Who Can Say Politics Isn't Interesting?

Reflections on the US Presidential Election

The whole world watches the US presidential election. Most of us watch it begrudgingly, feeling guilty but compelled to switch to CNN despite the war raging RIGHT NOW in Yemen, Syria and Iraq. It’s frustrating and addictive and entertaining.

So, what caught my eyes and ears? The promise and potential of Bernie Sanders; young, female voters turning away from Clinton and Ted Cruz’s uncanny ability to make everything sound insincere. If I was alarmed at Donald Trump’s statements, I mostly masked that horror with laughter and disbelief.  

I was buzzing with optimism the night before the results came out. I was anticipating the presidency of one of the most qualified people in American history, a woman to boot. I’m a maths student, so I think in probabilities and possibilities, and on Tuesday night, Donald Trump felt like neither.

‘T was not to be. How could I forget that in every multiple choice test I’d ever taken, my attempt to guess would always result in a confident tick against the wrong answer? But more importantly, how could Americans give ultimate power to someone who went against every democratic value that the USA takes immense pride in? The initial shock of the result gave way for some much-needed recognition of changes within American society.  

What is undeniable is that there are some serious divides in certain Western societies. There are people who relish in taking the extreme positions on both sides, but these people lack introspection, respect and basic listening skills. But there are several others, who are still in shock but willing to examine the issues for their true worth, in an objective manner.

I write to understand and come to terms with this unprecedented result. I write to exercise my right to express my opinion. I write to find some way to address the future without losing all perspective.

During his term, Obama promised Americans that he would improve their lives, but found himself gridlocked in a majority Republican Senate and House of Representatives with overwhelming partisan agendas. The US Federal system is designed to prevent the President from having too much control over the states, yet the people of the country always blame the President for a bad term. Obama’s internal legacy has impacted smaller groups of people, precisely because he was up against a Republican Congress, which would have prevented the passing of bills that would have made significant changes to the majority, not just the minority (I’m not talking in racial terms). However, Obama’s external legacy is much greater because the US President is allowed much more freedom in foreign policy, aspects which the average American doesn’t have the patience to appreciate [1]. When promises go unfulfilled, frustration mounts, patience thins. With high economic dissatisfaction plaguing the country, the candidate of the incumbent party begins the election season with a clear disadvantage.

Adding to the misunderstanding, is the wave of “anti-establishment”, “populism” and “post-Brexit” sentiments, which seemed to be spreading around the Western world. The far-right and the far-left act as centrifugal forces that push politics to the extremes, making it infinitely more difficult to focus on the moderate views of the random voter. The right and left wing of each party consists of definite voters, encouraging politicians to engage in rhetoric that pleases this cult-like base. Since the collapse of the economy in 2008, mistrust in politicians and the ruling party have risen to levels last seen during the Great Depression, before Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in 1932 [2]. The US is so vast that we don’t realise how divided it is. It’s very easy to breed prejudice in a bunch of people that are not exposed to social and political views that differ from their own thinking. When ‘post-truth’ is awarded ‘Word of The Year’ by Oxford Dictionaries, it is a pointed remark about the current global political structures, which have perhaps forced people to forgo calm rationale for something much more dangerous; rage, mistrust and a sense of entitlement.

Anti-establishment sentiments are arguably formed out of agitation and lack of rationality. Most voters wanted ‘change’ but don’t seem to appreciate that someone without any experience in public service or politics, is unlikely to improve the situation of the country. We may not like politics, or politicians for that matter, but we must confront the reality that it takes a great level of knowledge and skill to do the job that they do. It’s hard to foresee how Donald Trump can “drain the swamp” if he is embarrassingly outnumbered by Washington “insiders” on the Senate.

Our impatience and disinterest in political dialogue acts as a stepping stone for populist ideology, which has time and time and time again proved to cause more damage than it’s worth. I’m not claiming that populism undoubtedly spells our doom, but it’s very important to be frank about the motivations that make populism so popular, so that we can create an environment where the real concerns can be weeded out from the all the noisy rhetoric. We need more political engagement than a trip to the polling booth every four years. 

Every political system must have a scapegoat. The United States of America’s scapegoat is globalisation. It’s possibly the most irrefutable and simultaneously useless scapegoat to be used. The world has changed in certain fundamental ways, and reversing this kind of cross-border dependence is arguably foolish and detrimental to the country’s future. Globalisation was born in the wake of the Great Depression and two World Wars, to maintain peace between major political powers by integrating economies and cultures. It has resulted in the longest duration of peace between major world powers, and improved economic standings of countries all over the world. Protectionism is a fantastically misguided sentiment, and the people that desire it are confusing undesirable economic changes with abrupt social changes within their society.

