helped by English clerics Hooper, Ridley, Holgate ( Dickens 1989, 270) The influence that spread into England came mostly from the followers of Zwingli and Calvin.

Cranmer also made valuable contributions to the reformation of church doctrine. He originally believed in transubstantiation, but then decided that the bread and wine were only symbolic of the body of Christ. King Henry VIII was strongly in favour of transubstantiation and burned people who opposed his view. Cranmer survived due to the King’s protection.

Dickens argues that Cranmer was the English forefront man supporting the “true presence” belief agreed upon by Calvin and Bullinger in the Zurich agreement of 1549. Bullinger believed that transubstantiation was false, but that the bread was sacred, was to be revered, and that the spiritual presence of Christ was there when people took the Eucharist. Like the sun is in the heavens but we can only feel its light and heat, Christ is in heaven but he is working in the hearts of those that believe. (Schaff, I. 471)

Between 1539-1543 there is a turbulent return to Catholicism, heretics burned, and Bible reading prohibited for the laity. Cranmer opposes the 1539 act of six articles, which includes clerical celibacy and as a consequence he has to send his wife away. King Henry VIII wields absolute power and thus Cranmer cannot overtly support great doctrinal changes as long as the King reigned. “It was unfortunate for [Cramner] that he could never persuade Henry VIII to share his enthusiasm [regarding humanist reformation” (MacCulloch 1996, 213) because “The King’s own theology became a moving target during the 1530s” (MacCulloch 1996, 213)

Cranmer’s view of church doctrine was that it be scripturally based, be proclaimed by the monarch in parliament, and be accepted without fighting over minute details. (Dickens 1989, 208) The Ascension of Edward VI in 1547 opens the doors for doctrinal reform. Cranmer issues the “Book of Homilies” a set of 12 official model sermons. He even writes several of the sermons. In 1553 he issues the 42 Articles of Religion, which is a code of doctrine. Under Queen Elizabeth the Homilies are amplified and reissued. The articles lead to the Elizabethan Thirty Nine Articles. Dickens calls these Elizabethan articles “a decisively Protestant interpretation of the faith,” (Dickens 1989, 280)

However, Cranmer also encountered failure in his attempt to advance the English Reformation. Regarding his reforms of Church institutions his diplomatic work in the sense that he failed to bring any Lutheran leaders or Lutheran representatives to England. Cranmer also wanted to rewrite and arrange the canon law into an organized system but failed due to several factors. Many did not favour the canon law because they believed it was too disorganized and needed be replaced by civil law. Cranmer also wrote a plan of reform for the canon law entitled Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum. Unfortunately this was not published until well after his death. Ultimately none of his proposed reforms for the canon law were enacted. He had proposed changes such as having annual diocesan conferences attended by clergy and laity, which may well have been beneficial for the church. ( Dickens, 1989, 279-280.)

The Archbishop of Canterbury beginning in 1540 focused on revision of the English church liturgy with a specific emphasis on putting it in language comprehensible by the laity. King Henry VIII showed Cranmer considerable favouritism by endowing him the authority to create and spread his own English litany while he rejected proposals of other bishops such as the 1543 Rationale of Ceremonial. When Henry authorized Cranmer to modify the mass by adding devotional passages in English the King did not anticipate great doctrinal changes. However, this laid the foundation for an extreme change of the aim of the mass, replaced sporadic communion for the laity and private medieval masses with regular congregational services of worship.

The King passed away in 1547 and Cranmer’s first edition of the Book of Common Prayer was released in 1549 under Edward VI. It was conservative but it led to a rebellion in South-Western England. Dyson Hague notes his Story of the English Prayer Book that this rebellion may have occurred due to the introduction of totally foreign concepts for those used to attending the mass such as the “The Supper of the Lord” and “Holy Communion”. (Hague 1949, 133) The 1552 second edition of the Book of Common Prayer was Cranmer’s most explicit Protestant liturgical document. Examples such as the mass became communion, tables were to be removed and altars provided, and surplices replaced Eucharist religious robes reflected Zwinglian influence. This 1552 edition later became the basis for Queen Elizabeth I’s prayer book of 1559 and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. Interestingly the 1662 version’s Eucharistic liturgy commits several “catholic” compromises. The 1549 Prayer Book at the beginning of the sacrament states “The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life”. In contrast the 1552 version states “Take and eat this, in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving.” Finally, the 1662 version is a merger of the 1549 and 1552 Prayer Books. (Jasper and Cuming 1990, 232-249) MacCulloch argues that Cranmer would have looked at the alteration of his eucharist by the 1662 reviser with strong suspicion and concern. (MacCulloch 1996, 628) In the 1549 Act the Parliament authorized the doctrine and liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer which is of historical significance because this had been the exclusive area of activity of the monarch since 1534. According to Dickens although not very much is known concerning the origins of the second prayer book, it is certain that its literary qualities are based on Cranmer’s book of 1549. (Dickens 1989, 277) The prayer books according to R.T. Beckwith are predominantly the work of Cranmer. (Beckwith 1992, 101-105)

A significant aspect of Cranmer’s contributions regarding liturgy is the system of canonical hours that were increments of time between prayers specifically for the morning and evening prayer sessions. The canonical hours were no longer to be exclusively controlled and regulated by the clergy. (MacCulloch, 630) MacCulloch states that Cranmer established a strong foundation of liturgy that helped the laity “look beyond the surface of events and say that there is more to human life and creation than the obvious, the everyday.” (630) Cranmer strongly upheld his prayer book in great esteem. He did not heed the Council’s request that he alter the rubric commanding that individuals receive Communion while kneeling. However, he could not stop the introduction of the” black rubric “, which denied any intention to revere the elements.(Dickens 1989, 278.) Cranmer asked for advice from his colleagues as he crafted the 1550 revision of the Ordinal. Its imperfections were later used as grounds for rejection by Rome coming from Anglican demands. The first ordinal was a conservative document, based on medieval sources, though not permitting the social ordering and grouping of bishop, priest and deacon. It maintained the tradition of providing a silver or gold plate for the eucharist bread and chalice to priests recently ordained. Bishops received pastorals staffs. Cranmer also had the priests receive a Bible to represent their purpose of preaching to the congregation. Later an extra amendment of the Ordinal was included in the 1552 prayer book. In this amendment Cranmer reformed the system so that bishops and priests received no items except a Bible. (Dickens 1989, 270)

Cranmer eased access to the liturgy, collecting everything that was indispensable in one book in the common tongue. He likely did not plan on his services being used for 400 years. However, his services were intended for repeated and frequent use. Cranmer’s text has been long revered as originating from an author sensitive providing formal English prose. Contemporary learning demonstrates the indispensable reputation of the structure of language to greater culture.. If, as MacCulloch states, “Cranmer’s language lies at the heart of our English-speaking culture”, (632.) Cranmer’s work towards the English language is likely his most important tribute. There are those that oppose this conclusion. A view is that Cranmer’s liturgies have become ingrained in English literary identity and have predisposed the religious rationale of English-speaking people. In contrast, Donald Gray states it is far too simple to romanticize the historic links between Anglican society and liturgy. Often claims made regarding the importance of the Book of Common Prayer are exaggerated elitist claims stated by and for a segment of society that possessed the time and opportunity for worship. Many enormous areas of England were not significantly influenced by the Book of Common Prayer and possessed very limited knowledge of its contents. (Gray 1991, 135-143) In addition, one may argue that contributions to English religious literature are not necessarily contributions to religious reformation. When Edward VI rose to power as a youth, the opportunity for positive change was met with rapid reformation in the church. MacCulloch demonstrates that as “as the truth liberated the populace, many came to love the Bible.” (613-614) The attacking and rejecting of orthodox beliefs such as religious processions and destroying Latin service books was received well. The walls of churches began to display Biblical messages such as The Ten Commandments, The Lord’s Prayer, and the beatitudes. When Mary ascended to the throne Cranmer was put in prison and threatened violently to sign recantations accepting fundamental Catholic doctrines. He signed the documents. However, he publicly withdrew the recantations right before he was incinerated as a heretic on 21 March 1556.

In conclusion, Cranmer was indispensable to the progress of the English Reformation. His work had impacts on events of the reformation during the reigns of King Henry VIII, Edward VI and Elizabeth I. The evidence demonstrates that he is among the most if not the most important figure in the English Reformation. Cranmer’s most important reforming achievements are demonstrated by the great documents he created. The access to the Bible and obedience to it that he helped establish was also significant. Cranmer did a great deal more than simply write liturgy and doctrine. The sources demonstrate if had not accomplished his aims at the level of excellence that he did, the efforts of the sixteenth century English reformation would likely have been far less effective and much more short lived.

Word Count: 2002

The above essay is all my own work: the source of all material used in its compilation has been duly cited and all help received is acknowledged. The essay does not substantially duplicate material previously or simultaneously submitted to academic staff at any academic institution.

Jesse Alvarez

There is the worldwide recognition of the present environmental/ecological crisis and there is a central belief amongst the religions that nature was created by God and should be protected. As environmental degradation has occurred, we begin to ask ourselves about the relationship between human beings and nature.

The focus on religion and the environment has grown in recent years. Researchers have looked specifically at the role of religion and ecology. Taylor defines the field of religion and ecology as one that focuses on:

Identifying the obstacles that the worlds mainstream religions may pose to environmental sustainability, and secondly the resources such religions may have available for promoting environmentally beneficent behaviors, (992).

There is the recognition that the Earth is in danger from human activity and use and changes need to be made in order to sustain life on the Earth (Taylor 998).

Why is it important to use religion as a means for environmental action?

Berry states that it is human carelessness and greed that caused the environmental problems that we are faced with today (30).

With this in mind, we look to religion as this is what some individuals believe holds a large degree of responsibility for the start of our environmental problems.

Lynn Whites 1967 essay, The Historical Roots of our Ecologic Crisis suggested a link between religion and the environment. White singled out Christian attitudes as a reason for the environmental crisis. He proposed that the attitudes of individuals who do not regard nature as a central importance need to be changed. The earth needs to be respected and used in a manner that will help to preserve it for future generations, rather than exploit it for the present.

White suggested that it was when the Industrial Revolution began that the human concern for the environment was lost to a greater degree than had been seen in the past.

White interpreted the Bible as presenting human dominance over nature, leading individuals to care about themselves and industrial progress rather than about environmental matters and the ultimate effects of their actions on the earth.

Besides Whites interpretation, there are many other suggested explanations for how humans viewed the world, and their resulting actions.

From the philosophy of Rene Descartes, the universe was seen as a machine. It was from this time that economic progress was a priority and the long-term effects from the development and use of nature was not regarded as an issue (Sevier, 41).

This is a view similar to that held by White, in that human progress and development has led to the environmental effects. However, this view does not specifically mention the role of religion.

Carters interpretation of this issue suggests that the ecological crisis is not a result of Judeo-Christian traditions, but rather stems from the interpretation of the Bible and giving human beings dominance over other life forms (animals, plants) (358). This led to the exploitation of natural resources and ultimately to where we are today with the issue.

Regardless of how it initially happened, we have to face reality and realize that as a society we have caused considerable damage to our planet.

The role of religion

Anthropologists suggest that religion persists because it has value to us, and such value can be either intrinsic, instrumental, or a combination thereof, (Strada 59).

Sevier writes that, Traditionally, religion used to play an integral role in linking people to the natural world, imbuing people with the knowledge and values that make caring for it a priority, (38).

Six major religions

Buddhism

Christianity

Hinduism

Islam

Judaism

Indigenous Religious

Buddhism

There is a universality of suffering.

Being aware of suffering and produces compassion.

Though traditional Buddhism regarded human life over that of animals, there is presently the recognition that all life forms should be respected equally.

As humans we got ourselves into this ecological/environmental crisis and we are the ones that need to get ourselves out.

Source: Swearer

Christianity

There is often seen to be a failure on the part of Christians in how they had interpreted the Bible and used the resources that God made available to them. Lynn Whites 1967 essay is an example of this.

