A couple of years ago I came to the personal conclusion that human rights such as the rights to privacy are fundamental for an individual to thrive. But at the same time, in order for a state to function smoothly and perform its highest function of making citizens, some encroachments of privacy must be allowed.
However, there may be exceptions to the states need for encroachment, where in the act of making citizens, due to limitations of resources or errors in decision making by authorities, harm may fall on the societies the state is bound to protect through the unconcensual breach of privacy it may conduct on individuals. In such situations, it is the moral responsibility of the individuals in question to do what they can to improve their personal privacy.
Having come to the personal conclusion that it is far too easy to violate and abuse individual privacy in a country like Sri Lanka, and due to my personal academic interests, it would be irresponsible of me to take actions that are available for me to improve my online privacy (as online privacy is an important facet of individual privacy for me). To this end I have decided to use a VPN and improve on the security of my home tech stack.
The idea (until a better solution is found) is to make the VPN and any possible back doors built into the key software be the weak link, trusting anyone who might have access to my content would be responsible with it (e.g. 13 eyes). As the intention is to prevent abuse of my personal privacy to harm me and not allow the possibility of my personal content to unconsensually and indirectly harm others.
WARNING!!! This post may contain opinions or ideas that could be perceived as offensive to some individuals. The intention is not to cause harm or discomfort. If you feel that you may be offended or uncomfortable with differing religious opinions, I kindly advise you to refrain from reading further.
I am of the opinion that every mature individual should make up their own minds on important social issues and express them so that if anyone cares to know about them they can. But there may be some social issues where sharing your opinion may add noise to a topic that may have been discussed at length. However, if you are unfortunate enough to find yourself in a situation where you have no other alternative but to share your opinion as a definitive source, then sharing it in a kind manner can be helpful.
1. I’m of opinion that religions are created but they are necessary
I have personally come to the conclusion that reality needs creation to explain itself. But religions like Christianity and Buddhism are human constructs that were required to explain certain phenomena in a way that secured the moral requirements of the times they were thought of. Plato may have shared the same sentiment as in the Republic, it is claimed that religions are required to give the moral requirements of a community divine authority. If Plato and Aristotle had heard of the jews exodus out of Egypt and the birth of the 10 commandments, I’m of the opinion that they would say the jewish race, and it's god needed those 10 commandments to thrive in those times.
I’m of the opinion that as different as religions like Buddhism and Christianity may appear on the surface and the stark differences in their explanations of reality, the phenomena that are discussed operate under the same principles in one reality that accommodates them. It’s just that the moral requirement of the jews at the time of the 10 commandments was different from the moral requirement of the Buddha and his followers at the time the religion was thought of.
2. I’m of the opinion that Christianity was a great achievement in human history
I'm of the opinion that Christianity as we know it today was not birthed 2000 years ago but that it gradually evolved, and assimilated over the last 1000 years. As far as religions go, it has one of the lowest barriers of entry, which in my opinion is a good thing. But the growth of the practitioner depends greatly on their own comprehension of the texts, personal revelations, the maturity of the denomination and the leaders whom they belong to.
3. I’m of the opinion that fundamental versions of religions are obsolete
As much as the 10 commandments were needed to keep the jewish community functioning smoothly all those thousand years ago, they are obsolete now. I’m of the opinion that if we had access to those times, and we had investigated the moral requirements of those tribes we might have come up with similar laws and explanations . Then as the religion grew, for the same reasons Plato proposed the need for a governing class (The guardians), the justifications of such commandments and explanations of phenomena were needed to be kept away from the ruling class. This separation helped the religion and its followers to thrive.
Over the past 1000 years the society has radically changed in ways the religions can’t explain without altering the texts which can’t be done in our connected, digital world without drawing unwanted attention. So due to shortcomings of the religious community leaders, more and more of our youth lose hope in religion and fail to find alternatives elsewhere.
4. I'm of the opinion that discrimination and subjugation of people based on religion is wrong.
I have witnessed outdated religious laws being used to exclude individuals and groups. How such laws are used to subjugate and keep individuals captive by deeming them guilty and deserving of punishment (specially converts and the curious). Or justifying discrimination based on non membership. I am of the opinion that it is the religious fundamentalist who discriminate against others in such blatantly obvious ways, and that non fundamentalist religious practitioners, at least for the sake of financial motives, understand how to get along with non members of their religion and their own outcasts. As such they pay the way for a better future.
5. I’m of the opinion that some of us have a moral responsibility towards practitioners of fundamental versions of religions
I have personally known fundamentalist Buddhist in the past whose intentions were misguided and pushed nationalistic agendas in the gais of religious indignation. I don’t personally know any western christian fundamentalists, but through movies I’ve seen I can empathize with individuals who care for fundamentalist Christians who are not Christians in the general sense of the term. You can understand how some of these non-fundamentalists, especially those who are more humanistic and are educated, are looking out for the fundamentalist even when at times it seems they’re out to bite the hand that feeds.
I am of the opinion that if you find you are morally responsible for a religious fundamentalist, you still need to find a way to treat them with respect and dignity. Understand how much you are willing to compromise for that individual and understand your personal limits of compromise. You should not push your beliefs on the individual. It may genuinely be a case where the individual in question is not cognitively capable of changing their beliefs or be able to cope with the complexities or responsibilities of a different belief system. Or they may be socially or financially constrained. In such a situation most would agree an individual that follows the 10 commandments is still more favorable to an animal.
What if an individual tries pushing the 10 commandments on you? Claiming according to the first command he must object to your corrupt definition of God? What if he misunderstands your attempts to avoid discussing the matter with them out of your sense of moral responsibility? These are questions I myself have thought about at dept and if I have concluded the person who is asking me the question is not capable of handling the answer, then it would be immoral for me to answer it honestly and completely. If there was no other alternative, I would tell them of the Allegory of the cave[1]. The prisoners who see the shadows are right to a degree when they make conclusions about reality based on the shadows they see on the walls. The prisoner who breaks his chains and crawls out of the cave would see the objects that casted the shadows inside the cave. The conclusions he makes on reality based on these objects would be even closer to an objective reality than those made by the prisoners who are still chained inside. But this prisoner might understand that those truths other prisoners hold are a subset of his own truths and that they are constricted by the parameters of the cave. This realization should humble him to think that even his truths might be a subset of someone else’s truths. He would realize that the prisoner who is still inside the cave is not completely at fault for not understanding his truths.
I am of the opinion that if the worst comes to worse, you do your best to do justice by fundamentalist, cut ties (if this is an option) and move on yourself.
So in closing, At 37 years of age, I am not religious, I believe religions can be a force for good so I am tolerant of them when they are not used as an excuse for abuse or discriminate.
