July 13, 2016 § Leave a comment
Having digressed into areas which should have been left untouched and finally coming to exploring the three essential constructs of religion-personalism, subsidiarity and solidarity, I will expound on these areas.
All religions come with the idea of believing what you choose to, hence the various divisions among the same religion. No matter how much a particular subdivision tries to impose a particular interpretation of religion, every person has the liberty to choose their favourite ideas from it. Similar goes on in capitalism. Each individual can choose to believe, own, follow and preach his/her version. Competition for dominion exists in both. My idea being better than yours. Enters marketing.The principle of personalism is based on human dignity and free will, which is modelled on ‘God’s’ likeness.
This directly begets from personalism. If a man has the right to choose his version of religion and give his own version as well, that makes him or her the authority on it. Implications are direct, there is a central power governing various aspects of that version or interpretation which is unique to it and will not be passed down to the followers as they have not understood the underlying basis behind such an interpretation. This leads to blind faith and following, in essence consumerism. The ‘want’ to consume because of appeal which ultimately becomes the ‘need’ to consume as the principle has not been understood. Thus subsidiarity is evident and its implications are major unless general intelligence and the principles are clearly explained and equally clearly understood.
Solidaire means to join together firmly. Ideal is to have solidarity on a voluntary basis, as a free, humanitarian option instead of being forced upon by religion. This is not a flaw with religion but with human nature itself. Solidarity, if it is not combined with voluntariness, embodies all the tensions between contrasting notions of justice that lie at the root of envy and hate. The notions of solidarity have remained to be particularly individual based instead of religion defining or expounding on them without being abstract or interpretable. There is no universal validity to universal issues like common good, common justice, common evil, or what helps the poor?
In the end, it is true that both capitalism and religion have been corrupted and disoriented. Anyone who wants to remove both of them has to offer an alternative which is more feasible and less corruptible than these two. Best among the worst. Universal religion or any fundamental is love, but it is not easily achieved and definitely not in the ways how we assume to find or ‘acquire’ it.