Thursday, 29 May 2014

Nigeria: is this the right time to go our respective ways



INTRODUCTION
            The part of the geographical area of West Africa that is today referred to as Nigeria came up as a result of the amalgamation of the formal residents of the place by their British colonial master, Lord Fredrick Lugard in 1914. This has an implication that before 1914 the geographical area and land mass presently referred to as Nigeria never existed; it was not in the map.
            The 1914 amalgamation was a colonial intention to unite the protectorates and peoples of this area to form a nation under a single government, although, sometimes after the amalgamation the protectorates, northern and southern were administered separately under different governments.
            The British colonial policies made the people to see themselves as strangers. Before the amalgamation, some form of civilization flourished in these areas and the peoples of this area before 1914 were not strangers to themselves; they related with each other as autonomous communities on the basis of trade, inter-marriages, war, land disputes, etc. the aim of the colonialist’s decision to amalgamate this people was to unify them and administer them as one under one government with a common goal. But the question here remains, “was the amalgamation of the two protectorates in 1914, in favour or to the advantage of a particular protectorate which would imply it is to the advantage of the other group?”
            The British by accident of history, under the influence of their colonial administrative power, amalgamated the people of the area presently known as Nigeria without the people’s concern and tagged them “Nigeria”. The name Nigeria as given by Flora Shaw who later became lady Lugard was influenced by the place’s geographical location across the river Niger basin, conquered by the royal Niger company.
            There is emphasis on the question of favoritism after the amalgamation. As it could be practically and clearly seen that all the policies and otherwise of the amalgamated people is to the advantage of the northerners. The British argument for favoring the north more than the rest of the groups cannot survive the test of logic and critical political analysis and scrutiny because even if they did it under the basis and consideration of population, one can still argue against them because the southern protectorate that was further divided into east and west are not of the same population to the north and so the answer to this question still remains on the negative. Just as a political philosopher would say, the individuals’ will are submitted to a sovereignty not to be on the advantage of a particular people but to the advantage of all but if otherwise is the case, then the purpose of the state is defeated.
            Who knows, if it’s the case that the British were trying to reward the north for their faithfulness to the British policy of the indirect rule and to punish the rest for their resistance to the policy. If this is the case, then there is a great need for Nigeria to deconstruct and reconstruct the British structure of Nigeria which they did configure to fail, consequently built on injustice and prejudices.
            The above serves as an introduction to the main concern and interest of this term paper, “would you agree with the view that there is no basis for Nigeria’s unity”. This is a question of “to be or not to be”. Before proceeding to the main concern of this term paper which was introduced in this paragraph, it would be of relevance if I make a conceptual clarification of terms as they are used and to be understood in this piece of work.
CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATION
            In this section of this paper, I intend to clarify conceptually the terms as they are used and to be understood in this work. The question: “would you agree with the view that there is no basis for Nigeria’s unity?” one needs to ask some fundamental questions that will throw more light to the understanding of the formal question. The questions could be: whose view is it that there is no basis for Nigeria’s unity? What do we mean by Nigeria, a part of the country or a holistic perspective of its geographical land mass? What do we mean by unity? These questions, if provided with an answer would be of help to the discuss of this term paper.
            When Nigeria is used in this paper it implies and connotes not a particular group or culture in the country but the whole of its people. It therefore implies that am taking a universal view of Nigeria and not a particular view of it. Unity: the concept of unity here implies the state of being in agreement and working together; bonded to form a single unit. This is a question begging for answer to know if there could still be a reason for the peoples amalgamated in 1914 by the British colonialist to still remain together as one or is there a need for separation.

MY PERSONAL VIEW OF THIS ISSUE IN QUESTION
            This question I would say is tetra headed because it can be looked at from different points of view but one needs to stick to a particular view point .This is not a question of a yes or a no because it requires a series of debate before one can come to a conclusion of a yes or a no. Nigeria, having been united, favoring a particular group calls for deconstruction and reconstruction of the British structure in order to still retain the unity as a nation, and to save the country from the great perils and dangers of partiality and injustice.
            Nigeria as its structure and default organization is today is a configuration of failure. One may be interested to know why I said so; for instance, the Nigerian coat of arm contains four capital values or virtues as the case may be. The virtues are unity and faith, peace and progress. Even when these four virtues are there, I still stand the ground with my feet to say that the virtues are incomplete without justice when it comes to the administration of a nation state. This is just an implication that because of our quest for unity, we are sacrificing justice with all our faith on the altar of peace all in the name of making progress. Let me pose this question, how do the leaders administer the nation to be united in faith for peace and progress without justice? Faith is necessary here because we need to believe in the strength of our diversity; there is unity in diversity but there cannot be peace if there is no justice and this implies that the possibility of progress is on the negative because we cannot progress without peace. It is our faith that with peace there is unity and united we make progress but there can’t be peace without justice.
            As a matter of fact, one cannot build something on nothing and expect it to stand. The structure of Nigeria today is sinking up in contradiction with what it is meant to be. Disregarding the power of God as the ultimate creator, I can say that the British did create Nigeria instead of God, and this was done on their own motives without recourse or reference to the peoples involved. Nigeria is an arbitrary creation of the British. Truly Nigeria was amalgamated in 1914 but was not integrated. Is it a case that staying together for close to 100 years implies there is unity? The answer to this question, for me is no because it is a pitiable thing that even at the eve of our centenary (1914-2014), Nigeria is still in search of Nigerians; it is still a question of to be or to depart.