[3] A recent article in the New York Times attributed the decline of influence of The Democratic Party, on the “identity politics” that they indulge in. The opinion-based article talked about how “identity politics”, within America, essentially ignores the white working class and fails to unify Americans as one, and instead focuses on empowering differences. Funny how it becomes ‘identity politics’ when it doesn’t involve white people. Funny how the phrase ‘identity politics’ makes the issues of minority groups seem somehow un-American and exclusive. Concepts like ‘identity politics’, ‘political correctness’ and ‘multiculturalism’ are often attacked and blamed for issues that can be solved with responsible governance, education and integration. The undeniable wealth disparity, which is coming into sharp focus even in well-established economies, has resulted in waves of frustration. The brunt of the anger is felt by minorities, who are fighting the same economic and social challenges. Anti-immigration viewpoints are often misrepresented by the most politically charged voices, who use emotion and bombastic statements rather than facts to draw support. These speakers draw their energy from the dissatisfaction of ordinary citizens, and when we lose our willingness to think critically, we give them the power to exploit us, at no cost to their own powerful positions.  

There is no excuse for bigotry. Despite this, I acknowledge that there was a complex set of factors that culminated in an angry and resentful electorate casting protest votes against each other. Additionally, I request Americans to look inward at the forces that are thriving off the wounds that have been opened from this long and tiresome election.  I completely blame the media for all the free coverage Donald Trump received for unachievable and divisive rhetoric, which acted as a perfect smokescreen for the media to avoid discussing ACTUAL policies and did nothing but legitimise his words. Do we really need five panellists, across three arguments to tell the viewers that a ‘ban on Muslims’ is a human rights violation? The answer is no, we don’t. But the more the media discussed it, the more legitimacy they lent to the topic. So you see, when we see messages on social where people are discussing their fear for their safety, it’s because the media has publicised and normalised threats to someone’s human rights.

But the biggest thing lesson I’ve learnt by following the US Election, is a citizen’s responsibility towards the democratic system and election processes. Political engagement is vital in creating a society that listens to, respects and benefits the majority, but never at the cost of minorities. And it can’t just be limited to elections that caught someone’s eye. It must be a 24/7 commitment, understanding that building bridges is infinitely more useful than burning them and engaging with people with differing views, before we draw unfavourable conclusions about them.

It's time we take responsibility for the way our politics unfolds. The people we give power to, are after all, a reflection of who we are.

Bibliography

[1] http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/marchapril-2012/obamas-top-50-accomplishments/

[2] Deeply Divided: Racial Politics and Social Movements in Post-War America: Doug McAdam, Karina Kloos, Eric Martin, Chapter 1

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html

No Post-Brexit Agenda, I Promise

The Story of An Immigrant

We always think of achievement as a quantified or certified experience. We try our level best to measure every inch of an individual’s experience: the distance you swam, the height you jumped or the notes you faltered. When I was asked to talk about what I considered my greatest achievement, I sighed… and then sighed some more.

I had never been overly enthusiastic about the world of extra-curricular; for most of my formative years, my only after school activity had been to go home. So, when I was asked to present this topic-which-everyone-surely-has-something-to-talk-about-r, I spent a good portion of the preparation time regretting those afternoons where I waltzed right out of school, and directly into my cosy home. When I searched through my past school certificates I realised that I didn’t recognise any of them and barely remembered the events. I was mentally preparing to bullshit through some made-up, vaguely-believable story as the ultimate option.

But the penultimate option was to alter my very definition of “achievement”. I may not have a rectangular piece of sturdy paper with my name inked in bold calligraphic lettering to make it official, but my passport is plenty proof regarding my achievement of adapting to a new country: with a new landscape, a new weather pattern and a whole new set of people.

It all began when I was 11. Through the house walls, I heard whispers and conversation snippets of “job transfer” and “UK”. I ignored them. My parents had not approached me, so the matter obviously wasn’t legitimate. To be frank, I was having a grand old time with my friends at school, where every day I’d come back from school wanting to tell my mother about a new joke or funny situation I had witnessed. The stories never held my mother’s interest because I couldn’t explain them clearly in between fresh bouts of laughter.   

