Was cramming late last night (or really early this morning, depends on which way you see it) in order to meet multiple dreaded deadlines, when my mind started tciking and I had a lucid interval, or an epiphany of sorts. Anyhow this came up (it's the intro to my survey of European Lit requirement) , and I thought I'd post it here to get comments. Mukhang masaya kasi siyang i-pursue, if I were a socio major (not that I'm wishing to be), I'd probably use this as thesis material. Anyhow, what do you think?
______________________________________________
Religion, it would seem, has always been a topic of much pondering and controversy. Taking off from this notion, one is led to ask: why not, indeed? Religion, for one, has always been known to be a means (if not the SOLE means) of providing a refuge for man’s fatally inquisitive and curious nature from the questions that beset him; questions regarding his existence and his purpose here on earth. Religion placates this restlessness in man the way a piece of timber placed on a tub prevents the water from spilling even when agitated and churned: by allowing himself to voluntarily subscribe to the higher powers, purposes, and truths promulgated by a religion, and any religion, for that matter, man is able to find a suitable scapegoat and respite from the torment of the uncertainty of his origins, as well as his future. And, undoubtedly, man can be assured of this peace as long as he refuses to question the tenets of the religion he himself has subscribed to, and that he remains faithful to its rules and bylaws.
It is in this tradeoff, this covenant of sorts, that religion comes to a new light: it becomes invested not only with the means to control power, but, through the mechanisms by which it may devise and implement rules, also becomes itself a source of power.
But mixing spiritual enlightenment with such an outstandingly human affair, especially one as confined to the realm of the physical and the material like the manipulation of power, often serves to disadvantage religion, as men, with their perpetually questioning faculties, soon realize that a clear distinction has to be made between religion and politics, and a clear line has to be demarcated as regards the spiritual and the material. History, in fact, has not been very kind to those religions that have chosen to wield this double-edged sword: often religions have been replaced by lesser but “kinder” ones, or those that address spiritual concerns where involvement in contradictory but more profitable mortal affairs has made these difficult for their more prominent counterparts to address. Note, too, that those few religions that have thrived through the centuries have made large concessions on their part with relation to control over their constituents just so that they may continue to exist, albeit in a less authoritative and, dare I say it, shabbier state, and having seen better days in their past.
Were we to take and hold the above statements as true (and there is much reason as evidenced in history to do just that), we can now more or less glean the stages by which a religion grows, prospers, diminishes in brilliance, and ultimately fades into oblivion: effectively, the life cycle of any and all religions. This life cycle can be summed up briefly as follows: first, a religion is created, either as a response to the inadequacies of another religion, or simply out of an impelling need to subscribe to a belief in a higher truth or power for the sake of comfort and convenience, as explained before. This religion then grows, initially carried over by the impetus of the catharsis it provides or the devotion it incites, whichever may be more suited to the case. As it grows, religion naturally acquires on a power-wielding aspect through its implementation of rules and policies by which it may govern its subjects, and also via the establishment of a hierarchy within its ranks for administrative or ceremonial purposes. This aspect allows religion to permeate normal day-to-day life, and thus ingrains it more deeply into society. This fusion with society may strengthen religion for a brief period, but what it actually does is that it weakens the former, as: 1) the members of a society may blame religion for any inadequacies they may perceive in society, especially if the centers of religious and political power are one and the same, and 2) the extinction of a particular society, either through natural causes or by being subsumed by more powerful societies, may also well constitute the demise of a religion itself. As a religion is weakened, it will have to face one of two choices: it either has to concede the veil of political power it has gained, or it can choose to cling to it and face the consequence, which, as history tells us, often takes the form of a gradual demise. Only by conceding and retreating into the shell of a less politically involved entity will religion manage to survive until the circumstances are ripe for it to, figuratively speaking, come into vogue again.
Note, however, that this life cycle is not at all uniformly linear: extraneous variables may interfere at any given point in the system. Natural causes, for example, may cause the demise of a religion even before it gains prominence, and so on and so forth.