THE SOCIAL, POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS PROBLEM OF NIGERIA
            I believe that it is a case that if problems, disputes and misunderstandings were not encountered on the long run, there would be no basis on which one would be posing the question “would you agree with the view that there is no basis for Nigeria’s unity?” these problems are mostly encountered in the social, political and religious endeavors or wings of our nation. These problems have triggered many questions begging for answers.
Social problems of Nigeria
            It is absurd to say that Nigeria is being marginalized by Nigerians. The social problem of this nation state called Nigeria is on the basis of who would gain more advantage, who would be given preference over the other. Instances of this could be seen at the educational sector of the country. Why should a northerner be given more chances and granted educational amnesty over a southerner even when the latter is better in academics. For example: two candidates applying for a course in the university, one from the north and the other from the south. After formal examination, the two got the same mark or the southerner got few marks above the northerner and the northerner is granted admission at the expense of the southerner. Now the argument for this is that the northerner is educationally disadvantaged, but the question is, was it a cause of the southerner? Why the northerner should be granted educational amnesty over and against the southerner even when the formal education system is the effort of a westerner, Obafemi Awolowo, coupled with the effort of Christian missionaries.
            The example above is one of the issues that call for the question of if there is still a basis on which the country should remain united; is there a need for separation? There are similar issues at the political backgrounds of the country.
Political problems of Nigeria
            In the political administration of Nigeria, the first and major problem is that the politicians practice politics without ethics. There is no morality or it is on the minimum in Nigerian politics. Acquisition of seats in offices is all about who rigs out who. It’s tearful and very shameful that the most freest and fairest election (June 12) in the country was annulled for no just reason. This is what I would prefer to call electoral and political tragedy; injustice in the strict sense and malpractice of the highest order. The qualified and those who merit different seats in administrative offices are rather not getting it because of the political idea and concept of ‘god-fathernism’ in the country.
            Now regarding to the upcoming 2015 presidential election, the northerners under the instrumentality of Boko Haram are threatening brimstone and fire, there would be bloodshed if Jonathan should contest for the election. Is it a case that Jonathan is not eligible for the seat or that he did not meet the requirements of candidacy for presidential election? On the contrary, the Niger delta people are also given their condition for peace and that is if and only if President Goodluck Jonathan must emerge the president in 2015 presidential election. These are people speaking as if they have the monopoly and franchise of violence. These are the kind of statements that cannot help in nation building. These are the things that would not let Nigeria work. Now where are we, which stand do we take when threat is coming from different dimensions of the country? Come to think of it, power has stayed in the north for 39 years out of the 53 years of Nigeria’s independence.
            In the distribution of resources, it seems the whole revenue generated from the resources are been taking to a particular part of the country. Nigeria is a country of 36 states; 19 of these states are in the north while the remaining part of the country shares 17 states. The country has 774 local governments with the north having 419 while the remaining two parts of the country, the east and the west shares 335. I can still go further to bring it to the fore that there are 136 seats in the country’s house of representatives; 68 of these seats were given to the north in the times past as a condition to still remain in and under the fold of Nigeria while the rest groups share 68 making it 34 seats for each group, the east and west. This is what I would simply like to refer to as the 68, 34, 34 equation of the Nigeria house of representative seats allocation. If this is the case on what basis will they not win if they make a proposal in the assembly? Their proposal would always pass as far as they all supports it.
            When it comes to distribution of resources and revenue/funds, it is been done based on land mass and population. There is deliberate falsification of results and facts in order to favour a particular place for example, Kano a state in the north of the country and Lagos a state in the west were said to have the same population density in the time past. A state, Jigawa was further created out of Kano and Lagos has always remained as it was. Even after the creation of a state out of Kano, it is still taken to be a fact that Lagos and Kano are still of the same population density, taking reference from the population result of the last census. Who is fooling who? This is a pure and deliberate falsification of fact in favour of the north. The British configured everything to the advantage of the north by granting them double of anything and everything the rest of the group gets and this has been the way things are since 1914 till date.
            This is a political injustice and an administrative malpractice: Why should the government mine the crude oil from the Niger delta and went ahead to build the largest refinery in the north, Kaduna?  Revenues are awarded to states based on land mass and population and it is crystal clear that almost half of the country’s land mass is attributed to be north and they are said to be the most populated under the basis of falsified facts of population census result, and for this reason they are given the higher revenue funds even when these revenues are not generated from resources mined from their territory. The northerners are being giving undue privileges. Sharia police in the north destroyed thousand bottles of bear in their territory and at the same time, they collect more of the revenues generated from the value added tax gotten from the sales and consumption of alcohol. These are the things that are not letting Nigeria work. Sokoto state once chose their acronym to be “born to rule” though this is altered at the intervention of other groups, but the mentality and philosophy behind the coinage is still intact.
Problem of federation
            Despite the fact that the people of Nigeria were amalgamated under a common political authority by the British in 1914, the north and the south developed unevenly. At independence, Nigeria was shot through the feelings of suspicion: northerners feared domination by the more advanced southerners, who in turn feared domination by the larger north. As at then, the three main political parties derived their strength from the region each one of the controlled. The federal system of government could not contain these fears of domination which were compounded by the absence of effective national political parties committed to national integration.[1]