Ignorance may have been bliss at the time, but knowledge is always better in the long run. When my parents confirmed their plans to move to London I didn’t throw a tantrum, but instead, maintained a subtle air of denial about me. Presently, it was June and the flight in November felt ages and ages away, plenty of time to soak up the banter, the memories of which keep me warm and nostalgic to this day.  

I had the support of only one friend; the rest of my class was adamant about holding me responsible for my father’s company’s decision. Most of the time, however, it was forgotten issue. We carried on just as we always had, but now I remember that during that time I had laughed louder than before. I think the most bizarre part was getting to know and cherish people who I had not previously even glanced at throughout the school day. 

A small secret: moving abroad is not a glamourous affair. By the time we had started to pack, our home was devoid of anything that made it feel like a home. No TV, no furniture. As an unemotional child, my last school day lacked that finality, that definitive “goodbye” feel. When I read Life of Pi a few years later, the most valuable lesson I took from it, was about the necessity of proper closure; dull finality is a hundred times better than optimistic denial.   

I arrived in London bundled up in my warmest clothes (which, for November, was nowhere NEAR warm enough) with my mother at my side. With hearts in my eyes and a pair of metaphorical rose-tinted shades on, I looked at the semi-detached houses, imagined myself walking down eerily empty roads and through the post-Halloween/pre-Christmas lull.  

The most basic, yet difficult part of adapting is the level of culture absorption. At what point, did I become ‘British’ (in virtue, if not governmental paperwork)? Have I reached that point? Is there a point (pun intended)? Those questions are worth pondering, but teenage immigrants like me feel them on a different level altogether. The simple reason: We only want to stand out in all the right ways. This is not a cue for adults to scoff at teenagers, it’s a cue for them to understand the differences in our experiences. At the risk of making this sound like a researched essay, the sheer variety of migrants will invalidate much of what I say. I came from a privileged part of society in my native country and landed in a still privileged part of the host society. The scale of adjustment is minor compared to several others. Immigrant is such an umbrella term.  

All I know is that this is one journey that has no destination. That might sound obvious to some, pretentious to others and meaningless to many more. But, it’s been my bone-deep feeling throughout the 5 years (and counting) I’ve spent outside my ‘homeland’. The journey won’t end if/when I get citizenship, and I don’t think it’ll end when I’ve attained a great age either. It can’t be confined in such arbitrary milestones.

When I hear Theresa May dismiss the notion of a ‘global citizen’, I am truly stunned. I find it slightly boring that, one way or the other, the colour of my passport will matter more than the accumulation of my experiences and that it should be an instruction manual, rather than a limitless diary.

Yesterday, I lived in India. Today, I am a UK resident. Tomorrow, I hope it won't matter.  

Let's Clear Up Some Doubts

The Difference Between Sexual Liberation and Sexual Objectification

AGENCY.

This three-syllable word can help us understand the difference between sexual liberation and objectification, but it’s not that easy. This is a pretty nuanced matter so it requires some solid and backed-up-by-examples kind of explaining.

So let’s start with definitions. I like the Urban Dictionary version, which defines ‘sexual liberation’ as the ability to enjoy sexual activities without guilt or shame. I’ll go one step further and describe it as the idea that sex should be enjoyed on one’s own terms and knowing that your own desires are worth just as much as the opposite person’s. This term is generally applied to women, because the Sexual Liberation Movement focused on telling women that their sexual desires must be fulfilled, and that they shouldn’t be made to feel ashamed about pre-marital sex. The whole point of the movement is to make people realise that female orgasms do exist and should be a mandatory part of heterosexual… well, sex.

But let’s not forget the other members of the gender spectrum. The two-worded term applies to everyone with sexual desires (or lack thereof) reminding them that the only moral rule in sex is that it be consensual. Thus, sexual liberation serves to remind people that sex is empowering because it gives you the choice to partake or not.  

Onto sexual objectification then. It’s basically the idea that people can be viewed and used solely as instruments of sexual pleasure. It strips someone of their personhood, and presents them as a commodity to be used for sexual fulfilment. Going back to the theme of consent, I’d like to point out that it’s never one’s choice to be sexually objectified and that sexual objectification takes away the person’s power over themselves because they are viewed as a commodity. It’s rather tragic that whilst the Sexual Liberation Movement served to remind women of their sexual desires, sexual objectification ensured that women will simultaneously be reduced to their simply sexual desires. Or, to put it more accurately, women will be reduced to instruments for MEN’S sexual fulfilment. And if a woman is unable to fulfil a man’s sexual desires, well then, she’s not really a woman.

