1 (Religion)

In your opinion, does religion have an inherent “goodness” or “badness” or is it simply a medium that can be manipulated in every way? AND What similarities were there between Gandhi and MLK that allowed them to embody this new version of religion?

I think that religion is a medium that can be manipulated in every way, it does not necessarily have a "goodness" or "badness" to it. People like Gandhi and MLK have proven that religion is sort of a neutral aspect to life. MLK was all bout underlying values and just and inputs problems in life, he was not focused through one lens on religion. His reasons for doing things and his attitude were not based off of religious figures or scriptures, but rather on society as an equal unit, not divided by religion. Gandhi promoted peace and independence throughout India, and he exemplified that goals may be achieved without violence and without religious intentions. Both Gandhi and MLK were living and working through situations where religion was an agent of the powerless. However, the caste system in India was an example of agent of the powerful, where religion was used to maintain power. During that time, religion was looked at as instructions for life, and strict (religious) rules to abide by. Whether or not everyone was in favor of the caste system, it was an efficient way to organize people and the different powers and opportunities they had. Religion can be looked at in countless ways; one way being a way of life, somewhere to turn to for any answers and for hope. The other way being something that is there for you and acts as a community you are a part of, but is not relevant for decision making, or for using as explanations for certain decisions, and is just overall less apparent in everyday life. I think that religion is a neutral thing because of how it has shaped history and because of how people chose to view it. Throughout history, religion has not always been good, and it has not constantly been bad, which is why I say it is neutral- once again, one can manipulate religion however they chose.




Personally in Mr. Moran's class we learn about certain events that took place or certain individuals who have represented BOTH agent of the powerful and agent of the powerless, which is probably why I think religion is neutral. But those who are raised in very religious homes or schools, who are not taught both sides of the spectrum would probably think differently than me. However, I believe religion is neutral because while things often change throughout history, so does the way religion plays a role in people's lives, and religion's significance in society. In other words, religion has not continuously been "bad" or "good", it has been something that people can interpret however they choose.