Religious problems
            There is freedom of worship in the country in the sense that one is free to join a religion of his choice but some religions are imposing there practices upon others for example the Islamic religion, the Muslims who think they have the monopoly  of violence that in everything they would be threatening people with violence.
            A major problem here is that religions are interfering with the government. Money are been taken from the state bag to send people to holy lands like Israel and Mecca. As I know, religion is meant for the state and not the state for the religions. Religions now are carrying out their projects through the instrumentality of the state and all in the name of the state. A typical example of this is the merging of two missionary schools of different religions together, which may be as a result of one religion trying to suppress the other.
INTEROGATING THE BASIS FOR NIGERIA’S UNITY.
            There is a base for Nigeria’s unity and I equally agree with the view that there is a basis for Nigeria’s unity. This is just a matter of accepting and appreciating our different cultural and social difference as a result of our diversity. There is unity in diversity. For the fact that the country is made up of different cultures and peoples that are very diverse in their backgrounds and orientation, and for the very fact that the country has been mal-administered in the past, taken its root from the colonial masters, does not call for separation. This very problem that has its root from the colonial Nigeria must be brought to the present context and an answer and solution must be provided to the questions and problems respectively. We need to look beyond our differentials and cultural diversity in order to see the fundamental bond of unity within us.
            We should learn how to live together, focusing on how people from childhood can be taught how to discover people, and how education can instill in them the love for diversity, the need for tolerance and respect for the rights of others. Additionally, it will help us to achieve common projects and a team spirit as a nation. There is equally a need to reform the administrative system of the country. In reforming the administrative system of the country, it would require a comprehensive reform package that will include political restructuring of the country, economic independence of the states and a diversification of the country’s sources of generating revenue and funds for the economy.[2]
            It is not the case that Nigeria is not working because of the diversity she has. Nigeria is actually workable and there is equally a sense that one can talk about a Nigeria before 1914 and this is based on the premises of the robust inter-group relationship that flourished between the people that formed Nigeria before the colonial era, although they related with each other on the basis of autonomy. Nigeria’s existence is not predicated on any fundamental justice and this is what is making it not workable; but that is not to say it cannot work. There are things that differentiate us and there are equally things that unite us, so we need not to focus on the things that differentiate us but let us concentrate on the things we have in common, the things that unite us.
            There is a need to correct the fundamental defect of the British colonial and amalgamation policies which were rooted in injustice or our hope for a better future Nigeria will remain just a hope. Reforms need to be taken seriously or Nigeria would be heading to Golgotha for crucifixion. We must not live in denial of the fact and reality of history but there is urgent need to correct these defects and to do this, we need to come together and discuss the terms under which we could live together. We need to convoke a council and have a sincere and fair dialogue on how best to live together. This is not a conclusive issue, the country is at the verge of exploding and if nothing is done, we may not be able to reverse the time of disintegration.
WHAT WENT WRONG
            Amalgamation as a concept is needful in a situation of diversity where there are diverse people but should and must not be done under the premises of injustice and preference. The political history of colonialism and the circumstances of amalgamating Nigeria were not voluntary. The amalgamation was not done on the basis of equality or mutual respect of relationship. The formal people of the place called Nigeria was deprived of the opportunity to willingly come together and this is the ultimate problem resulting from the Berlin conference.