Of course, this mentality isn’t universal. It’s obviously not an absolute situation in society. It’s not even necessarily the biggest of global issues. But it’s just enough of an issue that sexual liberation and sexual objectification are discordantly portrayed in all of our films. It’s just enough of an issue that leaking nudes can be used a tool to obtain fame and feel shame. And it’s just enough of an issue that people are still questioning the difference between objectification and liberation.  

There were two situations in my life which I present as the times where, first, I questioned and, in the second instance,  understood the difference between liberation and objectification.

When comet scientist Dr Matt Taylor appeared on TV wearing a T-shirt with scantily dressed cartoon women, I had for the first time, albeit unknowingly, questioned the difference. I did not have a personal opinion on it, because I had not seen the shirt or his speech and had never even heard of him. I read heated debates on Tumblr, feminists arguing about sexism and everyone else defending the man’s freedom of choice and his scientific achievement.

Here’s the thing; you are allowed to look at the situation with both perspectives, but the fact remains that the shirt was indeed sexist. It presented the fictional female as sexy because she had conventionally attractive features and was dressed to accentuate it. She was presented through the ‘male gaze’ since the character was not portrayed as having any other personality trait apart from being attractive. It doesn’t matter that the designer of the shirt was female, because it doesn’t negate the fact that the shirt presented a female in a sexual manner, with no question of consent as it is a fictional character. The man’s scientific achievement does not excuse the fact that being on live television meant that his shirt was bound to receive criticism as it was at a public event. I’m not trying to persecute Dr Matt Taylor, he gracefully apologised for the act and I believe that it was not intentional to cause offence.

The second time I witnessed sexual objectification, I understood it quite thoroughly. On BBC Parliament a petition, against a dress-code that made high heels mandatory for women, was being presented. Most notably, the three young women on the first witness panel were each asked the question “Why do you think an employer would want you to wear high-heels?”. The British Airways hostess promptly replied with a concise “My employer would want me to wear high heels for the same reason as I would, but I find it inappropriate that they have the right to force me to wear it.”

Cases like these make it abundantly clear that sexual objectification and liberation can be so easily confused. A person wearing clothing of their choice is sexual liberation because they have the power to wear that piece of clothing on their own terms. It turns into objectification when the person wearing the piece of clothing doesn’t have the power to choose what they wear or isn’t allowed to feel comfortable with what they wear because they are bound to be judged negatively.

It’s one thing to disagree with neon hot pants because they’re an atrocious shade of fluorescent. But it’s unacceptable to disagree with neon hot pants because they’re hot pants and they seem “sexual”.

Even as I write this article, I find myself second guessing my statements. Am I reading into every little detail, the resonances of which are arguably insignificant? But the truth is, only by questioning ourselves can reach a true conclusion, and erase all the ingrained misconceptions fed to us by our surroundings.

The only way to reduce sexual objectification of people (women in particular) in media is by showing a diverse range of female characters, whose sex appeal doesn’t depend entirely on their figure or clothing, but rather on their personality, as is usually common for male characters. When we present diversity, we create an environment where a variety of tastes are accepted, and people of all classes, races, religions, heights, weights, professions, etc. are viewed as attractive. It’s highly unfair that movie villains undergo complex character development and are presented with complicated backstory whilst common characters such as The Mother or The Girlfriend remain one-dimensional and are side-lined.

To put power of someone’s personhood in someone else’s mind or hands only opens them up to a world where they can lose their sense of self. But, I guess this is the subconscious effort made by all of society, to distance one from the self. The Sexual Liberation vs. Sexual Objectification debate is one of the many ways in which this distancing manifests itself 

An Overrated Virtue

Ungrateful

As a teenager living in one of the richest and most influential (probably a bit less after #Brexit) first-world countries, I have watched several slideshows underlining the virtue called “gratefulness”. How I as a bratty, hormonal, complaining youngster should be eternally thankful for the food on my table, water in my tap and shelter over my head, because a jarring majority of the world’s population don’t have the privileges that I do. They want me to walk out of the school assembly hall feeling content about my life and marvel complacently at the sheer miracle that are my circumstances. Their means to achieve this goal are unvaried and, dare I say, boring.

Every time, I am subjected to people suffering through one of many seemingly endless problems of this world: starvation, war, inequality and other derivatives of the same. Each time, I feel nothing more than distaste at the perpetrators and pity towards the sufferers. I do not feel remotely grateful for the life that has been bestowed upon me. Maybe it’s because of the generic nature of those slideshows. Maybe it’s lack of specificity and a heaping of generalisations.