However, this is not the belief of all individuals.

There recently has been an increased awareness of the environment in the United States as churches are initiating responsibility towards environmental protection.

Hinduism

Hindu images relate to the powerful natural world.

Ecological sensitivity is based on the relationship between humans and how they respect the gods and goddesses related to the earth.

In South Asia, the effects of pollution, both in the air and water, have been felt, particularly in recent years.

With the values that Hinduism has towards the environment, reflection is starting to occur on how individuals can best approach the ecological challenges that are occurring.

Islam

An environmental ethic is in the Quran, but leaves an opening for Muslims to incorporate creative and innovative solutions in the contemporary context.

A green jihad has recently begun. This is a common term for the green movement that promotes environmental protection.

Source: Denny

Judaism

Ecological issues were never a central focus of Judaism, but rather were dealt with as they came about.

An environmental perspective suggests that a belief of Judaism is that we are only tenants on this earth. The earth must then be cared for as there are other inhabitants, both presently as well as in the future, that will be living here.

Source: Fink

Indigenous Religions

For individuals following indigenous religions, there is an understanding of their place in the local environment.

Native Americans have believed that there are spirits in nature and the environment needs to be taken care of.

Grim writes that in indigenous beliefs, to analyze religion as a separate system of beliefs and ritual practices apart from subsistence, kinship, language, governance, and landscape is to misunderstand indigenous religion.

The respect for nature and the environment is still present amongst the Indigenous peoples.

What is evident, however, is wherever indigenous peoples have endured, they have maintained a loving experience of place and an understanding that spiritual forces capable of leading humans into both utilitarian and self-understandings abide in all of these places, (Grim).

Source: Grim

How do we create a solution?

An environmental crisis is here. It is recognized throughout the world, and its presence is agreed upon by the major religions. But what is the next step? How do we go about creating a solution?

Can there be a common ground for science and religion in that both work together towards a solution?

Bouma-Prediger quotes Edward O. Wilson in saying that religion and science are the two most powerful forces in the world todayif religion and science could be united on the common ground of biological conservation, the problem [of biological catastrophe] would soon be solved (1392).

Can religion and science work together?

Hossein Nasr writes, The environmental crisis now encompasses the entire Earth, (3).

He suggests that there is a crisis of values and that as humans, we have participated in creating the destruction of the environment.

A need exists to develop a path across religious frontiers without destroying the significance of religion itself and to carry out a comparative study of the “Earths” of various religions as has been carried out for their “Heavens,” if these terms are understood in their traditional metaphysical and cosmological sense, (Hossein Nasr 3).

We need to regain the loss of a moral and social awareness as ecology becomes more individualistic and systems based.

Many researchers recognize that a global stance needs to be taken by religions, with them working together to create a more comprehensive worldview and ethics to assist in reversing this trend, (Tucker and Grim). This is along similar lines with what Hossein Nasr writes, that dialogue on the environment must take place between religions on a global scale.

Tucker and Grim continue by writing that, This is critical because the attitudes and values that shape peoples concepts of nature come primarily from religious worldviews and ethical practices. The moral imperative and value systems of religions are indispensable in mobilizing the sensibilities of people toward preserving the environment for future generations.

Religious factors and environmental behaviors and attitudes

Sherkat and Ellison analyzed data from a 1993 General Social Survey to look at religious factors and environmental behaviors and attitudes.

Their study revealed that contradictory findings on the connection between religion and environmental concern and activism are the result of varied influences of religious schemata and resource interactions on different indicators of environmental concern and activism, (83).

Sherkat and Ellison were not able to conclude specific religious influences on the environment, but suggested that Whites 1967 essay had the possibility of being a primary influence for religious leaders to take a pro-environment stance and actions (83).

Religion and the environment are intertwined in that they have had a history and will continue to have a role together in the future. This may be one area where science and religion can find a common ground both have the environment in their best interest and can work together to find a solution to the current environmental crisis. As religious traditions and beliefs have shaped human values and behaviors towards the environment in the past, this is one possibility for working toward positive environmental attitudes for the future.

Beings and Human Beings are born in nature. Religion and caste are the creations of men. The need of the millennium is human integration across religions, races and countries by the pursuit of right knowledge about Man, Nature and Society.

Religion is the derivative of ancient myths and beliefs passed on from one generation to the other(another) thereby being elucidated into faiths, rituals and traditions.”

Around 2000-2200 million people believe in Christianity, making it by far the single largest religion in the world. Around 1300-1650 million people believe in Islam, making it the second most followed religion in the world. Around 828-1000 million people follow Hinduism. Around 1000 million people do not have any religion or notion of ‘God’, also referred to as atheists. 400 million people follow Buddhism.

Irrespective of what these people follow or what ‘notion they hold of ‘God’. Religion is something, which was created for the betterment of human society as a whole. But In the 21st century religion has more or less become an instrument of war creating unrest amongst countries and people. Many of the major problems in the present millennia can be attributed to these religious conflicts.

These conflicts between major world religions can become a detrimental recipe for disaster wherein they can threaten the very existence of the dominant species on this planet i.e. Homo sapiens sapiens .

The reason why I lay emphasis on the genus and sub-genus is that, across the population people may differ on the basis of colour, caste, race, height, weight, gender and religion but what unites them is the sense of belonging to one species i.e. Homo sapiens.

My father, a philosopher cum visionary would always say that:

“Beings and Human Beings are born out of the same bowl called nature. Religion and caste are the creations of man. The need of the millennium is to bridge this void and bring about human integration across religions, races and countries by the pursuit of true knowledge about Man, Nature and Society.”

Conflict Resolution-

“Conflict Resolution” is the need of the hour and should therefore be given extensive thought and time, following which it should be implemented at a Micro as well as a Macro Level. Envisioning and bringing forth a society whereby individuals and communities work and make decisions for the greater good of mankind on the basis of facts rather than on myths and beliefs. “Conflict Resolution” amongst world religions in its literary sense cannot be achieved, nonetheless a difference in perception exists about the notion of ‘God/Gods’ amongst the believers. Human beings should rise against these odds towards greater enlightenment forging ahead a new era of peace and progress.

On the flip side, one should also be aware of the origin and fate of the vast expanse known as the universe comprising of millions of galaxies, stars, planets and what is the energy which is keeping all of this intact and that too in a predetermined and fixed path.

One should also be aware of the conscious and subconscious state of mind through which we possess this knowledge about each and everything.

If the above mentioned points were made clear, all the mere believers in this world will become true rationalists.

If one Global Religion were to be followed, it would be on the basis of scientific thinking rather than on blind beliefs. All actions and texts of this religion would be based upon the scientific knowledge and literature available at the time. The theory would be self-evolving in nature to the advancements in science and technology.

People should come to an understanding that all Human Beings are created as equals. Nature does not discriminate while nurturing. So as human beings we cannot be discriminative towards the way we look, approach and act towards others belonging to different castes, religions, races, colours etc.

I strongly believe “Knowledge is a driving force.” Knowledge possessed by a certain individual is detrimental towards the way he/she acts in a certain manner. Therefore it becomes imperative to inculcate the right knowledge and values. Being ignorant of the world around is far better than being misinformed. ‘Terrorism’ is also the outgrowth of this misinformation and the misconceptions about ‘God’ and his preaching. This is where we need to play a role whereby we expel all the misinformation and bring about a sense of belonging.

Human Beings are said to be the building blocks of societies. The kind of knowledge an individual possesses has a direct impact on the way he/she acts or behaves. The way one behaves thereby has an impact on the society as a whole. Knowledge and Behaviour play in tandem and therefore it becomes imperative “to give the right Knowledge and eliminate wrong Knowledge.”

To do this, there are certain prerequisites,

Firstly, one should know how to judge between the right knowledge and the wrong knowledge. To do this one should be aware of philosophy and its constituents especially the branch of philosophy which deals with epistemology, logic and origin of the Universe and its existence.

But in this world, which has so far existed, every great society has had its fair share of myths ranging from the creation of the world to how it will eventually end. Tales of wonder and imagination abound wherein each myth is filled with magic, mystery, heroism, treachery, courage and faith. These myths are so widely accepted that they have even managed to permeate in the 21st century. Hence it is our responsibility to differentiate between a myth and a tenet.

Somehow or the other the terms like ‘god’ and ‘religion’ are attributed to philosophy ‘philosophy’; Hence we will now discuss regarding the philosophy and what is the origin and fate of the god and religion.

Different questions in philosophy which made a strong emphasis for the existence of God and religion:-

We each exist but for a very short time.

The actions that we do during the tenure of our life and the fruits which we bear from them is considered as life.

My father used to tell me , ‘Life is real, simple and short’.

Humans, being a curious species explore and question everything, we develop theories, we seek answers , we think, we justify things, we have the ability to communicate all these things which in turn makes us the most dominant species on planet earth.

After coming through different perceptions of the universe from the earlier times to today, we might have a multitude of questions -:

How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves?

How does universe behave?

What is the nature of reality?

Where did all this come from?

Did the universe need a creator?

What are the different ways of obtaining knowledge ?

How many types of matter exist in the universe?

What is philosophy?

What are the qualities of the different things in the universe?

What is reality?

What is the ultimate goal of human beings?

What are beliefs?

What are atoms?

How do we know things?

What is is a cause?

How to explain the properties of a thing?

What is space and time?

What is justice?

What is the truth?

What is goodness?

How language came in to existense and what is language?

What are the reasons behind different things?

What is beauty and art?

What is perception,inference,verbal testimony?

What is mind?

What is the origin of religion?

Who invented the first god?

And countless othersaˆ¦aˆ¦aˆ¦..

Traditionally these are the prime questions of ‘Philosophy’ . Many indian and western schools of philosophy which gave appropriate answers to many of the above questions and near appropriate answers to some of the questions since ancient times , due to lack of availability of means and scope, like instruments and science and technology., but these days however, these questions are answered by the other schools like different branches of Physical sciences and chemical sciences. But during the earlier times these questions were answered by various religions in many different ways.

Opinions of Some major Philospohers and Scientists –

Western Schools of Philsopohy:-

When it comes to religion, there are six major figures who have done extensive research on Religions and gods, Namely

1.Friedrich max Muller(1823-1900 – He is often called the father of the comparitive religion, Friedrich Max Muller was the son of a German Romantic poet. He studied in Leipzing and in Paris, where he began his first major work, a monumental edition of the Sanskrit text of the Rig Veda, published in four volumes between 1849 and 1862. He settled in England in 1846 and spent most of the remainder of his life in Oxford, becoming Professor of Comparative Philology in 1868. A prolific writer, his later books included Comparative Mythology (1856), Introduction to the Science of Religion (1873) India, What can it teach us? (1883), and many other works, including three series of Gifford Lectures and two volumes of personal reminiscences. He was alo responsible for editing the fifty-volume series of Sacred Books of the East-still an invaluable source for the study of religion.

Max Muller brought the religions of the world for the first time to the notice of the English-speaking public, interpreted to the West the ancient and modern religions of India, in a vital, if sometimes idiosyncratic, way. His theories that religion arose through the personification of natural phenomena have, on the other hand, been wholly superseded.

2.Edward Burnett Taylor (1832-1917)

In its early years , the study of comparative religion was much concerned with the origin and evolution of religion as a universal human phenomenon. E.B. Tylor, who in 1896 became Britain’s first professor of anthropology, in the 1860 s coined the term ‘animism’ to describe what he believed to be the earliest stage in this evolutionary process, a simple ‘belief in spiritual beings’. Tylor studied in Mexico; this visit resulted in his first book, Anahuac (1861). He subsequently published Researches into the Early History of Mankind (1865), and his most important work, Primitive Culture (1871), in which the ‘animism’ theory is cleary stated. Briefly, it is that early man’s experiences of dream and trance that led him first to a belief in a separate ‘soul’ (anima) in himself, and later to postulate the existence of surviving souls (ghosts), and of many such ‘souls’ in animals, plants, the atmosphere, etc. Out of this belief in souls or spirits, there eventually developed belief in gods.