CONCLUSION
            To keep Nigeria united is a task that must be done. One may ask on what basis? Justice must be done and this is what is lacking.
            The differences in culture, religion, language and other aspects of life of the Nigerian peoples have made it difficult to form a country of one ideological orientation. This is just a matter of managing and utilizing our diversity. It is pitiable that even after staying together as one country, Nigeria, for close to 100 years, we are still referred to as the peoples of Nigeria.  One can still pose the question who is a Nigerian. Nigeria does not know yet who Nigerians are even as we are in our 50s as an independent developing country. I wonder if it is when the country reaches menopause that these issues would be addressed.
            The peoples of Nigeria in the pre-colonial era had nothing much in common; they were not united, by culture, religion or ideology and for this reason they became strange bed fellows when they were brought together by the British via the amalgamation of 1914. As a result and effect of the principle of divide and rule otherwise known as the indirect rule system, the people of Nigeria were not closely administered together and this brought about local particularism. Hence after the nation’s independence there was and still the difficulty of reconciling the peoples to be united in ideology and orientation as they are from different backgrounds, but this does not call for separation; a solution should be provided to the problem rather.







BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Paul O. Irikefe.  Why Nigeria is not working: the predicament and the promise. Kraft books limited, Sango Ibadan, Oyo state, Nigeria. 2013.
2. Sally Dyson (Ed).  The birth of Africa’s greatest country, volume2. From the pages of DRUM magazine.  Nigeria. Spectrum books limited, Ibadan.1998.
3. E. Ola. Abiola. 100 questions and answers on West African history. Omolayo standard press and bookshops co. (Nig) Ltd, Ikere road, Ado-Ekiti. 1972.
4. rev. Fr. Mark Eneojo Odah. Wandering in the wilderness, (A critical reflection on Nigeria @ 50. Kingsley’s 15 Monrovia street, New Heaven, Enugu. 2010.
4. Obafemi Awolowo. Thoughts on Nigerian constitution.  Ibadan, Oxford university press. 1966.
5. Michael Omo… Certificate history of Nigeria.



[1] Sally Dyson (Ed).  Nigeria the birth of Africa’s greatest country, volume 2. From the pages of DRUM magazine. spectrum books limited, Ibadan. 1998.
[2] Paul O. Irikefe.  Why Nigeria is not working: the predicament and the promise. Kraft  books limited, Sango Ibadan, Oyo state, Nigeria. 2013.

Tuesday, 27 May 2014

interplay between the society and religion in the context of the environment



INTRODUCTION

  Sociology is the study of the society; it is a scientific study of social facts Sociology according to Max Weber, is a science that attempts an explanatory understanding of social action so as to institute cause and effect relationship. According to Weber, human behaviour does not occur in a vacuum; it occurs within a particular social situation. Therefore there is the need to understand the motive behind such human behaviour or social action. He argues therefore that it is the responsibility of sociologists to understand and explain motives behind certain social action. Sociology etymologically is derived from a lexical conjunction of two words; Latin and Greek words. The Latin word ‘socius’, meaning society and the Greek word ‘logos’ meaning science or study. Sociology then means the scientific study of the society.

 Religion is any belief system that appropriates the existence of God; it is an institutionalized or personal system of belief and practices relating to the divine. It is a sacred engagement with that which is believed to be a spiritual reality. Religion is a worldwide phenomenon that has played a part in all human culture and so is a much broader, more complex category than the set of beliefs or practices found in any single religious tradition. The word religion etymologically is derived from the Latin noun religio, which denotes both earnest observance of ritual obligations and an inward spirit of reverence.[1]

 By defining religion as a sacred engagement with what is taken to be a spiritual reality, it is possible to consider the importance of religion in human life without making claims about what it really is or ought to be. Religion is not an object with a single, fixed meaning, or even a zone with clear boundaries. It is an aspect of human experience that may intersect, incorporate, or transcend other aspects of life and society.[2]

 Not all religions share the same set of beliefs, but in one form or another, religion is found in all known human societies. Throughout history, religion has continued to be a central part of societies and human experience, shaping how individuals react to the environments in which they live. Since religion is such an important part of societies around the world, sociologists are very interested in studying it.

 The concept of religion is based on an idea of reality which goes back to the beginnings of humankind and provides an explanation for the existence of itself as well as the world surrounding it. Since the beginning of history, the idea of religion has manifested itself in diverse forms, across human societies[3]. Religion is found in all known human societies, religion has continued to be a central part of societies and human experience, shaping how individuals react to the environments in which they live.

  Sociologists study religion as both a belief system and a social institution. As a belief system, religion shapes what people think and how they view the world. As a social institution, religion is a pattern of social action structured around the beliefs and practices that people develop to answer questions about the meaning of existence. As an institution, religion persists over time and has an organizational structure into which members are socialized[4]

Religion is a major social institution based on distinguishing the sacred from the profane. Religion is a matter of faith, not scientific evidence, which people express through various rituals. Sociology analyses the social consequences and correlates of religion, but no scientific research can make claims about the ultimate truth or falsity of any religious belief. This is basically left for sociologists to decide because religion as an institution is social in orientation and by nature. In other words, religion is a social institution.