 Maybe it’s the fact that we are supposed to feel grateful though the misfortune of others. No, it definitely is that. I bet, that if everyone had the same basic rights and amenities that every human being deserves, the virtue of gratefulness would become obsolete. As John Green rightfully wrote “without pain we wouldn’t know joy”

It’s an interesting thought that perhaps the world was orchestrated to allow for an extreme range of circumstances to be unceasingly created, endured and escaped. That true equality, not the communist kind, would always vie for imbalance.

But I digress… It’s perhaps valid criticism that my ungratefulness stems from me taking my life for granted. In my defence, that would only be true if I weren’t making use of my privileges.

I unabashedly proclaim that I enjoy my privileges. I use the food on my table to explore the cuisines of other cultures; I compartmentalise the garbage to maximise recycling; I enter school with the honest intention of wanting an education; I invest in technology that will enable my voice to be heard and provide an outlet for my creativity. I do everything to enjoy life, while trying to be a successful, ambitious human being. These factors prove that I am making use of the amenities that I was born with, amenities which I deserve.

I guess I’ve answered a question of my own. I believe that I deserve the privileges that I get. I am not certain about how this world conducts the lottery of who is born to whom, at what time and place, but my limited and warped consciousness believes that I am deserving of what I have.

I won’t waste my opportunities; I want to be a person who enriches and improves the world by the work I do and the way I behave. I will be grateful for this life when I can bring change into the lives that don’t have what they deserve.

I am not grateful for what I have because I believe that everyone deserves the same privileges that I have. I do feel incredibly lucky for my relatively solid place in the Universe, but there’s good and bad luck so I guess I’ll never truly know for sure.

What I do know, is that it should be nothing special to drink water or have three meals a day or to feel safe in your home. Teaching a lesson about Being Grateful™ may seem like a good way to pass time before classes begin, but it sets a dangerous precedent. It could quite easily lead to people becoming complacent about their lives and constructing socio-economic bubbles, or worse… Walls.

Writing Excercise: Ironically, It's About Writer's Block

Dear diary,

It hadn’t been a good start of the day. In fact, that’s putting it very lightly. Horrible is the word I was looking for. But I haven’t been very good with words and ideas today… Thanks to… Writer’s block.

See, I believed I was quite proficient at what I did. Previously, writer’s block sounded like an Australian outback factoid, a myth: distant and far from believable. Now, and again, much like those factoids, I realise the unavoidable truth of it, its ghastly reality and its heightened importance in my life. It’s such a shame. I allowed my story to unfold the way it wanted to; the way that felt right. Somewhere along the line, watching this creation of mine come to life, I made a grave error in its nurturing.

This morning, as I typed out “Chapter Forty-Five”, the blankness of the page glowed with overwhelming intensity.  Thinking of it as a momentary lapse of my vision, I proceeded to type out my character’s thoughts in 14, Times New Roman. Spoiler alert: I couldn’t. The witty and enigmatic dialogue in my head appeared clumsy and half-hearted when typed by hand. Mildly embarrassed, I made to change the font.

It’s downright pretentious, isn’t it? The fact that a font can affect my state of creativity, but it does. Having had moments like this before, panic wasn’t even in my vast peripheral vision.

Thirty-four terrible attempts at editing the starting paragraph made me reach my damning diagnosis. I was down with writer’s block and the cure was not something that could be bought at a twenty-four hour pharmacy. Google presents fifty-three pages, filled with nonchalantly chosen links, that claim to help me rid of my writer’s block. Extravagantly hopeful words appear on three of the links I chose; the other three are about as positive as an electron. Human nature, however, is always more attentive to negativity, so my self-esteem is plummeting; but not with the euphoric feeling in the stomach of a bungee jumper. My plummet is more likely to end in the depths Tartarus.  

Let It Never Be Said That The First Post Was Timid.

Should We Believe In God?

“An intelligent man does not need the promise of heaven to see the merit in good deeds” ~Anonymous

This quote pretty much sums up my view on religion and/or God. You don’t need religion to know the difference between rights and wrong, you need empathy and knowledge.

We study religion through religious texts where we learn about different aspects of right and wrong, life and death and everything in between through various stories. Essentially like history books. History books teach us about a world that we know of; Religious text teaches us about a world beyond us.  

From the beginning of mankind’s existence, we have been curious about ourselves and the world around us. At first we didn’t understand much so anything beyond our grasp was believed to be controlled by other-worldly powers. We soon termed this power as ‘God’. This power did both good and bad things for us. As an example, the early Egyptians had a rain God called Tefnut. Rain obviously helped their crops for which they would thank Tefnut. But when the Nile would flood due to heavy rains the people would think they had done something wrong for which Tefnut had punished them.