As an evolutionary theory, this is of very little value, but it does represent accurately the way in which primal (and other) peoples (people) look on the unseen world. Tylor’s example, provided for the first time a way of understanding religion at a basic level, served to point anthropology along a path which it still to some extent follows.

WILLIAM JAMES (1842-1910)

William James, the brother of the celebrated American novelist Henry James, was chiefly responsible, in the years around the turn of the century, for popularizing the new subject of the psychology of religion. His book The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902) is a classic, and widely read even today. Trained in medicine, he taught both physiology and psychology at Harvard as early as the 1870s, and in1890 published a celebrated textbook, The Principles of Psychology. Most of his others books , including The Will to Believe (1896), Pragmatism (1907) and Human Immortality (1908), were originally courses of lectures.

In his Varieties he drew many valuable distinctions between types of religious experience, the best known being that between the optimistic ‘religion of healthy mindedness’ (typified by Christian Science) and the pessimistic ‘religion of the sick soul’ (traditional Calvinism). He also had much to say on mysticism, and discussed ‘altered states of consciousness’ many years before the subject became fashionable. He came from a Swedenborgina background, and his own religon was an indistinct theism, far removed from orhtodox Christiantity. Although he is still worth reading;his approach was too individualistic, and he had little to say about the corporate aspects of religon. His methods, too, were seriously called in question by the depth psychologists (Freud, Jung and their followers), and are hardly applicable today.

WILLIAM ROBERTSON SMITH (1846-1894)

Robertson Smith , best known for his magisterial book – Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (1889), was a minister of the Free Church of Scotland. In 1870 he became Professor of Old Testament Studies at the Free Church Colloge in Aberdeen. In the early 1880 he was dismissed from his chair for ‘unscriptural’ teaching,and in 1883 was elected Professor of Arabic at Cambridge. A liberal evangelical, he was responsible for bringing together traditional philological study of the Bible and the new insights of anthropology.

He first visited North Africa in 1879, and was impressed by the existence of ‘totemism’ among the Sinai Bedouin: this resulted in his first major work, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia(1885). In his later Lectures, he concentrated on the concept of sacririce, which he saw less as a legal transaction than as a practical means of establishing communion with deity. He also recognized that in religion, customs and rituals are often more significant than systems of belief, and that it is vitally important that the student be an accurate and sympathetic observer of the practical side of religon. His influence was widespreadd: he inspired J.G. Frazer to study ‘totemism’, and was a forerunner of the sociological study of religion- for which reason he, almost alone among his contemporaries, is still respected among sociologists and anthropologists. Despite his brush with ecclesiastical authority, he remained warmly evangelical in his personal beliefs.

NATHAN SODERBLOM (1866-1931)

The link between comparative religion and Christian theology was firmly established in the early part of the twentieth century by a group of scholars of whom Nathan Soderblom was perthaps the most outstanding.

Born the son of a Lutheran country minister in Sweden, from 1894 to 1901 he was Swedish legation pastor in Parus; in 1901 he bacame Professor of Comparative Religion in Uppsala in 1914, a post he occupied until his death in 1931. His scholarly work spanned many fields, among them are Iranian studies, Luther studies, mysticism, and General comparative religion.

Though few of his many books were translated into English, his Gifford Lectures The Living God (published posthumously in 1931) were widely read in those days. He endeavored to locate historica Protestantism within Christiantiy, and Christianity within the religions of the world. He drew valuable distinctions between mystical and ‘revealed’ forms of religon, and later between two forms of mysticism, ‘mysticism of personality (Paul, Luther) and ‘mysticism of the infinite’ (indian religon). As well as this academic work, Soderblom made an invaluable contribution to twentieth-century Christianity as one of the fathers of the ‘ecumenical movement’.

RUDOLF OTTO (1869-1937)

Educated at Ealanged and Gottingen, most of Otto’s career was spent in teaching posts at Gottingen, Breslau and Marburg. After early work in Luther studies, he turned his attention to the philosophy of religion, and after 1911 to the philosophy of religion, and after 1911 to the study of Indian religions.His best known and most important work, The Idea of the Holy, first appeared in German in 1917, and in English in 1923. In it, he attempted to show that religion begins with ‘the sense of the numinous’, that is, of a mysteriously ‘other’ deity both fearsome and fascinating (numen=deity). This book became a religious classic.

His later Indian studies included -Mysticism East and West (1932) and- India’s Religion of Grace (1930), and a critical edition of the Bhagavad Gita (The Original Gita, 1939). In 1921, convinced of the importance of living, inter-religious dialogue, he inaugurated the Inter-Religious League, which was not a success. In his last years his internationalism caused him to fall foul of the Nazi government in Germany, and he died in 1937.

Otto’s most lasting contribution to the study of religion lay in his insistence on the importance of -immediate, non-rational experience to any estimate of the nature of religion. Although -The Idea of the Holy was not always well understood, it spoke directly to the mind of the twentieth century, and helped lay the foundations for much later work in the area of personal religious experience and of mysticism.

Williams James(1842-1910),William Robertson Smith(1846-94),Nathan s(S)oderblom(1866-1931,Rudolf Otta)1869-1937),When ever we speak regarding religions these people should be remebered by the world.Thier works are really needed for the mankind.They have done a major research in the field of god and religion.

At the same time some scientists cum philsophers have also given their valuable opinions on God and religion. Now we shall discuss some of the valuable opinions and some misconceptions.

Many people didn’t develop theories on practical basis (Quantitative Predictions) .Aristotle and others, made the priniciples that appealed to him intellectually, most people suppressed the facts that they found unappealing. No matter how severely their theories deviated from reality ; they used to alter and never removed the concept.

For example -The Greek Christian successors rejected the idea that the universe is governed by indifferent natural law.

Some religious dogmas like Epicurus (341Bc-270Bc) opposed atomism on the grounds that it is “Better to follow the myths about God than to become a slave to the destiny of natural Philosophers”.

Aristotle too rejected the concept of atoms because he could not accept that human beings were composed of soulless inanimate objects.But the Indian Philsophers considered Atoms as a kind of matter and there are many concepts and theories developed by ‘Kannada’ on atoms ; but even the concept of atoms has been curbed in India by Adi Shankara.It is not the context of this essay to discuss more on atoms.(remove the last sentence)

Most of the theories developed in the Great India with clear cut concepts of Atoms, Body, Matter, Space ( were destroyed with time and circumstances)what not everything, were just went into wrong hands, either. They were changed and some still lay. Unapproachable to the humans as they were destroyed. ( remove everything after circumstances)

The Christian philosopher Thomas Aquiras said, “It is clear that inanimate bodies reach their end not by chance but by intention”-There is therefore an intelligent personal being whom everything in nature is ordered to its end” and that intelligent person is nothing but god.

Even as late as in the 16th century the great German astronomer Johanes Kepler belived that planets had sense perception and consciously followed laws of movement that were grasped by their ‘mind’.

Indeed in 1277 Bishop of Temple of Paris,acting on the instructions of Pope John XXI published a list of 219 errors or heresies that were to be condemned.Among the heresies was the idea that nature follows laws.Because this conflicts with the gods omnipotence, unfortunately Pope John was killed by the effect of the law of gravity a few months later when the roof of his place fell on him due to the gravitations pull of earth.

According to Descartes- ‘God could at will alter the truth or falsity of ethical proposition or mathematical theorems but not nature. He believed that God ordained the laws of nature but had no choice in the laws; rather he picked them because the laws we experience are the only possible laws. Moreover Descartes felt – once God set the world going ,he left it entirely alone.

If nature is governed by laws ,then we all have a set of questions like :-

1-From where did these laws were originate?

2-How can you understand these laws?

3-Do these laws need a creator?

4-Are these laws final ?

5-Can there be exceptions to these laws?

These important questions have been addressed by different philosophers ,scientists and visionaries in many different ways.

The answer to the first question has been given by the great scientists like Kepler,Galileo,Descartes and Newton. It is that the laws were Designed by God. However, this is no more than a definition of god as the embodiment of the laws of nature ;unless one endows God with some other attributes such as being the god of the old testament .

If we consider god as the answer to the first question then the real crunch comes in the fifth question-Are there any exceptions to the laws?

Opinions about the answer to the fifth question is quite interesting .

Aristotle,the great Greek philosopher clearly mentioned that there can be no exeptions to the laws.But according to the Bibilical view God not only created the laws but also has the power to make changes to those laws ,which contradicts Aristotle. In opposition to the views of Decscartes,according to Bible -by praying one can heal the terminally ill, an enormous cyclone can be just stopped by his signs, premature ends to droughts.

In opposition to the views of Decscartes;God has the ability to do any thing in the universe.Even Newton believed in miracles of a sort,he thought that god must be resetting the orbits to avoid the falling of planets into Sun!

But there was a rationalist during the time of Napoleon.A scientific law is not a scientific law if it holds when some super natural being decides not to intervene.Here Napolean asked Laplace- How god will fit in to this picture?

Laplace replied that- “I have not needed that hypothesis”.In the same way we also do not need the hypothesis of god and religion;but today religion is made a major point in the hypothesis of the human beings.

We can clearly sense that Laplace is a kind of rationalist.,even Albert Einstein is a rationalist, he said that:

“I believe in Spinoza’s god, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a god who concerns himself with the fate and doings of mankind.”

Indian schools of philosophy:-

India sub -continent is having a catholic theories on the God and religion and Above mentioned concepts.(remove this sentence)

Different schools of Indian Philsopohy deal the above questions in many different ways. The six orthodox schools of the Indian Philsophy are :- 1.Nyaya,2.Vaishesika,3.Purva mimamasa,4.Uttaara mimasa or vedanta5.Sankahya,&6.Yoga were altered in many ways in Ancient India. We do not yet know whether these schools are orthodox or rational;However the concepts which they taught are undoubtedly rational but the crunch comes when these laws are altered in order to protect the religion and god.

By the advent of new laws from Kannada,Gautama and many other Philsophers and with the renewed belief in the laws, there were attempts to reconcile these laws along with God.

The path of the true philosophy was bifurcated by many religious dogmas in Ancient India and even in the western world. The countries which were the bearer’s of the torch of discovery, invention, & innovation had become calm.The religious dogmas diverted the path of true philosophy and used if for their own selfishness.

The quest for knowledge in Ancient India was put off by the religious dogmas from there on great text’s literature which are essential for mankind for it’s progress and development were interpreted in many Unscientific ways.

The Great theories like Nyaya-Vaishesika,Astronomy, Mathematics & Philosophy, which were developed in India in a course of time were held in very high esteem.If it were allowed to follow it’s original course unimpeded by the religious dogmas then there might have been be a lot of development

In India all the theoeries are somehow or the other attributed to the god’s and vedas.

But by the advent of the Budhhists,Charvaka,Jain the heteredox schools of the India Philsopohy;there was a big change in the human society but it was again curbed by some religious dogmas in ancient India.Most of the people believe that Nyaya and vaishesika are also the heterodox schools of the indian philosophy.

All the orthodox schools of the Indian Philosophy believe in god and Veda’s, while Heterodox schools have a rational tendency towards the things.

Hence it is clear that each philosopher, scientist, revolutionary, and guru has had a strong craving to change the society of the time to a better one. They have always had a deep insight on the days to come but due to lack of scope many misconceptions have crept into their theories.

Now we shall discuss the role of god and religion

Role Of God and religion-

Day by day we are getting knowledge and we are getting enriched because of it . In the same way each and every text may it be religious or of any other subject should stick totally to recent discoveries and inventions.

We know that we get knowledge through our sensory organs. The nerves impulses are carried from each sensory organ to the brain and it is getting processed in our brains. The brain interprets the input from our sensory organs and by that we develop our concepts and develop our own theories ( religions). But there may be difference in which one could perceive the same physical situation, with each employing different fundamental elements and concepts.

