A benign extremism

By Susantha Hewa

Most people’s gut reaction to the word “extremism” is suspicion and fear. An extremist is said to be a person who is guided by the strict, literal interpretation of the scripture or the teachings of a religion. Given that none of the organized religions promotes evil, surely, such adherence to religious principles cannot be all that bad; the more extremist you were the better-behaved you would be. Thus, a congregation of extremists of all religions would be the most charming set of people you would ever hope to bump into anywhere on the road. If so, why do people look askance at religious extremism?

It seems that those who disparage extremism want you to be religious but not too religious. The implication is that being overly religious is dangerous. This is somewhat mystifying. Would anybody say that the best folks on the planet are those who take religion with a pinch of salt? This is to say that, in religion, circumspection is preferable to being fully devout, isn’t it? If you were to accept it, you would be conceding that there is a safe limit in religious compliance. Is it in any manner dangerous to be too Buddhist or too Christian? Would you ever say to a stranger, “Please feel perfectly safe in my company because I am not an ardent follower of my religion?” Pray, which religion asks you not to take its teachings too seriously? Of course, the Buddha advised people not to accept anything on the authority of the teacher but to use their reasoning to assess the veracity of what is preached, but he never asked his devotees to practice the Dhamma with a degree of restraint.

Then again, no religion asks you to use a judicious blend of two or more religions so that you don’t go to extremes in just one of them? There are no records of a religion which teaches that its doctrine in its entirety can be harmful and it is wise to have it diluted with some other doctrine or, alternatively, to tone it down with a morsel of secularism to become a moderate. Therefore, if extremism is extreme devoutness, it can by no means be injurious given that every religion propagates loving kindness.

Just to understand this better, we can imagine a hypothetical world where there are only two religions. Let’s call them KINDNESS and AGGRESSION. The first teaches you to be kind to everybody in all matters and never to be aggressive no matter what. If kindness becomes the underlying principle of all human relations, the world will become an infinitely better place, it says. The second teaches that only aggression will usher in a better world and that you have to be as aggressive as possible in your day-to-day life to make the world a happier and more exciting place.

What would be the rituals of the two religions? The first religion, KINDNESS, would have you perform an act of kindness every morning. Starting from home, if there is someone in your family who needs special attention you may attend to her. If you have a sick friend or relative you may phone him to ask how he is and whether you could be of any help. Or, you may walk to the garden and look for any creature that needs care. You may leave some food for the birds and squirrels. These will be minor services that you can provide before going to work. However, at weekends or on special days you can visit an Elders’ Home or orphanage to give the inmates some material assistance and spend some time with them.

Next, if you happened to be a follower of the other religion, AGGRESSION, you may start the day with a ritualistic rumpus with your family members. Surely, you wouldn’t need to look far for minor provocations – messy bedrooms, unsmiling siblings, glum spouses, complaining parents and other routine vexations can make you start a quarrel. You may call a colleague who happened to be a little too annoying the previous day and challenge him to be nasty again if he dares. Or, you may prefer some outdoor rituals of a lighthearted nature – teasing your dog, pelting a stone at a bird, upsetting a line of ants, etc. A more elaborate ritual like harassing your neighbour in some way can wait till the weekend. For example, you would experience a somewhat elevated level of “religious bliss” by throwing some garbage over his wall.

Surely, the two religions would have their own extremists – those who are extremely devoted. The fanatics of AGGRESSION would pursue violence. They would form organizations to inflict pain on all sorts of people in society. They would engage in vandalism and burglary, terrorize people, conscript children, torment those who follow the other religion (KINDNESS), etc. Advocating hostility, encouraging the proliferation of nuclear weapons and inventing new forms of lethal weapons, desensitizing children from their early years, etc., would occupy much of their time. They would be ardent supporters of all forms of ragging in universities and persuade their young followers to initiate it in schools and fervently believe that all these would help create a better world.

On the other hand, the fanatics of KINDNESS would engage in acts of unimaginable kindness. They would form local and international organizations for eschewing all evil and destructive activities – war, nuclear proliferation, drug trafficking, unethical trade or all forms of violence. They would perhaps go so far as to promote veganism to put an end to the suffering of millions of animals.

What may be the consequences? The extremists of the two religions would affect the world in two completely different ways. Any person with average intelligence will see which group of the two religions will promote human happiness and welfare. The extremists of AGGRESSION would make the planet a virtual hell in no time. Conversely, their counterparts of KINDNESS would make your life and those of others around you incredibly pleasant – the crazier they get, the safer the world will be!

Now, let’s come back to our world – the multi-religious world where all major religions, as we are made to understand, are modelled on KINDNESS and are directly opposed to AGGRESSION. Surely such a world should ideally be nothing short of a paradise where extremists of all the religions would be angelic. It would be the cherished dream of all parents to make their children extremists. In such a world, religious moderation would only be a blatant excuse for want of piety and moderates would never have to feel embarrassed trying to explain away extremist activities as they do at present. What’s amiss? How come that we are accustomed to scowl at extremism? One can only speculate.

There can be at least two reasons why we find a close association between extremism and violence in today’s world. Firstly, there is at least the remotest possibility of religions containing in them – perhaps accumulated over centuries due to various external influences – unwelcome elements that go against their central teachings. Scholars and researchers of religions may throw some light.

Secondly, it can be more the result of the method used than any possible adulteration of the content; namely, the result of the customary indoctrination of young children that pre-empts their analytical understanding of the substance, which should be the most sensible and preferable method. It makes sense as mere children cannot make sense of what is thrust down their throats. In fact, as we know, religions were originally taught to adults. For example, Buddha or Jesus didn’t choose to preach toddlers. Think of the two vendors Tapassu and Bhalluka or the five ascetics Kondanna, Bhaddiya, Vappa, Mahanama and Assaji. As for Simon Peter and Andrew or James and John, none of them were kids. Indoctrination seems to be the inevitable outcome of examination and discussion lapsing into unquestioning acceptance. Apparently, the indoctrination of kids is necessitated by the deep-rooted psychological need of communities to continue tradition.

It is quite probable that those numerous incompatible but “definitive” accounts of the “beginnings and ends” of the universe and life imposed on young kids by different religions, which can in no way be cognitively accessible to them that turn out to be the first seeds of intolerance among different religious groups. More pathetically, it is these forced notions on otherworldly issues that form the walls in their adulthood. As regards ethical conduct in ordinary life, rarely do grown-ups have disagreements, no matter whatever their religion is. As such, early indoctrination has all the marks of throwing the baby out – more worryingly, without the bathwater.

Christopher Hitchens, socio-political critic and thinker says, “If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in a quite different world.” Perhaps, it would be a world where extremism is a blessing rather than a curse.