Overtime, we became not only curious, but questioning as well. We also found answers. In today’s time, there’s hardly anything that we humans don’t know about, well except afterlife… and this is where religion has it strongest hold. It’s funny how we have managed to scan the near entirety of the galaxies, measure the deepest trenches on Earth and yet not know what lies beyond the grave.

This is where religion comes into play. All religious texts mention afterlife. All religions promise some sort of reward to the soul, whose life was led by the right morals, ideals and deeds. Each religion also specifies what these right and wrong ideals are. 

There are many things in our world that support and disprove the existence of God. All things that disprove the existence of God are things that we know of and understand: The Big Bang Theory and The Evolution Theory are two of the most important theories in relation to our existence. The former explains the creation of our solar system and the latter explains how humans came about. While these are only theories, they have been formed with extensive research and have a lot of evidence to support it, if not prove it. If proven, these theories will invalidate every religion’s creation story. They’re a pretty big deal.

All things that support the existence of God are things we do not understand of know enough of: Afterlife, religious texts, religious experience, NDE’s etc. For each of these things mentioned there are billions of questions and few answers. I will mention some of my favourite questions to better explain what I’m trying to say:

·         Is death the departing of the soul or the shutting down of bodily functions? Or both?

·         Is ‘meeting God’ a feeling that may have been induced by someone themselves?

·         Why do we pin everything we don’t understand on God?

·         Do non-believers think everything we don’t understand is wrong or imagined?

·         Why do people have different NDE experiences? Is it based on your religion?

·         Who wrote all the religious texts? Are they really the word of God?

But not all of believing in God is based on not understanding. The Cosmological Argument and William Paley’s ‘Pocket watch’ are two very good arguments for the existence of God. Like the other two mentioned, they are just theories, but have solid reasoning and certain logic to them. The Cosmological Argument uses the concept of cause and effect to explain the creation of this world and us in it. It states that everything has a cause as we keep questioning each effect we will ultimately reach the ‘First Cause’: God. The ‘pocket watch’ is a bit simpler and easier to relate to. William Paley, philosopher, makes the analogy of a pocket watch being like the universe, where every needs the other to work perfectly. Like the pocket watch, our world is intricate and so it must have a designer: this designer being ‘God’. These theories cannot be proved, but they haven’t been disproven either.

Aside from the fact that the existence of God is highly questionable, there comes the idea of belief and faith. Maybe the concept of God was introduced for there were no law-enforcers during that time and some people were just going out of hand. But God is not traditionally meant to be a law-enforcer who is feared. He has been described as omnibenevolent (all-loving). He promises consequences for wrong deeds but essentially loves every one of his creations. In fact, if you are truly remorseful, he will forgive you. People who don’t have much love in their lives might find hope and solace in this ‘fact’ about God.

Besides being loving, God is also omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-knowing). Both of these ensure that God knows what is wrong in the world and has the power to fix it. Many of us might find that the second part of this has not really happened. They say ‘God helps those who help themselves’, so maybe once we truly work for change it will happen. In any case, all these descriptions give believers hope and this is what they thrive for. In a world which is so broken, some of us decide to look up to a higher power from which they (supposedly) derive power and courage.

Religions can be a bit outdated (and dare I say… wrong?) : The Catholic rule of homosexuals being sinners; the Islamic rule of polygamy being legal; the Hindu rule that widows must shave off their hair after the husband dies. Overall, all religions teach us what is right and wrong. They don’t just state it, they explain through various fables and epic stories, so people truly understand what the message is.

To believe or not to believe, that is the question. Well, I can’t force anyone and no one can force me. Since God cannot entirely be proven/disproven so all we can do is believe/not believe. You can believe in God even when it’s been disproven.

Just a few pointers that go along with God and religion: Don’t make your religion your ultimate moral compass. It’s not moral if it doesn’t come from within. Educate yourself and make your decisions based on what you know. Religion/belief is a very private part of your personality; keep it that way. Don’t advertise it, and don’t criticise based on it. Don’t even force your family into it. Follow the quote at the very beginning of this writing. Listen to your conscience: the one that riddles you with guilt when you litter, or ups your self-esteem when you do something nice. God doesn’t have to be a scary otherworldly power; he can be the tiny voice in the clearing of your heart.

Look at it this way: without religion, we would have no fun weddings or festivals.