If all the religions which are developed are totally dependent on the truths ,we are free to follow whichever religion that is most convenient. But this is not happening-different religions teach different things and are based on different concepts. In this sequence of the history of mankind we had found better and better theories(religions). There were gods of love and war, Sun, Earth, Sky, Oceans, Rivers, Rain, Thunder Storms even Earth Quakes and Volcanoes. Ignorance of the people in Ancient time made them to invent gods to seek answers as told before. As we are acurious species ,wherever the answer was not found or finding an answer was difficult a new god was invented and it became as if god came into every aspect of Human life.

When the gods were pleased, mankind was treated to good weather, peace and freedom from natural disaster and disease and on the flip side when they are displeased there came drought, war, pestilence and epidemics since the relativity between cause and effect in nature was not in their perception( is beyond their perceptions). The gods became superior and our species was self dragged into the mercy of gods. Hence gods became inscrutable but with Kannada, Gautama and by the thoughts of Buddha about 2600 years ago. The idea arose that nature follows a set of laws and laws and epistemology and the theories of atomicity had came into practice. They developed their system of thought, matter, ways we acquire knowledge, atoms etc.

Here it is clear that from the beginning of the mankind till now there have been a number of defintions of god and so many concepts and beliefs were have been developed on god by different scientists philosophers and priests.Some people of the Ancient times didn’t develop scientific inquiry in their theories and hence invented false gods and wrong concept based religions.

Hence in the 21st century, we the Universsal citizens who belong to the same species Homo Sapiens must enact by assuring the dignity of the Individual and Unity and Integrity of the Universe.

Unless and until an(replace an with a)universal Religion and God are established,there cannot be peace in the this universe.I would like to mention one more thing – The need of this millennium is human integration with right knowledge about man nature and society.

As said by my father All the people on this planet earth should have a Healthy , Happy , Purposeful long life. This is only possible through synchronisation of global religions.

For the past 2000 years the Jewish people have been persecuted with extreme prejudice. They have been murdered for countless different reasons over the course of two millennia. The underlying reason for this hatred and racism has always been a belief that their ancestors were responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. This racism is literally an ongoing punishment for the supposed sins of the early Hebrews.

In at least three of the gospels in the Christian bible there are differing accounts of the roles the early Jews played in the actual trial and execution of Christ. Needless to say, these passages remained controversial for as long as they have been committed to paper. There is speculation as to the validity of their claims as historical proof. A recent film about the final twelve hours of Jesus Christ’s life and death places these inconsistencies and the mistreatment of the modern Jews back into the spotlight. This alleged literal translation caused many contemporary Jews to cry out in protest over the hard-line depiction in Mel Gibson’s new film The Passion of the Christ.

Part of the reason this new film is causing so much controversy is because of Gibson’s blatant reinterpretations and artistic license taken throughout the film. He tends to go out of bounds with the already tough Jewish public sentiment in regard to Christ’s death and creates a completely anti-Semitic work. Artistic license is acceptable when creating, but when the claim is made that the work will be a literal translation of the gospels, one looses the ability to fabricate and enters into a new realm of scrutiny.

Mel took a copious amount of artistic license with this film, but he does not see it that way. In 1965, the Catholic Church via the pope in the Vatican declared, among other things, that the Jews were not responsible for the crucifixion of Christ. This declaration is formally entitled Vatican II. It exonerates the Jews and condemns all those still seeking Jewish suffering. It directly affects the Catholics, which means that Gibson and his family, who are not Catholics, are not required to abide by these new dictates.

Mel, his family and a group of others called The Holy Family, have decided that their particular form of Catholicism needed to be further amended and conservatively redefined. They practice the Trinitine Mass, an extremely conservative form of Christianity based on traditional Catholicism, and they openly reject the changes of Vatican II. In short, they still hold present and past Jews responsible in particular for the death of Christ.

Mel’s father, Hutton Gibson, stated “all the popes since John XXIII are illegitimate anti-popes, the Second Vatican Council was a ‘Masonic plot backed by Jews’, and the Holocaust figure of 6 million Jews killed was an exaggeration” (Schroth 2). He himself is a full-fledged member of this ultra conservative right wing theology and did nothing but illustrate their prejudiced philosophies to the media and an interested society at large. He is an accurate reflection of the ideals that helped to form the interpretations governing this film.

Mel’s self-professed goals for this film were simple. ” Gibson claimed that his account would be historically truthful because it would be based on the Gospels” (Schroth 3). He was unimpressed with previous attempts to depict the passion in film so he embarked on the journey of telling this story. He wanted to depict the scriptures literally and show the events the way they truly happened. Gibson funded his attempt with his own 25 million dollars and the rest was history. This is an attempt to influence his audience to believe that the sacrifice Christ made for humanity happened the way he and his “Holy Family” see it. By creating a flashy high-profile film he makes this subject popular and accessible to the secular world as well as the established Christian community.

No matter what Gibson claimed to begin with he fell short of his publicly stated intentions. After viewing his finished product one can easily walk away with the notion that this is actually an Anti-Semitic film and not the truthful enlightenment of the Scriptures originally purported. First, because Gibson stated the film would be ‘Scripturaly truthful’ one must stay alert, knowing that the film starts off on shaky ground. The bible is a huge collection of literal contradictions and potentially inaccurate historical events, “the Gospels themselves, written between A.D. 70 and 100, are not reliable historical documents. They contradict one another on detailsaˆ¦” (Schroth 3). These inconsistencies can and do become a damning problem when one begins to make claims using the bible as infallible support as Gibson does for the film.

Second, people interpret the bible’s same passages in many different ways. This is part of the reason that Christianity separated into so many factions at different times throughout history. It is the reason so many people believe they are acting within spiritual grace. While other Christians may think the same action would be deviating from the correct path. These differing interpretations have been a source of constant confusion for two millennia, with no end in sight. So when Gibson makes a movie based on the scripture it could contain almost anything, slanted and yet still hold validity and accuracy. However this does not mean it was the way the true events occurred in history. It means he is trying to make truth from what can be anecdotal metaphors without any real support for actual fact regardless of Scripture.

Perhaps most intriguing here is that the bible is actually at odds, within itself, as to the actual culpability of the Jews. The four gospels do not agree with the role the Jews played in Jesus’ execution, the amount of Jews present during the entire ordeal and ultimately whether or not they are guilty at all. Gibson in his film removes all the bibles messy inconsistencies and forces the Jews to shoulder the responsibility themselves; all the while operating under the pretense that this is the most faithful rendition of Scripture yet. This is a condemnable offence by itself on Gibson’s behalf.

Gibson’s film boasts several inconsistencies with the Bible. This is a rough point for a film, which was purported to be a truthful translation of the Scripture. If we accept the Bible as fact, as faithful Christians do, then we are instantly exposed to many small changes and artistic licensing. These new interpretations singularly may not present an offence, but collectively within the span of a two-hour film become impossible to ignore.

Among the more prominent of these points in dispute with the facts as the bible presents them are the inclusion of the devil as a supporting character. He, or she in the film, does not enter even once into Christ’s final twelve hours at all. No matter how great Satan is as a metaphor for evil in general, he had no place here. The portrayal of Harrod as an unbelievably self-consumed man is acceptable. The problem there was removing a classic sense of blame which can be interpreted as guilt in the role he played in sending Christ to a certain death at the hands of Pilate. He became a nonentity that only slowed the progression of the story. The depiction of the irrational high court’s evaluation and sentencing of Christ is not congruent with the scriptures as well. The court actually speaks words directly from scripture but acts in a way that makes them seem to be just a well-dressed addition to the radically insane Jewish mob. There is a thoroughly unbelievable Jewish mob, which defies both scripture in most cases and also reality throughout the entire film. With the exception of Jesus’ inner circle there is no scene in this film that does not feature throngs of Jews acting horribly by spitting, beating and ridiculing Christ. It losses effect after fifteen minutes and just becomes farcical. Jesus and his inner circle are not portrayed as Jews in this film. They read as something else entirely, but the truth is they were Jews and just the sign above Christ’s cross was not enough to show that. This subtle technique only further pushed the Jews into a corner of singular guilt. This was particularly ridiculous. The outright destruction of the throne and the Jewish temple with the high priests falling all over themselves was a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. The Bible’s account only shows the sacred curtain being ripped down. Again, this is a real strike against the Jews with nothing to back it in terms of scriptural fact. Last, and very important to these minor arguments was the extreme brutification of the criminal Barrabas. His role in the film is taken out of chronological order from the scriptures in all cases. This would seem minuscule, but it becomes profound, when in the film the Jewish mob chooses a disgusting known killer of Jews over a scourged and mutilated Jesus Christ. As opposed to how it actually takes place in scripture before the whipping. Again, all of these points are inconsistent with the Bible as a fact, and most of them are used to make the Jews look horrible, so that their sole blame can be easily established.

The next and possibly most important point illustrating Mel’s disdain for the Jews is his treatment of the crucifixion, whipping and flogging in the film. In all four of the Gospels there is a description of the torture and execution of Jesus, but in only two of these accounts is he ever flogged. When mention of his flogging appears it is only included as an unelaborated fragment of another sentence. There is substantial doubt as to whether or not the scourging ever happened, let alone the flogging, but this is not how Gibson portrays this event. Gibson uses the bible’s lack of detail as a green light to insert his own interpretations as he sees fit. He literally takes the sentence fragment from the two Gospels which mentioning a whipping, and recreates a seriously significant new transgression in Christ’s final trials. This newfound trial is then portrayed to be even more severe than the actual crucifixion itself, finally becoming Christ’s horrific true sacrifice. Gibson only had to reinsert the Jews as the scapegoat decision makers and in the audience’s eyes they would automatically take the blame for this horrifying act. This is a very subtle and true masterstroke on Gibson’s part and it shows his deliberate intent completely.

Gibson’s doctoring of the Gospel’s accounts, reinterpretations of their clear passages and wholesale elaborations on their context becomes damning. It changes the movie from a literal interpretation of the Bible and creates a propaganda piece outlining one fanatical but skillful director’s point of view: the Jews are not only responsible for Christ’s death but are guilty of an execution so brutal and a torture so heinous that it is literally unparalleled in human history. Furthermore, they should still be held accountable even now 2000 years later. Not only are these concepts ridiculous, but they became so polarized before the movie even released, that Gibson, probably realizing he had gone to far, cut out several lines from the film directly accusing the Jews of wrong doing. He knew he had crossed the line and would have an increasingly serious problem on his hands because the script pieces he removed were literal text from the Bible, not speculative fodder like many of his other treatments of the events. He must have truly understood that what he was doing was deplorable if he felt that cutting actual, literal text was acceptable when his goal was to make a truthful version of the Gospel in film.

In order to understand how deeply Gibson’s desire to defame the Jews runs, we need only examine the treatment of one of the movies main characters. Gibson’s cruel intent is ironically tied to his saintly portrayal of the man Pontius Pilate. It is first important to note that all four of the Gospels are uniquely in unison on one thing: Pilate killed Jesus. Pilate made it his final decision to crucify Christ. If the whipping and scourging happened at all the way it did in the film, Pilate made that so. A small group of Jews 2000 years ago called for Christ’s execution, but it was Pilate who ordered it. Pilate is a monster, and he has always carried that reputation so fiercely that it is and has been common knowledge to Christians for 2000 years. It is Pilate who is responsible for Christ’s demise and not the Jews, but Gibson has another idea.

For one very specific reason Gibson sees fit to take extreme artistic license once again with the facts as presented in the Bible and utilizes revisionist history to reinvent the monster Pilate into a good man. In his film Pilate is presented almost as a hero. He is the voice of reason and personifies logic. He is completed with a cliche good-guy demeanor that is not at all the standard template for this dubious historical figure. Gibson plays him out in the film as a fine, moral Roman Tribune possessed of extraordinary logic and sympathy, struggling with a profound unwillingness to execute Christ amidst throngs of blood-hungry, insane Jews. Gibson manufactured Pilate into deity from an evil human being, and by doing that absolved Pilate of guilt.