 In the light of the above, sociology of religion is the study of the interplay between religion and the society. It is the study of religion and its impact in the society; it studies the role of religion in the society, how religion affects the society and how the society affects religion. Sociology of religion underscores the relationship between religion and the society. Sociology of religion is the study of how religion forms the basis of interactions taking place in society. It could also be defined as the study of how religion underlines social functions. It studies every aspects of society from the perspective of religion because all aspects of society have a religious dimension. Although religion is often seen as having metaphysical, spiritual, transcendental nature, it nevertheless has a social dimension. Religion is therefore a social phenomenon. There is a religious dimension to every social event. Different religious beliefs and practices emerge in different social and historical contexts because context frames the meaning of religious belief.

Religion is a major social institution based on distinguishing the sacred from the profane. Religion is a matter of faith, not scientific evidence, which people express through various rituals. Sociology analyses the social consequences and correlates of religion, but no scientific research can make claims about the ultimate truth or falsity of any religious belief. This is basically left for sociologists to decide because religion as an institution is social in orientation and by nature. In other words, religion is a social institution.
    
 The essence of the sociological approach is to view religion as a social phenomenon, on the same plane as kinship, economics and politics, and to interpret and explain religious beliefs and practices by relating them to other social phenomena and to the structure of society as a whole.[5]
    
       Sociology of religion is the study of the beliefs, practices and organizational forms of religion using the tools and methods of the discipline of sociology. This objective investigation may include the use of both quantitative methods (surveys, polls, demographic and census analysis) and qualitative approaches such as participant observation, interviewing, and analysis of archival, historical and documentary materials.[6]

 Sociology of religion is distinguished from the philosophy of religion in that it does not set out to assess the validity of religious beliefs. The process of comparing multiple conflicting dogmas may require what Peter L. Berger has described as inherent "methodological atheism".[7]

 The sociology of religion is concerned with the multiplicity of ways in which religion is part of human society and thus it focuses on its institutional, cultural, and individual expression across varying social, geographical, and historical contexts.[8] A common typology is to distinguish between substantive and functional methods to studying religion. The former is concerned with the symbolic contents or meanings contained within a religious worldview and the latter with religion’s purposes or functions in society.

 The directions taken by the sociology of religion reflect both the intellectual context in which the discipline of sociology itself emerged, as well as differences in the general contexts in which sociologists have studied religion. In studying religion from a sociological perspective, it is not important what one believes about religion. What is important is the ability to examine religion objectively in its social and cultural context.

THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN THE SOCIETY AND RELIGION

 Many people believe that religion occurs only in the church, temple, or other spiritual places of gathering. They see religion and society as complete, separate entities. While this view may appear correct on the surface, a closer look at religion and society reveals that the two are not separate at all, but intricately interconnected and codependent.[9] First one needs to know that there is a mutual relationship between religion and the society. The society influences religious activities and religion implements and imbibes societal values and norms.

  In reality, religion is inherent within many aspects of society, and religious beliefs inevitably affect areas such as politics, economics, and cultural values. This relationship between religion and society can be seen in Islamic religion and Muslim social culture, Christianity and economics, and Buddhism and politics. In each of these religions we can find insight for understanding the society in which it exists, as well as in the comparison of these religions and their relationships with society.

  In addition to influencing culture, religion can also have a profound effect on economic changes. In Christianity, the Catholic Church provides an example of a religion that has been institutionalized and become a powerful economic force. Early on, the Catholic Church in Rome had a great deal of wealth, which it used to assist other Christian communities during times of hardship. The Catholic Church became even more influential later on, around the time of the Reformation. After its excommunication with the Eastern Orthodox Church in the middle ages, it began to develop independently from the state.[10]

  Religions generally promote ethical, law-abiding behaviour in their adherents, it bring creative diversity. Religious adherents strive to obey the law and respect the authority of the state. Religion thereby fosters “moral self-government”.[11] Religion and its underlying beliefs have an extremely profound effect on the society in which it is established. The way a society, as a whole, treats certain situations, objects or institutions is directly related to the belief system associated with the religion followed in that area. How people treat the environment is correlated with their belief system, which deals with how a person relates to the world and everything else surrounding them. The way humans think of themselves, in relation to the world, stems from religious beliefs and if further explored, these ideas would be found to be the cause of their treatment of nature.

  The differences between religions would account for the different degrees of societal issues facing various parts of the world because of the distribution of religions. Organized religion has had an abundant amount of effects on society in the past and today. The first that came to my mind was nationalism. What I mean by nationalism is common factors that unite a nation. These factors include language, traditions, holidays, race, and religion.



THE EFFECTS OF SOCIETY ON RELIGION

        The society as a body or as a setup affects religion in so many ways. Religion is part and parcel of the society; religion cannot exist without the society, though the society can exist without religion. Within different religious sphere, one can easily spot the society. The societal setup makes it possible and conducive for the existence of different religion and their respective movements. For an example, if the society has not brought the different people of different families and background under an umbrella to be referred as a group, it would not have been easy if not impossible for religion to gather the people together. In other words, the society at the first instant of existence, brought different peoples together and unite them under elements of culture, norms and beliefs, thereby making it easier for religion to come and group the peoples according to their belief with the supreme being; Christians believe in God, Muslims believe in Allah, pagans believe in deities etc.

