Using the Word 'Religion' in the Daily Life

In the daily language it seems when we name something 'religious' then we really put additional information to it. But if we examine specific situations, then we will see that in most of the cases there is no much more information added, only this makes us stop asking further questions about the subject. By the label 'religious' we can put the labeled person or act in a category that is 'known' and does not require further inquire. It can give same directions, but will not give any specific answer.

For example, we meet somebody and we find out about him that he is a vegetarian. We ask the question why, and he answers is 'because of my religion', or to be more specific, he could says 'because I am a Buddhist'. Probably we will stop asking further, because it seems we got the answer to our question. But what did we really get to know? Do we really know why is that person vegetarian? Only because there is this common idea that 'some religious people don't eat meat because of their religion' it does not meant it really has concrete meaning. Actually it does not contains more information then the statement 'some people do not eat meat because they have some reasons not to eat'. Even if we focus only on the reason being a 'Buddhist' it does not tell us much about the reasons. Actually, to be a vegetarian is in not mandatory in every Buddhist traditions.

Monks in Sri Lanka, for example, can eat meat. And if somebody is really vegetarian, because of the teachings of the Buddha, it also can be from numerous reasons.

It can be that the whole family follows the commandments of the Buddha, and growing up in that environment, one who actually has no interest in it will be vegetarian to. If someone from childhood eats vegetarian food, it is not easy to digest meat, so it is probable that the person will be vegetarian for his whole life, even if he gets out of that environment.

Someone can be vegetarian because believes that the Buddha was a supreme being, and accepts any commandment because of trust, even if the meaning, the reason why to do it, is not clear.

An other person can became vegetarian because of studying the teachings and feels that there is a reason not to eat meat. For one person the reason can be an understanding that the animals are sentient beings too. They have feelings and thoughts, so treating them like mere food, or ignoring their suffering is unacceptable. Similar, but a slightly different idea, if someone thinks that not only

the situation is bad, by making them suffer, but the killing is a vile act too. From this reasons he or she wants to avoid to get involved with any action that connected to killing. Because the meat that people eat comes from slaughtering animals, the only way to not get involved in this to refuse eating meat.

But for an other person the reason can be to avoid collecting bad karma that would doom him or her to lower rebirth. In this case the concern is not the suffering of others but the suffering of oneself. The reason, 'being a Buddhist', is the same but the actual reason is quite different.

An other reason could be to do not make negative karmic relations with other beings. If a Buddhist have intentions to be a great teacher or bodhisattva in the future, he or she has to make good relationship with every sentient beings. This is important because every meeting with other beings will leave an impact and will come back in future lives. Since the meat is nothing else but the dead bodies of slaughtered animals, by eating them a very negative karmic relationship arises.

And surely there are many more reasons. The former mentioned five reasons are quite different in their nature. Sometimes the attitude toward the vegetarianism can be so different that the thinking of the two 'Buddhist' person is actually opposing each other. Like in the case when one worries about the suffering of the animal and the other worries about the suffering of the self because of karmic retribution. Although the former person probably loves, or at least cares about animals, the later even can hate and despise them. This two people's personalities, and their thought in this matter would be totally different, but if they answer our question of 'why are you vegetarian?' with 'because I believe in Buddhism' we will stop asking further. The understanding we get from labeling them 'Buddhist' or 'religious' does not really gets us closer to their real reasons.

It might appear though, that a 'religious' reason for vegetarianism is different from other, for example, health or hygienic reasons. Lets examine this in details, and give two descriptions of two different kinds of people. The first is vegetarian, because he believes that not eating meat is good for him. Avoiding eating meat reduces the chance to digest harmful or poisons materials, consequently he will be healthier. Being healthier will lead to less sickness therefore to less suffering in the future.

The second person is vegetarian, because he also believes that not eating meat is good for him.

Avoiding eating meat reduces the chance to collect bad karma, consequently he will have better chance for a better life, for a healthy life for example. Less bad karma will lead to less problems, less sickness therefore less suffering in the future.

Both of them are believing in something that makes them to follow certain rules regarding their eating habits, and they are expecting pretty much similar beneficial result. The second person is called 'religious' for his belief, the first one is not. This kind of situation becomes more complicated if a reason is 'religious' and hygienic or health reason in the same time. Like in the case of Muslims who don't eat pork because it prohibited in their 'religious' practice, it is against Allah's will and it is considered an 'unhygienic' animal. In this case it is not easy to say that it is merely a 'religious' commandment.

The situation is similar in the case of circumcision. The scientists usually agree on that the reason for circumcision in the ancient times was hygienic. But for the Jews it is the symbol of covenant with God. Stating any of these actions as 'religious', gives some kind of orientation only because the common use of the word in the daily life let us know what in what kind of situations we say 'religious' but it does not mean that there is an underlying principle behind them.

An other interesting example is the use of the concepts of religious war, religious fanaticism or religious terrorism. The recent years these kind of descriptions are very common, and make people think that calling some actions the result of religious terrorism has much more meaning than calling something simply terrorism. What is exactly the difference between a terrorist and a religious terrorist? What is the difference between a religious war and a simple war? In the modern day propaganda the word 'religious' added to the description of certain actions, especially accomplished by Muslims, makes the people believe that they understand the reason of it, therefor no need to looking for further reasons. In this case the alleged reason for 'religious Muslims' is that their religion, or the interpretation of their religion, is justifies for them the accomplishment of harmful deeds. In this sense the 'religious' gets a negative meaning and implies a kind of barbaric or uneducated mentality. It suggests that if these people were not religious then they would have acted in a different way. But these kind of descriptions are misleading, because they are not conveying any more information then other explanations, such as 'for some reason' or 'because he believed he is doing the right thing'.

If we examine the narratives of the propagandas 'war on terror', 'war for democracy' or the spreading of the idea of the free market, we can see that these narratives are not really different from the religious ones. Believing that people should follow some 'universal' laws as 'democracy' or 'free market' and forcing other countries to believe in it makes it a religious war too. According to a

narrative approach there is no difference between spreading Christianity or spreading democracy.