The Religious Sinner

Sex is sinful. However, some sexual acts are less sinful than others—or so it is said. The majority of our culture identifies as religious, so it is understandable that sex, to say the least, is deeply frowned upon. This disapproval comes in different levels, ranging from honor killing to reputational disgrace. The result is that we are and have been a virginal culture. More modern outlooks on religion, apply religious principles more loosely; for some, it is because they do not identify with some or even most aspects of religion, and for others it’s a matter of reform. 20

The “modern view” has created a new wave of Islamic culture that suggests that some sins are more sinful than others. As a result, a hierarchy of who is a better runner up contestant in the show of “who gets to go to heaven?” or what pop culture would identify as Halal-haram ratio memes has been created—whereby oral sex is more respectable than making love and weed is acceptable though illegal and alcohol is not permissible despite its legality and government regulation. It is rendered impermissible by the unholy god—public opinion. The judgment has been less about faith and more about observable habits. This is mainly why sexual acts, that do not involve intercourse, are more socially acceptable as they are more chaste. As a result, sexual behavior becomes dehumanized to a mere means of relieving frustration as opposed to making real undetached love because, realistically, how romantic can oral sex get? People tend to identify a religious person not on the basis of faith, but rather on observable and often superficial acts, which brings us to a question: considering that religion is a sociocultural institution that relies mainly on group spirit and collective behavior, at what point did faith become a matter of public opinion rather than spirituality?

In our society, I believe that religion is almost always synonymous with customs, even if their principles do not particularly correspond. I would argue that the intentions behind religious worship have shifted to satisfy society, rather than the true divine entity. And I wonder how has man taken a concept as great as spirituality and religion, and turn it into a criteria or a moral code of social judgement rather than ethics? Not only that but also the pressure to conform, regardless of belief, to what is publicly acceptable. We are more comfortable hiding behind a religious label even if it doesn’t necessarily accommodate our beliefs, than declaring ourselves non-believers mainly because theism in our society is synonymous with morality. Those who do not share the society’s beliefs are alienated and marginalized. Although the concept of religious freedom exists, there is still what John Stuart Mill called the “moral coercion of public opinion,” which creates pressure to hide behind religious labels.

This explains the refusal to let go of religious identification in our culture, but not the phenomenon itself in all cultures. The term atheist Jew, for example, is quite paradoxical yet very common in Western culture, which is often explained as taking the pragmatic aspect of religion that allows them to maintain their beliefs, as well as integrate with their family culture or heritage in our society. The common belief is that the existence or non-existence of god isn’t the point. The point is, the feelings of cosmic importance and social cohesion that religion has/does create. As for atheist Jews, they feel connected to the Jewish community but not to God and thereby choose to be atheists but refuse to let go of their identification as Jewish. In their culture, Jews aren’t pressured to be Jews, but why are they holding on to the title? The greatest possibility is that they are and were treated as a race. They also may have developed this as a mechanism of unity in opposition to their oppressors. But what about other cultures?

In China, for example, everyone is pressured to disbelieve, religion is considered nonsensical and their unholy god is the government that tracks their “cultural misdeeds” by monitoring online purchases, texts, or even social media posts, which affects the ease of governmental services. Not only are the Chinese people’s behaviors monitored through what can only be defined as gamified morality or an Orwellian nightmare, they also severely prosecute religious people. For example, in the Chinese region of Xinjiang, mostly populated by Muslims, children have been forced to go to boarding schools, where they are not allowed to contact their parents as a way to cut off their religious roots. Several other adults have been reported to be forcefully admitted into concentration camps, for “rehabilitation purposes” or “vocational training,” whereby they’re forbidden from religious worship and treated like prisoners. Thus, 67% of the Chinese population identifies as atheist. This illustrates that the pressure to believe in non-religion is just as apparent. The willingness of the people to let their liberty succumb to their social environment is more than one would think, considering that religious freedom is a globally recognized human right. Religious conformity isn’t necessarily always about history, ethnicity, or even morality, but it is definitely about acceptance, whether with a community like the Jews, within society like the Arabs, or the government like the Chinese. Which leads me to think: which god has more power over our lives: the merciful, divine and holy, or the judgmental, earthly and unholy?

There is an undeniable feeling of security that comes with social institutions such as religion, as it provides us with answers that we wouldn’t be able to get elsewhere, in addition to a feeling of purpose and cosmic importance. It gives people hope that someone “up there” cares for us, loves us, and looks out for us—much like the idea of a parent. It also is and has been a great source of social cohesion. However, this shouldn’t be the cause of blind religious conformity in fear of being the nail that sticks up and gets hammered down. Religion, first and foremost, fulfills the purpose of soul/spiritual satisfaction. It is not a contest of “Who does it better?” or “Who knows more?” It is merely a way by which one can make sense of his/her world and apply whichever philosophy they feel better suits their life. Belief can’t and shouldn’t be forced; therefore, faith should be a personal decision and not an act to be judged. Religion at its heart is of acceptance and tolerance, not a point by which people should judge each other, as this encourages fear not of the afterlife, not of the eyes of the deity, but of social perceptions of themselves. Let us all pray or hope for a world free of the pressure to conform.