Pilate’s absolution was paramount to Gibson because it drives the nail home on the Jews. Gibson has carefully crafted many inconsistencies with the scriptures in order to create an even more terrifying version of Christ’s ordeals. With Pilate he removed any and all others associated with the wrongful death of Christ so that the burden would fall squarely on the Jews. There literally remains no third party to convolute the picture of now clearly established blame.

Finally Gibson’s grand-masterstroke can be revealed. The audience’s horror with his extreme violent depictions of scourging and crucifixion will subconsciously transform into a basis of hatred against the Jews. This hatred of the character Jews in the film is probably intended to further proliferate a continuing Anti Semitic sentiment in both Christian and global Culture, perpetuating a 2000-year-old racial prejudice

Gibson is an experienced master of his craft, which means that he acted deliberately. Nothing could have appeared in a film he produced, directed, financed and helped to write without his knowing and approval of every small detail. He can point no fingers here; there is nowhere to hide. All of his ugly subtleties were in the end, all to apparent to people with an open mind and an understanding of the facts as presented in the Bible. This is Gibson’s true intent for this film, not historic truth based on the Gospels at all.

Gibson’s attempt to slander and blame the Jews either shows a profound lack of understanding or a scalding ignorance of the Christian faith on his part. He thinks he is a very devout Christian, but Christians believe in one very important thing: Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he sacrificed himself to atone for all of man’s sins. Gibson’s film does not reflect this ideal. He blames the Jews directly, but they could not be directly responsible at all. This shows either his inability to accept the fact, or just a simple prejudice. The Jews are not guilty because all mankind is guilty. A true follower of the teachings of Christ knows this and acts accordingly. After all, Jews helped Christ to fulfill the prophecies needed in order to die for all mankind’s sin. This could serve to shed a fresh, new, and positive light on the Jews; in the end they are God’s chosen people.

Gibson’s extremist mincing throughout the film works against his established intentions. His interpretations are shallow and transparent. They clearly show his prejudice towards the Jewish people, and he can only come off as an ugly person in the end. Intelligent people and open-minded Christians will not be swayed by the coercive piece of propaganda that The Passion Of The Christ is. It will insult them and their intelligence. Gibson’s only stroke of brilliance involved with this project was displaying that he understood the psyche of the religious-right in the US. He knew how to strike up the publicity on this film. Not only did he get the hard-core right wing Christian community to back it without question, he drummed up an overwhelming amount of raw curiosity throughout the secular world. His story, the publicity, the controversy, the disagreements, the inconsistencies, earned him notoriety, acclaim and over 300 million dollars. That money may be the only true success he earns with this film, because anyone ignorant of Christ’s story will not be converted by this nonsense. They will just be confused about how his portrayal of Jesus could measure up to the man so many people worship as God.

The Parable of the Prodigal Son, or the Lost Son, is known to most within the sphere of Christianity, but few are aware that a very similar parable exists within one of the most important texts of Mahayana Buddhism, The Lotus Sutra. Both parables share a common structure and plot consisting of a son who leaves home, returns, and is received by his father. Where the two differ however is in the specific details of the three broad plot sections, and what those details mean within the context of their respective religion. For example, the son leaves home in both parables, but parable found in Luke, in the New Testament, is used to teach Christians something completely different than what the parable found in Chapter Four of The Lotus Sutra teaches Buddhists. Another point in which the two parables differ is in who the characters represent within the parable. It could also be argued however that the characters are actually quite similar in their representations, the father representing the figurehead of the religion, God in Christianity and the Buddha, or more specifically the Buddha nature, in Buddhism and the son representing the practitioner. Despite their differences, cross-examining the two versions of the parable offer an insightful look into both Christianity and Buddhism, and any similarities between the two, while taking the time to fully understand the differences offers a deeper knowledge of each religion as well. Both parables are similar in structure and plot, but vary greatly in meaning, especially within the context of their respective religion.

In both versions of the parable, the story begins with a sin leaving home. In the Christian version, a son asks his father for his share of the inheritance early, and leaves home with his small fortune, only to squander it all until he is forced to work in filth, feeding swine, while barely keeping himself fed. “He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything” (Luke 15:16). The pigs the son was seeding were fed better than he. In the Buddhist version, a son secretly runs away from his father and wanders for a great many years, living a poor life of menial labor, but still keeping himself afloat, clothed and fed. He wanders from village to village, place to place. Meanwhile, his father had been earnestly searching for him, and decided to take up residence in a city where he built up an enormous fortune upon an impressive estate. Within the Christian parable, the son leaving and squandering his inheritance symbolizes man leaving God’s grace for a life spent in sin. Even the son’s actions very clearly represent a sinful lifestyle. Asking his father or his share of the inheritance while his father still lives is a way of wishing his father were dead. This first part of the Christian version represents the first in a series of events that leads to returning to the light of God, that of turning from the grace of God to lead a life of sin. In the Buddhist version, the son runs away without any wealth from his father, and spends many years wandering in a miserable condition. This symbolizes the fact that wealth or privilege plays no role in spiritual development, the only “inheritance” man possesses is what he takes with him from one life to the next, and that is karma which is mismanaged, can lead to endless wandering from life to life until a permanent, positive growth towards nirvana is established.

The second part of the parable, present in both versions, is the son’s return home. In the Christian version, the son finally comes to his senses and asks himself “How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death” (Luke 15:17)! He plans to return to his father, beg for forgiveness of his sins, and ask to be put to work, and so goes home. The son in the Buddhist version makes no such conscious decision to go home; instead his wandering takes him to a magnificent estate where he sees a king-like figure being tended to by servants, he cannot recognize his own father amongst his father’s wealth. The son runs away in fear and his father, “recognized him immediately. His heart was filled with great joy and at once he thought: Now I have someone to entrust my storehouses of wealth and possessions to” (Lotus, 2)! So he sends one of his messengers to fetch his son. The messenger ends of scaring the son and the father lets his son go, becoming aware of his son’s desire to live a self-abasing life. He then sends out to servants in dirty garb to offer him work removing excrement at twice the regular wage, and the son accepts, returning home to his father, unbeknownst of course. In the Christian parable, the process of the son coming to his senses and wanting to come home to beg forgiveness for his sins, despite whatever humiliation he would go through at the hands of his other brother, is symbolic of the process of repentance. That is, confessing and coming to terms with ones sin and asking forgiveness of god. This represents the second event in man’s return to the light of god, recognizing his sin and repenting. In the Buddhist version, the son’s wandering is symbolic of the cycle of samsara, of birth and rebirth, or reincarnation. An individual will wander the stages of life, gaining or losing merit with every lifetime, until it culminates with the realization that leads to enlightenment and nirvana.

The last part of both parables is the reception of the son back home. In the Christian parable, the father runs out to embrace his son who was lost and is now found. He dresses his son in the best robes, gives him sandals, and slaughters the fattened calf to have a feast. Instead of the son humiliating himself by returning to the shame he received upon his departure, the father runs out to embrace his returning son, saving his son the humiliation. The son does not even finish repenting and confessing his sorrow over his sins before his father interrupts and brings all the gifts out to him. In the Buddhist version, his son’s reaction to the messenger suggests to the father that any sort of instant father-son reestablishment is not going to happen, and, understanding his son’s attitude, offers him work removing excrement through two of his other servants. The father often disguises himself and goes to the son who is working and encourages him to work hard. He promises to increase his salary and offers to cover his basic needs like food and shelter. This process goes on for twenty years; all the while the son is living in a small hut performing menial labor, until the father become ill and makes the son a sort of accountant over all his wealth. The son does not lose sight of his inferiority and beings to familiarize himself with the wealth, what goes in and out of the storehouses. It is not until the son comes to improve his outlook and despise his former lifestyle of menial tasks that the father feels he is ready and gathers all the relatives, the ministers, and administrators of the region and confesses that the son is in fact his son and entrusts all of his wealth to him. This process symbolizes the process by which the Buddha guides those who listen to the Dharma along the path towards nirvana and Buddhahood. With every passing life, one must gain merit to deserve his position in the coming life, working little by little towards enlightenment. It is not an instantaneous happening; it is something that must occur over thousands of lifetimes. The father’s reception of the son in the Christian version symbolizes God’s loving embrace of those who repent and confess their sins to him. Repentance allows one to return to God’s grace from sin. Coming back to God represents the third and final part in the process of returning to God’s grace. It is an emphasis on the fact that although no one strives for sin, that lifestyle is all too attractive and most fall victim to sin, but it is not the end of the road. Recognizing one’s wrongdoing, confessing one’s sins, and repenting to God can overcome any obstacles created by sin.

There is one very major difference between the two versions of the parable however, that of the presence of a second son in the Christian version. This second son spent his whole life working for his father, obeying him always, and when he approaches the house after his brother had returned and he hears music and laughter he becomes upset. He asks his father why he was celebrating his son who left and threw away his entire inheritance, but his father assures him that all that he owns will be his someday, but he must celebrate the return of his brother who was lost and is now found again. This character almost certainly reflects Jesus’ attitude toward the Pharisees, the “religious elites” of the time who were criticizing Jesus from delighting in the company of sinners. They considered themselves above people like that, too pure to spend time with defilers. But Jesus’ message was about love for all, embracing all who come to repent of their sins, regardless of the severity, and that is what the father is trying to tell the second brother, that despite his brother’s sins, he has come to ask forgiveness for them and they must show him love for it. Why the Buddhist version does not include a character like this is quite simple in that the two parables are meant to deliver two very different messages. The Christian version emphasizes that although sin is tempting and all fall to it occasionally, one can be cleansed through repentance and restored to God’s grace. The Buddhist version emphasizes the process of merit gaining from lifetime to lifetime and the fact that reaching the status of bodhisattva or even buddha takes many thousands of lifetimes. Humility is not as important in the Buddhist version and thus does not need the second brother.

While these two parables may seem to differ significantly on the surface, a brief examination of both versions of the Parable of the Lost Son can reveal some striking similarities and offers an insightful look into the values of beliefs of both religions. Cross-examining literature and teachings from two different religions is a very effective tool for further understanding each religion, it can also raise awareness of some commonalities between the two that were unheard of prior.

The socket has been introduced in pre-colonial Malaysia. Before the British colonial Malaysia, the village in the country, as in other parts of the world developed through land settlement or colonization. One of the popular methods was the “collective Pondok system”, which was particularly common in the Muda Region of Kedah. By this system, a group of settlers would gather around and a person who is well -versed in Islamic Knowledge or who had already established himself as a religious teacher .After the they found a suitable place , they will build their “Pondok” (huts) around a Madras; a religious center for worship as well as teaching. In the case where the group has been established, they would invite a religious teacher from elsewhere to set up a Madras among them.This religious teacher was also the “Imam” of the community, in the sense that he led five prayers daily in the mosque or “madsarah.”

The group of peasant will be going out to open land around the clusters of their “Pondok”, leaving their children to the teacher for religious education at day time. For those wives who are unable to work with their spouse in the land also will obtained religious instruction from the teacher. The peasants will receive religious at least one or twice a week and longer on Friday because it was a day of rest. They will spend more time in the mosque than the field.

As an appreciation for the service provided by the teacher, the peasants usually will collectively clear a piece of land and cultivate if for the teacher. Slowly, as the land become more productive and the production level of each peasant family exceeds the “nisab of 480 Gantang” [1] for each harvesting, the peasant family would pay skate at their 10 % of the gross yield of the paddy. According to “Afifudin”, those early days all the skate form a specific group in the Pondok system would go to the teacher. If a group of 50 sacked paying peasants would contribute a minimum of 2400 Gantang each year .As time goes by, the wealth of the teacher can be accumulated. The teacher can use the socket for the expansion of Madras.