       The rules of the society with regards to the different norms and values of different cultures equally affects or plays a role in the way people believe or worship in religions. For an example, using our local communities as a point of reference, for the sake of security consciousness, it is made as a rule that people should not be outside their home after ten o’clock in the night. As a result of this societal rule, some religious practices which are normally supposed to be beyond ten o’clock would be shifted or scheduled in a way that it will not collide or go against the societal rule of restricting movements beyond ten o’clock.

      Still on the matter of societal effects on religion, it is clear and obvious that the society affects religion in so many ways. The societal culture and values equally affects people’s response to religious activities. For instance, in a society where men are not allowed to come in contact with women especially those that are not their wives, commonly practices in the northern part of our country Nigeria, it then requires that the religion that is prevalent in the societies over there in the north to make an arrangement in other to conduct services separately for the men and women so that the culture and value of that particular society will not be tampered with or disregarded.

      The society as an environment makes it possible for religion, religious activities to flourish in it. The society as already establish, gives room for other organizations, especially religious practices to be established. The society makes the atmosphere conducive for religious practices to be carried out; it creates an avenue for human relationship with others within the environment.

THE ASSETS AND THE EFFECTS OF RELIGION TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE

  The notion that religions might be influential enough to help shift whole societies in more environmentally benign and sustainable directions might seem fanciful. But, religions can bring considerable resources to such an effort; it creates a creative diversity. Providing people with a sense of meaning and purpose is arguably one of the most powerful but least appreciated assets of religion. A sense of purpose can unify entire societies around national goals. Ritual communication has a special place in the movement to create sustainable societies because it has long had the effect of protecting the natural environment. Cultural ecologist E. N. Anderson observed that among indigenous societies that have managed resources well for sustained periods, the credit often goes to “religious or ritual representation of resource management”. Beyond the capacity to provide meaning, religions carry moral capital in their ability to project moral authority. While not omnipotent in imposing their views, religious leader often have the ear of their congregations, and major leaders such as the Emir of Kano, Sultan of Sokoto, Archbishops, the Ecumenical Patriarch etc.[12]
 Noting the limitations of the moral authority of religious leaders on some issues should not be taken as an argument for its general irrelevance, as the effectiveness of religious authority on issues such as the death penalty or gay marriage attests. Consistent religious leadership, particularly when combined with broader factors that reinforce its direction, can move public opinion.

 Although religion has sometimes fueled revolution, it has often been a factor for social integration; it has secured social order by making the orders sacred. Sometimes religion serves to codify social identity, at other times it emerges as destructive practices for the individual, for population groups, and for society at large. Religious action is also shaped by its situational environment. An example is the Boko Haram sect of Nigeria: this group of so to say religious terrorists kidnapped a group of 276 girls in a Northern Government secondary school in Nigeria. This type of religion is also one of the largest and well-known causes for war and destruction. For one group of people to try and force everyone to believe the same ideas and reasoning as him or herself is preposterous! We are individuals and deserve the choice of what to believe in.

 Religion affects the society in different ways both on the negative and the positive aspect of life. Positively, religion increases the economy of a nation state. Making references to our country Nigeria, religion especially the Christian religion has always helped in enhancing the economy of states and the nation at large; especially during the festive periods like Christmas, Easter, New Year celebrations. During the festive periods, goods increases in the labour market and many people are out there willing to buy on a considerable rate, irrespective of the fact that there are inflation some times. The penetration of religious values into the economy significantly influences the course of economic development.

 Still on the positive aspect of religious effects on the society, religion influences many societal obligations like morality, sanity, royalty to leaders, payment of task, observance of rules and governmental laws, and to some extent religion enforces law and helps in the implementation of laws. A classic example is the work and influence of religion in the payment of task, in bill boards we can see religious leader, Bishops, Pastors etc. advocating for the payment of tasks. Religion plays many roles in social development. Religion has been used as a tool to maintain political dominance.

 One of the major effects of organized religion has had on society is it brings about a set of rules and patterns that people follow from day to day. Another effect of religion on society is that it brings a level of organization and unity in a large population where they bring about a common goal. Religion, however, is now becoming a more personal and interpretation of higher beliefs, rather than merely a set of guidelines brought about by its leaders. Many citizens believe on the government of the society because of the religious orientations they have.
     
                  Religion has several effects on society which include bring the idea or notion of dividing people between us and them. Religion has also encouraged people to believe in a divine intervention and has brought about the tool of suppression. It has further affected the society by causing people to have an attitude that reinforces the belief in a deity. Religion fosters interpersonal relationship because most religions denounces malice keeping, peace is always to be maintained.
     
