What is religion for?

The worse a man lives or the more destitute he is, the more he dreams of reward in paradise...

Historically, our world has developed with religions as its compass in many ways. The idea of a god has always contributed to the establishment of conduct parameters in the construction of definitions between ethics and morals. Socially speaking, it is a precept that points to practices of tolerance and compassion for others, and this scenario provides a society united for the collective good. A concept that we all want to happen, but in practice we see that it is not quite like that.

The western side of the world was expanded with a strong influence of the Judeo-Christian culture, the idea of a powerful god, which enhances the etymological meaning of the word of Latin origin.

The word "Religion" comes from the Latin "Religare" which means "to reconnect, to tie, to bind well". A poetic expression that links the imperfect being (human) to the perfect being (God). There is also a word – also Latin – that carries a less popular meaning: “Relegere” which means “reread, revisit, take up what was dropped”. However, the first is the most used in our times.

In writing “Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right”, Karl Marx said:

---

“Religion is the hiccup of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, the spirit of a spiritless situation. It's the opium of the people”. (MARX, 1843).

---

Contextualizing this phrase, Marx probably did not relate religion to the substance extracted from the oriental poppy, called opium – a natural drug. But, he compared it with the effect caused on those who have their lives based on religion and its doctrines. For the German philosopher, religion is for the people a palliative to their problems, a conscious numbness, a distraction to the faithful who look for miracles with illusions that only expose their reality of mental poverty.

Fyodor Dostoevsky (Russian and contemporary of Karl Marx), in “The Demons” wrote the following about religion:

---

“The worse a man lives or the more destitute or poorer an entire people is, the more obstinately he dreams of reward in paradise”. (DOSTOIÉVSKI, 1872).

---

Here we have two important characters from the 19th century. First, Karl Marx, an atheist who, at the beginning of his career, questioned the religious outlook of his time. I also mentioned Fyodor Dostoyevsky, an orthodox Christian who spared no boldness in creating his characters to show the effects caused to those who anesthetizedly follow a religious institution.

Note that their perceptions, even three centuries ago, still serve to lead us to reflections that can unravel our eyes on the interests of those who try to keep people under their rule, in the name of God.

Religion, when it uses its authority to answer the voices that echo despair through the streets of cities, shows its social value, because spirituality is made in the reception and physical, mental and spiritual supplies. We can see this magnificent side that some institutions preserve and that bring benefits to society.

However, from the moment that churches are built to function as a control mechanism for people who seek comfort, religion only serves to alienate the poor in spirit and the desperate on the verge of suicide. There, political interests become more important than the principles that originated all religions: The reconnection with God (or gods).

The topic is controversial and always will be, as it directly affects those in the religious circle that I was once in.

I can say that when “love of neighbor” is not conceived (and not even practiced) it is because the essence of “Relegere” has already “gone to hell”. Leaders who dress like saints and speak like demigods, but prioritize the interests of their religious companies, cannot lead a life of social or spiritual example. They fail to understand that benevolence is the presupposition of the love of God. That is, there is no way to love God if – first – we do not take care of each other with love and affection.

Religion is necessary, socially speaking, but to use it as a means of control is to drug the faithful with the worst of drugs.

Anderson Cruz.

Writer, therapist and graduate student in philosophy.