During the colonial period in Malaysia especially Kelantan, zakat was administered by imam,who is is the local religious leader managed the zakat collection and surpervised by the division of inherited party.In order to finance the intensified activities ,the state required imams to surrender part of the zakat they collected at the village level.However,this menthod is only partially successful due to the British regime replaced Grahman’s ,the “Islamic administration” .The Grahman took charge of civil administration ,he divested the imams of their “civil” function .which were transfer to the headman (ketua kampong) .

According to secret institution in Malaysia .During British Colonial Period , The segregation between religion, custom and temporal matters took place during this period. All Islamic and Malay customs related matters were administered by a special body known as Majlis Agama Islam Negeri (MAIN). Other than that, the rest came under the purview of the British civil and criminal law system (Matters associated with socket were administered by MAIN. Accordingly, in Zakat Satu Tinjauan, Kelantan was the first state to establish the body which later became a model to other Malay States. Under this model, the Imam (spiritual leader) has been empowered to govern skate related matters and a portion of zakat collection would be delivered to the state government as a financial resource for Islamic affairs. That was how the administration of soaked developed until today which remain under the supervision of State Islamic Councils.

After the independence of Malaysia, New Economic Policy has been introduced.The zakat fund is use for investment purpose .In the early 1970s ,the minister of National and Rural Development ,Encik Ghaffae Baba,who was also the chairman of Mara ,urged all the state Religious Councils to invested substantial portion of their money (mostly derived from the collection of zakat) in Amanah Saham Mara .The objective is to eliminate the income gap between the ethnic group in Malaysia,especially the Muslim and Chinese.

The objective of Zakat

The primary objective of Zakat is to elevate the spirit of human being above the material acquisition.Consequently, Islam does not view the zakat payer as a mere of sore of funds,but as a person who always needs purification and cleansing, both spiritually and materially. The prophet (p) summaries this purpose in the ayat ,”sadaqa from hier wealth by which you might purify and cleanse them.

Zakat, when paid out of submission to the commad of Allah ,is a mean of purifying the soul of a Muslim from greed and miserliness.The vices of selfishness and greed must be controlled in order for human beings to elevate their spirits ,to succed in their social realtions in his life ,and gain admittance to paradise .Allah Almighty says, “Truly man is niggardly! (17:100) and “But people are prone to selfish greed.)Zakat is a purifier that trains Muslims to give and spend selflessly .It liberates their souls from the love of wealth and slavery to materials gains and acquisitions.

On top of that, zakat is a mean of training Muslims on virtues of generosity as much as it is a means of purificarion from greed .Being paid in repetitive pattern year after year ,regular zakat as well as zakat al-fitr train Muslims to give and spend for charitable purpose. The Qur’an describes believers as the righteous who have the virtue of spending for good reasons.The very second sura of the Qur’an begins, “Alif .Lam .Mim.That is the Book with no doubt .In it is guidance for the godfearing :those who believe in Unseen and establish the prayer and give of what we have provided for them.”This exhortation is reiterated many times in the Qur’an ,such as “Those who give away their wealth by night and by day ,secretly and openly ,”: “Those who give in times of both ease and hardship” and “The steadfast ,the truthful ,the obedient ,the givers ,and those who seek forgivness before dawn.”

Also ,once a person is trained to spend on public interests and to give to his brethren out of his own wealth, he is most likely to be freed from any urge to transgress on other people’s wealth and possessions.

Besides that, zakat trains people to acquire divine characteristic.If man purified of miserliness and greed and becomes accustomed to the habit of giving and spending, his soul is elevated abouve low human trait of covetousness, “Truly man is niggardly!” (17:100) and aspire to the height of Divine perfection, since one of the characteristic of Allah is absolute and unlimited mercy, powers, theoretical and practical .Allah obliges zakat in order to perfect human souls in graciousness to oher people ,as the prophet says, Train yourselves to attributes of Allah.This encouragement to spend throught zakat and voluntary charity resulted with time,u in the emergence of charitable trusts all over Muslim world,trusts devoted not only to helping the poor and needy but to all causes for human beings as well as animals.

In addition ,zakat is to shows expression of thankfulness to Allah .Gratitude and thankfulness are among the best characteristics of human beings.Zakat is an expression of thankfulness to Allah for the bouties .He gives on us .Allah, says al-Ghazali, has gives on human spiritual and materials bounties.Prayers and other acts of physical worship express gratitude for the blessing of creation, while zakat and other acts of donator worship express gratitude for the material blessings of Allah .The concept that zakat is thanks Allah for His bounties is s widespread and deeply rooted in the consciousness of Muslims that it is common to say that one must give zakat in thanks for the grace of sight ,hearing,health ,knowledge, etc.

Also, zakat stimulates personality growth in those who pay it .Through helping others overcome their financial difficulties , zakat payers are enriched by feelings of self-worth and fufilment . Zakat also helps offer the payer’s self to others and grow throught helping them and gives the payer a noble sense of victory over his base desires and material drives-over his owns shaytan.

Last but not least, zakat is to purifies wealth.This is because zakat is a right to the poor , not paying it means keeping something that belongs to others intermingled worth one’s wealth and this brings Allah’s wrath on the whole wealth. The Prophet (p) says, “If you pay zakat on your wealth ,you have taken away its evil.”

Types of zakat

Zakat is divided into several types :

Zakat of Income
Zakat of Savings
Zakat of Business
Zakat of KWSP/LTAT
Zakat of Share
Zakat of Livestock
Zakat of Gold and Silver
Zakat of Crops
Zakat of Income

Extra payment received by an individual from their employer or individual itself in the form of physical energy or physically or professional employment for specific day, month and yearly also been required to pay zakat.

Employment income includes: –

1) The annual salary

2) Other allowances

3) Unpaid wages

4) Other remuneration such as bonuses, etc.

Method Of Calculation

First Method

Using gross income (without deduction) 2.5% on gross income per year.

Example :

Total gross income per year : RM 25,000.00

Amount of zakat (2.5%) : RM 625.00

Monthly Payment : RM 625.00 /12 = RM 52.08

Second Method

Using the net income (Income year less allowable expenses per year) x 2.5%

Expenses allowed deduction (per year): -:-

Self : RM 8,000.00

Wife : RM 5,000.00

Children : RM 1,000.00

KWSP : 11% from gross income workers

Parents Contribution : RM (amount given) per month x 12 months

Contributions to organizations that pay the zakat (for example: Lembaga Tabung Haji, Takaful)

Zakat of savings

Contribution of workers and employer’s to KWSP People Provident Fund , Soldiers Provident Fund (LTAT) are also required to pay zakat as the concept is similar to savings but the different is savings of KWSP and LTAT could not be withdraws anytime wherenever they like and it is subject the rules.

Fixed Deposit

Fixed deposit of RM 100,000 was kept for a year without the excluded (assumed nisab charity at that RM 9430.00)

Then charity is required to produce are: RM 100,000 x 2.5% = RM 2.500

Regular Deposit

Method Of Calculation

(Duration haul is January 5, 1999 until February 7, 2000) (Assuming nisab of charity at that RM 3,323.50)

So zakat are :

(Balances with lower interest bank refused WITH) X 2.5%

(RM 9,115.00 – RM 115.00) x 2.5% = RM 225.00

Zakat of Business

Zakat been given out by Sole Propirate, Partnership, Cooperative Society, Societies and Organization which had reached one year and the time limit.

Method Of Calcutions

[ ( Current Assets – Current Liability ) + Coordination x Percentage of Muslims Share x ZAKAT ABILITY ( 2.5 % ) ].

Zakat of KWSP

Contributions of employees and employers into the Employees Provident Fund (EPF), Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Army (LTAT),or the like imposed zakat as conceptually the same as saving money, but with the difference amount of savings, LTAT and so on shall not be issued at anytime because and subject to regulations that is fixed.

CALCULATION METHOD :

METHOD 1

2.5% of the contribution that issued once money issued.

METHOD 2

2.5% of contribution every employee is based on the annual statement

Zakat of shares

Zakat which is given out for investment which hasreachedh its time limit and minimum value.

METHOD OF CALCULATION

2.5 % the value of lowest share – share which is own for one year minus for shared borrowed.

If the lowest value is not determined, use the value beginning early in the year or in the year or whichever is the lowest.

For shareholders which must be owned by investors. Muslims in the long term to gain control a company or firm so his payment for zakat will be based on the calculations that it will not affect the the importance of other Muslims to get hold of the company.

If any of the owner’s shares has not reached one year, but the whole property being changed for a number of time for one year from shares to cash and vice versa, so use the lowest value with the mixture of money and shares,shares with basic to count zakat multiply 2.5 %.

Zakat of Livestock

Livestock zakat is property zakat that required to be taken out in perfect the conditions. Domestic animal that obliged to pay zakat is among them such as goat, , cattle , camel, sheep, buffalo. Prophet S.A.W said ” From Muaz Ibnu Jabal, had said, RasulullahS.A.W was sending me to Yaman and ask me to collect zakat from each of 30 cows, 1 lamb musinnah (1 female cattle aged up to 3 years ) and every 30 cows, tabi’ or tabiah ( 1 male or female cattle aged up to 2 years).” The livestock that we would like to give a zakat must be perfect and no defects such as missing the foot or hand and so on.

COWS/BUFFALOES

Quantities

Zakat Amount / Sex

30-39 tail

1 tail, age 1 year / male

40-59 tail

1 tail, age 2 year / female

60-69 tail

2 tail, age 1 year / male

70-79 tail

1 tail, age 1 year / male

and 2 tail, age 2 year / male

80-89 tail

2 tail, age 2 year / female

90-99 tail

3 tail, age 1 year / male

100-109 tail

1 tail, age 2 year / female

and 2 tail, age 1 year / male

110-119 tail

2 tail, age 2 year / female

and 1 tail, age 1 year / male

120 tail above

tail, age 2 year / female

and 3 tail, age 1 year / male

GOATS

Quantities

Zakat Amount / Sex

40-120 tail

1 tail, age 2 year / male or female

121-200 tail

2 tail, age 2 year / male or female

201-399 tail

3 tail, age 2 year / male or female

Subsequent additions : Every of 100 tail plus

plus 1 tail, age 2 year / male or female

SHEEP

Quantities

Zakat Amount / Sex

40-120 tail

1 tail, age 1 year/ male @ female

121-200 tail

2 tail , age 1 year / male @ female

201-399 tail

3 tail, age 1 year/ male @ female

Subsequent additions : every 100 tail

increased by 1 tail,age 1 year / male @ female.

Zakat of Silver and Gold

Gold and silver is a mineral that is required to charity. This is because these metals are very useful as it uses an exchange value of all things. As for other jewelry than gold and silver like diamond, pearl, silk, copper, are not obligatory zakat on it.

Nisab zakat gold used = 200gram

Gold zakat Nisab unused = 85gram

Zakat Of Crops

Zakat which is upon basic food which has reached the stage of satisfaction for the state which has 363 gantang / 1300 kg like paddy, wheat, cereals and so on.

Pastoral care in ministry is one of the most critical ministries found within the Church. Churches are full of individuals who have or are experiencing crisis, anxiety, devoiced, loneliness, lost, grief, sadness, and family issues. These prevailing crises make available to pastors opportunities to assist these individuals mostly by just encouraging and listening to those within their faith community. In many cases, pastors’ involvement in these crises may only require of them to listen whereas in other the need for trained pastors in specialized ministry of counseling is required.

Many individuals now-a-days continue to turn to their pastors as a first source when face with a crisis. Pastors are usually more immediately and directly accessible than some other counseling professionals they do not charge a fee, and they are every so often known and trusted within a community. Since pastors are perceived as generalist, parishioners as well as community residents often look to them for assistance in a wide range of needs, including counseling. A skill acquired by pastors from some useful classes in the area of counseling during their training in seminary as well as an important basic quarter in C.P.E. (Clinical Pastoral Education).