        At both the societal and individual level, religion also has another considerable consequence.  Because it depends on a belief in the divine, it encourages a belief in divine intervention.  It is somehow thought that prayer to the divinity will change the course of events.  In that respect it is a substitute for action and decision.  Sometimes prayer can be used to gain personal fortitude to resist fear, which can be beneficial on occasions.  However, the use of prayer can also take the form of wishing ill to others, effectively acting as a curse.  It is thought that the divinity will vent anger on those who are judged to be oppressors or sinners.  This is a short step from believing that the cause justifies evil in the name of the divinity.[13] Religion can also be used as a tool of suppression.  It is easy to maintain order and nullify dissent by citing religious grounds.  It is often used to pour scorn on those who do not believe, so that when individuals question the right to govern, the right to interpret religion or the existence of the deity, indignant repugnance is generated in those who are in a position to impose censorship. Secular laws are believed to be made with religious principles underpinning them; it is easy for the judiciary to fall into the trap of condemning individuals to cruelty and inhumanity in the belief that it is ethical to do so.
    
            Religion has had positive and negative effects on society. The needy and poor get help in areas that are plagued by famine and poverty, where no else one would help. On the other hand, war and conflicts are waged in the name of religion. Many religions promote evangelism though activism and donation of time, money, food and other tangible items, in the form of missions.[14]
    
            Religion affects the society economically. The economy of those selling contraceptives and the medical professionals who carry out abortion has been deeply affected by religion in the sense that many religions denounce abortion of babies.

“The involvement of religion in the abortion debate during the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth centuries, while significant, do not appear to have been as great or as strident as more recently. Much of the oppositions to abortion by the Protestants were either primarily expressing concern about the immortal behaviour that produced an unmarried woman’s pregnancy, which in turn created an interest in abortion as a solution, or concerned with the high death rate among women receiving abortions. Among Roman Catholics it was not so much that abortion was wrong because it ended human life (that of the fetus) and could even be considered murder as one would hear today, but more than abortion was an artificial method of birth control and interfered with the true purpose of one’s sexuality and sexual activity, namely, procreation. Thus contraception of any kind, including abortion and even masturbation, was forbidden by the catholic church.”[15]

  Religion equally helps to curb fraud in our society today; it stops some activities like gambling. Gambling refers to wagering money or other belongings on chance activities or events with random or uncertain outcomes (Devereux 1979). By its very nature, gambling involves a voluntary, deliberate assumption of risk, often with a negative expectable value. Traditionally, heavy gamblers who sustained repeated losses and other adverse consequences were considered derelict, immoral, or criminal. For much of the twentieth century, the prevailing view of excessive gambling continued to define that behavior as morally and legally reprehensible.[16]
  
Religion has helped the society to overcome many social problems confronting the environment. The issue of ganging in the society is reducing or being reduced because of religious effects to the youth of the society through the religious doctrines of different denominations: gangs shows the images of young minority males, outfitted in hip hop clothing, hanging out on street corners in impoverished urban communities, and engaging in unlawful acts.[17]

 In the negative part of religious effect on the society, religion equally affects gender classification in the society in the sense that most religions do not take the female gender to cognizance. The woman is always made to be submissive to the man. For example, in Corinthians 11:7-9, it says “for man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. This issue has more or less negative impacts in the society, it brings gender inequalities. It can also lead to gender oppression. Gender oppression is defined as oppression associated with the gender norms, relations, and stratification of a given society. Modern norms of gender in western societies consist of the dichotomous, mutually exclusive categories of masculinity and femininity. Femininity is associated with a domestic sphere while masculinity is associated with a public sphere.

Religion promotes social inequalities. Religious ideals support both hierarchy and motivate people to seek greater equality. For example, in the Catholic Church under Christian religion is hierarchical in the sense that a priest is bound by motives to respect a Bishop because they are not equal according to the teachings and hierarchy of the Catholic Church. The Pope is at the top of the catholic hierarchy of ranks. This is equally evident in other Christian churches outside the Catholic Church like Pentecostal churches; a deacon would like to become a pastor because the hierarchy of pastors is more than that of deacons.

DIMENSIONS OF RELIGION IN THE SOCIETY

Churches, which are religious organizations well integrated into the society, fall into two categories: ecclesias and denominations. Sects, the result of religious divisions, are marked by suspicion of the larger society as well as charismatic leadership. Cults are religious organizations that embrace new and unconventional beliefs and practices.[18]
One dimension of secularism is the rise of what Robert Bellah (1975) calls civil religion, a quasi-religious loyalty binding individuals in a basically secular society. In other words, even if some traditional dimensions of religiosity are weakening, new religious qualities maybe found in such things as patriotism, membership in associations, good citizenship and even sporting meetings which can retain religious qualities.[19] An example of the latter point in the context of our immediate surrounding is the case where we see Pastors like E. A. Adeboye and T. B. Joshua praying for Nigerian super Eagles to win the nations cup and qualify for the 2014 Brazil World Cup.

