Can this liberating force function as an enslaving force adapted to historical conditions? Unfortunately, this is possible because this result is inevitable when religion becomes an instrument of domination, that is, hegemony.

All that a man wants to do is to get what he feels he needs as soon as possible, or to get rid of what deeply upsets him as soon as possible. In every question related to religion, the following two extremes should be kept in mind: what deep needs does religion satisfy in a person or what pains/sufferings does it save him from? What is the main motivation that pushes people to take action? Do you believe in your fears or do you get what you want? The question that needs to be asked about emancipation is in what circumstances or under what conditions religion emancipates people. Or, when asked in turn, what or who did the pious enslave? K. Marx and F. It is known that Nietzsche considered religion as a resource that forces people to adapt to the current social and economic conditions and maintain the dominance of the status quo. There is such an aspect of religion. But it is also true that religion also acts as a force to rebel against the existing social and economic conditions and put an end to the domination of the status quo. We know that the Prophet liberated the bodies and souls of people with this intervention of religion. Hertz. Jesus is freed from Judaism again, the same Israelites turned him into an instrument of slavery; Hertz. The most common example of religious salvation is that Muhammad saved people from polytheistic thoughts that destroyed their souls, and from social and economic conditions that enslaved their bodies. It is indisputable that these prophets, who were determined to put an end to their struggle, left the act of salvation to their followers as the greatest legacy. Is it possible that this emancipatory force can function as an enslaving force by adapting to historical conditions? Unfortunately, this is possible, because this result is inevitable when religion is transformed into a means of establishing dominance, that is, a hegemonic power.

Finally, as far as I’m concerned, he enslaves because he limits people’s rights, and if people want to do it, even if it’s for their own evil, he should do it, as far as I’m concerned. Instead of saying that it enslaves, it restricts.


(Visited 10 times, 1 visits today)