Personally, my study in pastoral counseling has given me the necessary tools to effectively counsel my congregants. Such training has led me into the following concepts: Clinical Pastoral Periderm, which focuses on relationship and individuals; the different kinds of Listening Skill introduced by Salvage; the dynamics of Loss & Grief with grief being the emotional reaction to loss; Family System Theory a self-regulatory system maintaining its own status, as well as the Family as an Emotional System along with the Eight Concepts of Bowen Theory; Congregational System Pastoral Care; Crisis Counseling which includes the A-B-C Method; Pastoral Issues in Illness; Pastoral for Domestic Violence and Child Abuse; Multi-Cultural Pastoral Care; Gender Difference in Pastoral Care; and finally, Pastoral Intimacy, Power and Professional Boundaries.

Pastoral care is the foremost task of ministry by most pastors as well as a majority of congregants, yet, there is a difference relating to pastoral care and the professional discipline of counseling. Some pastors are members of the American Association of Pastoral Counseling which has what one may refer to as an expressed Code of Ethics. The same is true of the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, American Psychological Association, etc.

There are certainly many potential similarities in the relationship between pastors and professional counselors and the people they serve. All these relationships involve issues of exposure, familiarity and trust. There is an intrinsic disparity of control which some, particularly pastors, is uncomfortable acknowledging, but which exists whenever a person in distress seeks help from one viewed as more experienced. Healing is mostly a main concentration in any aiding relationship.

Likewise, borderline concerns must be taken care of so as to construct the safest likely environment in which a counselee or congregant can deal with his or her pain. Nevertheless, there are a number of possible distinctions between pastoral care and professional counseling. Professional counselors are trained to understand the transference and countertransference phenomena, double task tensions, and the boundaries of our trained competency.

Like professional counselors, pastors also have codes of conduct to guide our activities, which are spiritual in origin. These codes are based on religious beliefs except for exclusions concerning sexual wrongdoing; pastoral codes usually are more generalized in nature than professional counseling ethical codes of behavior.

In contrast to professional counselors, pastors often engage in their ministries in a variety of informal settings with a multiplicity of roles with parishioners. Our core functions as pastors are embedded in a spiritual restraint that touches on many facets of life and society. Although training in counseling can aid pastors to work more effectively with church members, yet our calling to such profession is very distinct. In one of his many writings, Eugene Peterson called on pastors to return to our distinctive, ancient calling which states that our pastoral work is a “ministry of Word and Sacrament.” [1]

People believe counseling is a great remedy. Yet many are reluctant says Hansen to see a professional counselor. Perhaps their reluctance is due to the costs of such visit besides, professional counselors ask hard questions.” He continues, “For me, trying to be a counselor is a mean of saving time and effort. It is a go between my people’s needs to have me do unspecific things for them rather than cautioning them to live through the thick forests of their lives by following Christ in discipleship.” [2]

This means that pastoral care is rooted in ‘word and sacrament’ not having its origins in various scientifically grounded personality theories but prayer, proclamation, and the word of God. Again, Eugene Peterson emphasizes, “pastor’s responsibility is to keep the community attentive to God.” [3]

Like pastoral care, professional counseling by a pastor is a serious business. Pastors who engage in professional counseling without being trained are treading on dangerous ground, because such is not included within the authority of their ordination. When we do away with what is the ancient activities of pastoral care and engage in professional counseling methods without the necessary training, we are then held to the same standard to that of a licensed counseling professional. Standing before the law, pastors will not have the benefit or protection they have within the ancient practice of pastoral care.

Here are several shielding legal guidelines for the practice of ministry: Pastors are to be clear about the expertise offered. We are to refer to our activities in clearly religious terms, not professional counseling terms. Unless we are trained and are willing to adhere to all of the professional standards of licensed professional counselors, pastors are to stay with practices that we can identify as pastoral care. For if we hold ourselves out as “professional” or “psychological” counselor, the law of the land will treat us as one. Pastors are not to assume broader duties, which are not part of our competence or calling.

Although, the distinction amid pastoral care and professional counseling are clear in many situations, in others they appear less distinct. Yet a process of reflection and discernment is needed most to identify the pastoral role. So the following need to be addressed: Whom am I called to be in this particular ministry setting? What are my sacred functions as one who has a “set-apart” ministry? What distinguishes my role and relationships from those of psychologists, family therapists, and specialists in pastoral counseling? Where do I set the limits and boundaries to my pastoral activities? [4]

Pastoral Care in ministry in my estimate is the most important ministry next to the ministry of preaching of the Gospel. People who are hurting is seeking through the pastor from the Gospel a healing balm for their wounds. The Gospel itself addresses the totality of humanity: spiritual and body. When one part is addressed to the negligence of the other the total needs of that person will not be met. Pastors who are sensitive to, and addresses the hurts of members in their congregation through the appropriate counseling technique, are more likely to be successful in ministry then those who neglect these needs.

To conclude, Pastoral care is a vital resource that extends to a broader spectrum of individuals with a variation of needs. This opportunity comes with what I will refer to as a “wonderful challenge”, however; it is necessary for those ministering to such needs, to reflect wisely on their gifts as well as to recognize their limits of their profession.

Bibliography

Clinebell, Jr., Howard J. Basic Types of Pastoral Counseling (New York: Abingdon press 1984)

Hansen, David The Art of Pastoring ( Inter Varsity Press Downer Grove, Illinois 1994)

Paterson, Eugene H. Five Smooth Stones for Pastoral Work (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Grand Rapids, MI 1992)

Lynch, Gordon Clinical Counseling in Pastoral Settings ( Routledge New York, NY 1999)

Paterson, Eugene H. Working the Angles: The Shape of Pastoral Integrity (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Grand Rapids, MI 1987)

Ross, Kenneth. Hearing Confessions (London: SPCK Publishing, 1974)

Salvage, John Listening & Caring Skills (Abingdon Press, Nashville 1996)

An Incident in Ministry that illustrates my Approach to Pastoral Care

Luke and Nancy was the first inter-racial couple that sought membership at my present pastoral appointment, Spencer Memorial United Methodist Church. For eight years of being their pastor, I have watched them grow diligently in their spiritual walk with the Lord, but something always seems to be lacking within their relationship especially around the Thanksgiving holiday, something that they couldn’t get around to talk about but was bothering them. On one Wednesday after Bible Study Nancy asked if she could schedule an appointment so that she could meet with me. Sure I responded to her, so we went ahead and set an appointment to meet an hour earlier on the next Wednesday before Bible Study.

When we met following prayers on that Wednesday, Nancy begins by saying that they came to see me to discuss about the death of her father which loss she cannot seem to get rid of. The presenting problem is one in which Nancy’s father passed away almost immediately when she became a member of Spencer. This occurred rather suddenly after her father was diagnosed of cancer. When word reached her that her father was terminal and the doctors have given him up, she immediately went to be with her mother to assist her while they prepared for the inevitable. Two weeks later after her arrival on Thanksgiving Day, her father passed away leaving her with a sudden stricken grief that after seven years she is finding it very difficult to dealing with her feeling of loss.

Recently Nancy went back home to visit her mother because her visit back home had been infrequent since her father passed away. During her visit she was beset with her feelings of loss and now she tells me that she it has been such a long since the death of her father but the pain do not seem to go away. She and her father became close after a long period of estrangement between them and she describes their relationship developing over the years into more unique friendship than that of father and daughter. She tells me that the mode of her grief varies from day to day. On those days when she is so stressed up, she feels the pain of her loss strongly especially when she cannot pick up the phone and dial her father; for her father had grown to become her best friend in spite of their past history and he had been there for her over the last few years of his life. During this whole session, Nancy pattern of speech appears normal yet she wept throughout it. But what was helpful is that we kept good eye contact during our discussion until she became emotional which minimize it. Below are statements showing that during one point of the session empathy was for the most part effective:

Nancy: I guess this may sound crazy, but this past Thanksgiving, I went home and my Mom was able to convince me so that we can get rid of his clothes. Something that I said out loud to Mom that we were never ever going to get rid of his clothes because it was the only physical memory that I had of him. On Thanksgiving Day while going through his closet I could smell his distinct cologne (Kouros) on his clothes. It was too difficult; I broke down in the closet crying.

Pastor: I know that it must have been hard for you, because I also lost my father to sudden stroke.

Nancy: Pastor Morris, it was the hardest thing for me to do.

Pastor: It takes a lot of strength to carry that through.

Nancy: You can say that, it does. I break down whenever I begin to talk about him.

Pastor: You miss him

Nancy: Yes Pastor, I miss him so much (she begins to openly sob).

Nancy was referring to the feelings of her loss that never seems to go away after seven years. My intent during this session was to reflect on those feelings. In addition, she was critical of herself in the early part of our session for not having moved beyond her feelings of loss.

At this point in the session, I became aware of how much she was hurting. It is very important that pastoral wisdom include some general knowledge of grief and mourning process that is informed by those who have done researched and written about it. One of the most influential interpretations of the grief process for me has been Erich Lindemann’s study called “Symptomatology and Management of Acute Grief,” [5] in it he affirmed grief as “work,” something necessary for life rather than something pathological that should be avoided. He also described five things that he had observed in acute grief: (1) guilt, (2) anger, (3) bodily distress, (4) being preoccupy with the deceased image and, (5) loss of customary of patterns of conduct. [6]

Lindermann theorized that there are discernible stages in the grief process that the grieving person and those who care for that person should be aware of. Recently when Nancy visited her parent home she was overwhelmed with renewed emotions of loss, perhaps as new as they were seven years ago when her father passed away. Furthermore, she expressed her frustration in still undergoing such strong feeling of grief when so much time has passed. This displeasure could be viewed as her inclination to move in an affirmative direction toward healing, and it was her self-actualizing tendency that was seeking to express it.

A likely hypothesis as to why Nancy has not moved past her present stage of grief might be that in her societal system the essential conditions that would allow her to discover the know-how in order to process her grief does not exist. She may also have family members in her family that deal with pain differently by discouraging open expression of emotions. If such be the case, then providing empathy might permit her to move past most of the pain that she was experiencing.

The below example shows during the session, where the grief focus was shifted:

Nancy: I was in denial when the news first hit me that my father was terminal. I got on the next available flight for Dallas. I went down immediately to be with him. Two weeks after my arrival he passed away.

Pastor: That was fast. And it seems that you possess lots of pleasant memories of your father

Nancy: Yes I do have a lot of good memories, but the hardest thing is the emptiness brought about by the loss.

In this example, she described her experience of losing her father. In response, I attempted to direct her focus on the good memories that she had of her father, rather than she dwelling on her loss. However, it seems to me that her focus was on her feelings of emptiness; it was when I regain control of the situation and saidaˆ¦.

Pastor: Nancy, as a pastoral counselor, I certainly am open to the grieving process for those who had lost a loved one but not for such a long period. However, I must honestly say that there is more to the grief that you are undergoing. Even though you have not explain what brought about your estrangement with your parents which may have something to do with prolonged grief.

Nancy: (Sobbing againaˆ¦) you are right pastor. 17 years ago after falling in love with Luke in College I took him to ask for my parents blessing because we had decided to get married since we were three months pregnant. Not telling them that he is an African American, we drove to my home time in Dallas Texas during our Christmas break. When we arrived, my parents did not receive Luke and forbid me to get marry to him. Because we love each other and were caring a child I went against their decision and got married to Luke thus being banished or ostracized by my parents. In view of this new revelation, I decided to reference the family- systems theory which offers better ways to understand and resolve such problem.

For instance: From a Bowenian family-systems perspective, there have been some key emotional cutoffs [7] in Nancy family system when she was banished. It’s not entirely clear how these things work, but family-therapy research indicates that Nancy present dilemma is somehow connected to this cutoff; moreover, it is only by repairing it and reconnecting with the long-lost, left-behind, and thrown-out members of her family that her “presenting problem” [8] will resolve itself. Therefore, one aspect of a “treatment plan” recommended would involve my “counseling” her toward a “self-differentiated” [9] balance between these two extremes (guilt and grief).