Religion in the society embarks on charity apostolate, we can see the Holy See of Vatican City Rome, giving supports to refugees in many war torn countries like Libya. Liberia etc. Religions equally give arms and support the poor and less privileges of the society. Religious denominations are now involved in different dimensions of apostolates like opening schools, hospitals, microfinance banks, conference centers, children fun centers, tutorial centers etc. and thereby they are in one way or the other creating job opportunities for the jobless of the society.

Individuals according to Emile Durkheim, experiences the power of their society through religion. Religion promotes social cohesion and conformity by conferring meaning and purpose in life. Religious beliefs as Peter Berger explains are socially constructed as a means of responding to life’s uncertainties and disruptions. Religion is a paradigm for society in many ways.

CONCLUSION

The two bodies or setup that is the case study of this paper has been more or less proven to affect each other with regards to their activities and the ways the function. Religion has a considerable effect on the society and the society in turn equally affects religion in one way or the other. The effects of religion and society on each other in turn affect the immediate environment in which we live and in a way of extension, as an implication it affects the human persons living in particular environments.

I tried my best to cite examples from our immediate environment, how these effects of religion and society on each other does to the environment. First one needs to know that there is a mutual relationship between religion and the society. The society influences religious activities and religion implements and imbibes societal values and norms. Religion inculcates the value of indoctrination because of its quest to conform and orient peoples with regards to their worth and values.

Religion in the society enhances social order and discipline. Society in religion fosters good association in an interpersonal relationship between members of a particular religion because from the society, human persons are being thought or rather have learnt how to relate with each other exclusively and inclusively in a mutual relationship and otherwise. The society socializes religion as a social institution. Religion in return brings about or adds to the ethical values of the society and inculcates bearing, focus, enthusiasm, courage and motivation to the youths of the society. Love for religion extends to the society that habours it and love for the society extends to religion it habours. According to established structures, religious belief is a social fact that has an objective reality beyond the lives and perceptions of particular individuals.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.       John J. Macionis and Ken Plummer. Sociology: a global introduction. (third edition). Pearson Education Limited, 2005.
2.      George Ritzer (ed.) The Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology. Blackwell publishing Ltd. 2007.
3.      Ronald L. Johnstone. Religion in society, a sociology of religion. Sixth edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 1975
4.      Gardner, Gary T. Inspiring Progress: Religions’ Contributions to Sustainable Development. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. 2006.
5.      Paden, William E. "Religion." Microsoft® Encarta® 2009 [DVD]. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation, 2008.
6.      Berger, Peter L. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion (1967).
7.      Winnifred Fallers Sullivan, Paying the Words Extra:  Religious Discourse in the Supreme Court of the United States, (Cambridge:  1994)
8.      Nicole Comforto. Religion: A Study of Society. Grade 12 Annie Wright School Tacoma, Washington.


[1] Paden, William E. "Religion." Microsoft® Encarta® 2009 [DVD]. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation, 2008.
[2] ibid
[3] George Ritzer (ed). Blackwell encyclopedia of Sociology. Blackwell publishing Limited. 2007.
[4]http://sociology.about.com/od/i_index/g/institution/htm
[5]www.wordpress.com  Anthropology, Books, India, Sociology. July 11, 2008 at 9:42 am.
[7] Berger, Peter L. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion (1967).
[8] Ibid
[9] Nicole Comforto. Religion: A Study of Society. Grade 12 Annie Wright School Tacoma, Washington.
[10] ibid
[11] Winnifred Fallers Sullivan, Paying the Words Extra:  Religious Discourse in the Supreme Court of the United States, (Cambridge:  1994), at 163.
[12] Gardner, Gary T. Inspiring Progress: Religions’ Contributions to Sustainable Development. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. 2006.
[13] L D Howe Serco Assurance, Culham Science Centre, Abingdon Oxon, OX14 3ED, UK. 1999.
[14] http://www.studymode.com/essays/Effects-Of-Religion-On-Society-160822.html
[15] Ronald L. Johnstone. Religion in society, a sociology of religion. Sixth edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 1975. P 142.
[16] George Ritzer (ed.) The Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology. Lucia Schmidt. Gambling as a social problem. Encyclopedia of sociology. Blackwell publishing Ltd. 2007. P 1942
[17]George Ritzer (ed.) The Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology.  Rod K. Brunson. Gangs, delinquent. Encyclopedia of sociology. Blackwell publishing Ltd. 2007.  P 1950.
 [18] John J. Macionis and Ken Plummer. Sociology: a global introduction. (third edition). Pearson Education Limited, 2005. P509
[19] ibid P 507