Finally, Nancy realized that her prolonged grief was because of her guilt after shifting her guilt back and fro. [10] I believe my ability to provide empathy [11] through reflection was my strength. What was of greater substance was my ability to offer advanced empathy, moving away from her stated words to the indirect emotions beyond her words.

Quite a few films have been produced by now which focus on the interracial, intercultural and interethnic issues between couples and a relationship can be made or marred in the process. Ae Fond Kiss directed by Ken Loach, starred Atta Yaqub as Casim and Eva Birthistle as Roisin. This movie is an intricate demonstration of religion, culture and self-identity in all spheres of life. Loach has tactfully painted a love story in the premises of Glasgow, showing the collective problems from a Pakistani family background to a Catholic religion. Ina nutshell, the movie ends uniting the lovers when Casim leaves his family and prefers Roisin as the love of his life.

The movie can be viewed critically from many aspects it highlights indirectly through various characters. Firstly, we will analyze how Islam and West have been portrayed generally in comparison to each other. The father, Tariq and Mrs. Khan have been portrayed as devout Muslims who carry out their religious obligations on an individual and community level as well. However, they as parents have been unable to inculcate the same values in their children despite their wishes. Casim, Tahara and Rukhsana have core Islamic beliefs but each child varies in religious practice. Islam in the West is looked down at by British; the reputation of Islam has been mucked by the unfortunate aftermath of 9/11. The true message of Islam has been distorted in the West due to the practices of weak Muslims. The Westerner’s have made sure that they pinpoint Islamic controversies in the context of these practices instead of going by the book. Islam is a code of life which takes into consideration emotional, social, political, economic, psychological and spiritual needs of a human being. It does not differentiate between society and religion whereas in the West, society and culture are distinct entities. The second generation immigrants in foreign countries end up in an identity crisis due aforementioned issues. For them, religion is not clearly defined neither acted on according to the Sunnah perfectly. Tahara and Casim in Ae Fond Kiss, were definitely suffering from an identity crisis on a personal and social level. The reasons for this do not lie in Islam being intolerant of other cultures and religions rather the reason is in the youth and the parents in not having scientifically concrete knowledge about all practices in Islam (Richardson, 4-8).

Casim’s father and mother tried somehow in making their children God-conscious and fearing. Analysis of the movie suggests that Roisin was not as religious as the Pakistani family. She belonged to a Catholic background however; she was not in a state of stereotypical regret that Christian women are after being divorced. When Casim and Roisin were on the Spanish coast trip, they talked about the similarities that existed between their religions. However, Casim’s verbatim demonstrates that he had spiritual values in bits as compared to Roisin. Casim’s family firmly believed in the Oneness of God Almighty where as Roisin was detached from religious activities. The only main link that has been shown is when Roisin was uncertain about the relationship as for a full-employment job, she was asked by the Parish Priest to give up on Casim. Roisin coming from an individualist society did not believe whole-heartedly in God as the Creator and Sustainer of the people on the planet. Rather, to her in a relationship, self-respect and dignity were more important than anything else. Casim, had a more perpetual view of the relationship as per his belief in God. He wanted a life partner who he could grow old with. It has always been seen that Muslim authorities are called the bad cops rather than any other religious authorities. By writing about the cruelty and arrogance of Parish Priest, Paul Lavetry intended to show that it’s not always the perceived misconceptions about Islam that complicate a predicament, figures from the other culture or religion can equally worsen community relations and reputation. It is not just Muslims who are prohibited to marry people from another religion; vice versa should also be considering before stigmatizing Islamic teachings of forced marriages. Building his opinion in a historical context, Harold Coward says, “Muslims probably have a far greater knowledge of all other religions than any other groupaˆ¦”. Perhaps it can be said that second-generation immigrants or other Muslim youth and parents in various parts of the world do not know the potential they have as Muslims. In tolerating and respecting other religions, Prophet Mohammad p.b.u.h. set a paradigm for the believers and the non-believers to follow despite the fact that his main aim in life was to spread the light of Islam to non-Muslims (Schimdt-Leukal & Ridgeon, 17-60).

Islam values universal beliefs until they are in relation to Quran and Sunnah. The Muslims have to implement Shahadah, Salat, Zakat, Fasting and Hajj as the four pillars of Islam. They have to believe in the prophets who brought messages to humanity at various junctures in history. The socio-economic issues in a Muslim community are solved according to Shariah and handed by the Ulema and Fuqaha. However, the Catholic beliefs are dissimilar in some ways. The common grounds are fasting, charity and belief in the unity of God. Beliefs related to humanity that spring out of Islam and Muslim practice can be concluded as follows:

No matter which religion or race, human beings have to respect and tolerate each other.

Religion cannot be forced on anyone under any circumstance.

God Almighty will determine what is right and wrong in the Hereafter. In this life, the believers are commanded to search for the truth and fulfill their spiritual needs which will ultimately lead them to the Quran as the Last Scripture.

The Muslims should employ principle of reciprocity when it comes to intercultural dealings; however, Islam always teaches piety and goodness hence, forgiveness has to be practiced.

There is no enmity between believers and non-believers in daily life encounters; the differences should be embraced and the right to equal citizenship awarded in any part of the world. God says in the Quran, “O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah and be just witnesses and let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just: that is nearer to piety, and fear Allah. Verily, Allah is Well-Acquainted with what you do” (The Noble Quran 5:8).

The Muslim British Pakistani family did not want a goree for their son as marriage with a non-Muslim is not allowed in Islam. However, religious beliefs are blurred into cultural beliefs. The second immigrant youth viewed this forced arranged marriage. Casim when frustrated with life could only think of ‘should, should and should. . .’ requirements that were exacted on him. Seen from a pristine, Islamic point of view, Casim’s parents had promised the Jasmine’s parents back in Pakistan that their son will marry their daughter. Casim under religious obligations only had to listen to his parents for an eternal reward if he could. However, Islam does not mandate marrying the partner parents choose. Tariq and Mrs. Khan were more worried about the social consequences i.e. the name of the family when they found out that their son liked an Irish teacher. This movie is set out to challenge the prejudiced and gendered beliefs that Muslims and Christians alike hold.

The concept of Muslim masculinity and femininity are often discussed through heated arguments. Liberal and progressive Muslims, in the light of their limited knowledge and insight of comparative religion tend to favor other religions. The liberty and freedom Islam gave to women 1400 years ago cannot be denied. Islam still teaches those values to the believers which can heal the ills of the society. Divorce is disliked and harmony is preferred. Casim’s father was shown to be an authoritative figure in the house while in Casim, British Pakistani lover has been portrayed. The way Casim disapproved of her sister going to Edinburgh and the way her father refused the offer outright cannot only be judged from a religious lens. Boys by no means have more freedom than girls in Islam when it comes to inter-gender mingling, clubbing and outdoor gatherings. Prejudice cannot be generalized as a weak point of Islam as these are not typical teachings rather stereotypical practices of weak Muslims (Shira,).

Islam takes a very logical towards art and music. The argument on music can be traced back to Islam’s birth. Anything which has a tendency to make the believer go astray or distract him from obedience to God is not allowed in Islam. Perhaps, one of the main reasons why Tariq hated Kasim’s choice was that she was a pianist in Tahara’s school. Poetry in Islam has an exalted level; the Prophet Mohammad allowed only that poetry which talked about the wonders of Islam and the magnificence of God Almighty. Many a traditions have been reported in Sahih Muslim, one of the most authentic sources after the Quran, which validate the existence of poetry but which are done to seek the pleasure of God.

To conclude, Ae Fond Kiss has represented the real-life problems that come with an inter-cultural relationship that too with different backgrounds. Loach ended the movie in a very thought-provoking manner; the audience has been forced to redefine the boundaries of culture and see religion as a whole rather than sum of the parts of culture. Islam can be seen a civilization which serves as revolutionary religion throughout the history. Perhaps, the audience and the critics of Ae Fond Kiss now know that they have to look into their prejudiced perceptions again as Asad Fyzee puts it that Islam has to ‘interpreted afresh and understood anew’ with respect to time, place and people (Omid, 98).

The autonomous author portrays several human conditions in the morality play, Everyman. The human characteristics are rendered by the character, Everyman, who is a representative of mankind. Everyman soon learns of God’s plan when he meets the messenger Death, who has come to claim his soul in order to bring him for final judgment. Everyman’s portrayal of ignorance is evident when Death says, “Full little he thinketh on my coming; His mind is on fleshy lusts and his treasure, And great pain it shall cause him to endure Before the Lord, Heaven-King” (lines 81-84). Death’s adherence to his tasking from God is evident in “For before God thou shalt answer and shew, Thy many bad deeds and good but a few – How thou hast spent thy life in what wise Before the Chief Lord of Paradise” (lines 107-10).

Society as a whole often divulges in a life of sin whereas at that time the sin is being committed, it seems innocently enough and not as bad. Humans try to rationalize sins as being ok but do not realize that it leads them to damnation in the end on judgment day and in the eyes of God. The messenger Death best captures this by what he had said, “Ye think sin in the beginning full sweet, Which in the end causeth the soul to weep (lines 12-14).

Humanity is called upon to come forth once his journey from birth to death commences in order to see God and stand for judgment. In the beginning of the play, God instructs his messenger, Death, to find Everyman and take him on his pilgrimage to judgment. No man can escape God’s judgment and accountability. God says, “Go thou to Everyman, And show him, in my name, A pilgrimage he must on him take, Which he in no wise may escape; And that he bring with him a sure reckoning Without delay or any tarrying (lines 66-71).

In capturing society’s penitence and repentance, we see Knowledge assisting Everyman in the cleansing of his soul while he undergoes a physical and mental change by playing out the enduring contrast of the earthly and divine worlds. His body suffers for the sins of the flesh and lust while his soul is redeemed while undergoing a worldly pain which leads him to a spiritual salvation. “In the name of the Holy Trinity My body sore punished shall be; Take this, body, for the sin of the flesh (lines 611-13)! “Therefore suffer now strokes of punishing! Now penance I will wade the water clear, To save me from purgatory, that sharp fire (lines 616-18).

In recent events and aggressive reporting by the social media, our society has become aware of the impending misbehaviors of certain church officials around the world that suggests that the Church has swept these reports of misconduct under the table. As seen with the newly appointed Pope, he inherited a church facing serious challenges and allegations. In this story, there is a debate between Knowledge and Five Wits concerning priests. Five Wits praises the priests while Knowledge denigrates certain priests as being too concerned with earthly pleasures and forgetting the pilgrimage of spiritual growth. Here we see another example of the constant battle between the “earthly” and “divine” worlds. Knowledge says, “Sinful priests giveth the sinners example bad; Their children sitteth by other men’s fires, I have heard, And some haunteth women’s company, With unclean life, as lusts of lechery (lines 759-63). Five Wits fires back with, “I trust to God no such may we find. Therefore let us priesthood honor, And follow their doctrine for our souls’ succor. We be their sheep and they shepherds be, By whom we all be kept in surety (lines 764-86).

The morality play, Everyman, depicts mankind and anthropomorphizes their constant plight of relationships, devotion, and responsibility until their pending death. Everyman is represented by almost every character except for God, Death, the Angel and the Doctor. I think that most societies of today can relate with this play in some way. Everyman was written when people’s lives centered on the ideals of the traditional medieval church. Upon a Christian’s death their lifelong activities, achievements, sufferings, and problems are reviewed in front of God on judgment day. The characters in this story represent the many elements of a society’s existence and personified discernments. During the Medieval Age, it was common for people to try to survive life’s obstacles and hindrances while maintaining an ethical or divine growth as a Christian disciple. This piece captures and humanizes a society’s fight in achieving true salvation and preparation of one’s soul for impending death. Upon facing death, most people usually find themselves authenticating their lives and trying to ensure that their life meant something good. Most people do not tend face death with open arms. Everyman represents mankind in their cleansing of one’s sins before he can transcend into their afterlife. The medieval Christian believed that the only way to achieve salvation was through the Seven Holy Sacraments, priests, and the medieval church.