S|kH
SPNer
As opposed to the other thread, here I will discuss why most "religions" will cease to exist or change enormously, rather than just the future of Sikhism.
I will first highlight "New Religious Trends" and then compare to Sikhism.
Source : "Many Peoples, Many Faiths" (Elwood)
Liberalism
A "liberal" approach to a religion may be defined as one that contends that its traditional formulae need not be interpreted literally or solely in terms of their interpretation in previous eras but rather must be understood in light of the best current standards of reasonable thought and scientific truth. Religious liberals are also characteristically concerned about social justice issues as much as those of personal experience or salvation, and they are inclined to take positions similar to those of political liberals - though of course exceptions do occur.
Religious liberalism is nothing new. Thinkers who have tried to put their religion in language that is harmonious with that of the leading philosophy and science of their day have no doubt existed as long as religion. But in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries the movement was especially forceful because of the unprecedented array of new scientific ideas, from evolution to psychoanalysis, that religion must deal with. It was also more forcefully concerned with social reform than in most periods in the past.
Yet today the picture of religious liberalism is unclear. Powerful liberalizing forces have been at work. Despite some opposition in high places, the Roman Catholic Church is far more liberal than before the Second Vatican Council. Major movements such as "feminist theology" and "liberation theology," liberal by our definition though they go beyond conventional liberalism, have made profound and probably irreversible changes in religious consciousness in Christianity, Judaism, and elsewhere. The push for liberalism is not the same as before, these groups are not pushing for minor changes. They are more likely, one way or another, to push for radical (that is, "striking-at-the-root") changes in theology or society than the thoughtful but often fairly comfortable way of conventional liberal.
--- Now to relate this to Sikhism. One can clearly see how conventional liberalism has ended for Sikhs, and liberalism has changed to attack directly at its root. Previously, liberal-Sikhs accomdated their beliefs into new scientific knowledge and other things of their era. Liberalism in Sikhism is now impacting whether or not the very essence of the 5 K's is neccessary. Whether the Khalsa is needed today or was only meant to be a thing of the past. The very root of Sikhism, the identity, the difference, the discipline is being ripped out. I am in no way claiming which is right or wrong, I am merely pointing out that this difference exists, and it is new to Sikhism, just like other religions. Which will come out on top? No one knows for sure.
Secularization
One of the big topics of discussion in contemporary sociology of religion is "secularization," that is, whether religion is losing force in society and, on a more subjective level, as a real power in the minds of people. Some say it is obvious that it is, pointing to the dramatic fall in recent decades in Church attendance and other religious participation in places like Western Europe and East Asia, and the fact that religion no longer has a near-monopoly it once had in the educational and artistic worlds. Skeptics of secularization point to the persistence of high levels of religious activity in other places, such as the United States and the Islamic world and say that religion may not really have been quite as powerful in the past as commonly supposed either.
Whichever side is right, plain secularism -- the replacement of religious ideals in the political arena with nonreligious humanistic ideals -- is yet another powerful option in the complicated current religious scene, which some contend leads to a lack of interest in religion. Secular values state -- what is important is what gives people a good life here and now as measured by worldly relationships and assets.
Another possibility is not that people will become entirely indifferent to religion, but that they will be so invidiualistic and private, or small-group oriented, in their religious life that large religious institutions as we now know them will have little social or political influence or even become obsolete. Some observers have detected trends in this direction.
---This is seen in every religion, as "Priests" label certian members as "excommunicated" no longer holds the same power as it once did.
Syncretism
Some have suggested that the world religion might become syncretic, that is, taking the best elements of each to form a new universal religion. To be sure, as the world becomes more of a global village, more and more exchanges of ideas and practices occur between faiths, as they have in the past.
---This could easily happen, but if it does...I'm certain the identity of the Khalsa/Sikhs will be thrown away.
Pluralism
A possibility for the religious future that seems to be emerging more and more is the acceptance of pluarlism--the coexistance and multiplication of different religions and cultures in the world and within most countries -- as a good in itself.
---This is what Guru Nanak preached. But, how long can the Sikhs overcome this? When your kids are growing up next kids who are atheists, or who do whatever they wish to do, with no regards to kesh, or morals? But, I do think...if pluralism comes out on top...Sikhism may have a slight chance to survive, even the identity. But, societal trends show this being the least popular "new religion".
And thats it, good read, hope you all read it
I will first highlight "New Religious Trends" and then compare to Sikhism.
Source : "Many Peoples, Many Faiths" (Elwood)
Liberalism
A "liberal" approach to a religion may be defined as one that contends that its traditional formulae need not be interpreted literally or solely in terms of their interpretation in previous eras but rather must be understood in light of the best current standards of reasonable thought and scientific truth. Religious liberals are also characteristically concerned about social justice issues as much as those of personal experience or salvation, and they are inclined to take positions similar to those of political liberals - though of course exceptions do occur.
Religious liberalism is nothing new. Thinkers who have tried to put their religion in language that is harmonious with that of the leading philosophy and science of their day have no doubt existed as long as religion. But in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries the movement was especially forceful because of the unprecedented array of new scientific ideas, from evolution to psychoanalysis, that religion must deal with. It was also more forcefully concerned with social reform than in most periods in the past.
Yet today the picture of religious liberalism is unclear. Powerful liberalizing forces have been at work. Despite some opposition in high places, the Roman Catholic Church is far more liberal than before the Second Vatican Council. Major movements such as "feminist theology" and "liberation theology," liberal by our definition though they go beyond conventional liberalism, have made profound and probably irreversible changes in religious consciousness in Christianity, Judaism, and elsewhere. The push for liberalism is not the same as before, these groups are not pushing for minor changes. They are more likely, one way or another, to push for radical (that is, "striking-at-the-root") changes in theology or society than the thoughtful but often fairly comfortable way of conventional liberal.
--- Now to relate this to Sikhism. One can clearly see how conventional liberalism has ended for Sikhs, and liberalism has changed to attack directly at its root. Previously, liberal-Sikhs accomdated their beliefs into new scientific knowledge and other things of their era. Liberalism in Sikhism is now impacting whether or not the very essence of the 5 K's is neccessary. Whether the Khalsa is needed today or was only meant to be a thing of the past. The very root of Sikhism, the identity, the difference, the discipline is being ripped out. I am in no way claiming which is right or wrong, I am merely pointing out that this difference exists, and it is new to Sikhism, just like other religions. Which will come out on top? No one knows for sure.
Secularization
One of the big topics of discussion in contemporary sociology of religion is "secularization," that is, whether religion is losing force in society and, on a more subjective level, as a real power in the minds of people. Some say it is obvious that it is, pointing to the dramatic fall in recent decades in Church attendance and other religious participation in places like Western Europe and East Asia, and the fact that religion no longer has a near-monopoly it once had in the educational and artistic worlds. Skeptics of secularization point to the persistence of high levels of religious activity in other places, such as the United States and the Islamic world and say that religion may not really have been quite as powerful in the past as commonly supposed either.
Whichever side is right, plain secularism -- the replacement of religious ideals in the political arena with nonreligious humanistic ideals -- is yet another powerful option in the complicated current religious scene, which some contend leads to a lack of interest in religion. Secular values state -- what is important is what gives people a good life here and now as measured by worldly relationships and assets.
Another possibility is not that people will become entirely indifferent to religion, but that they will be so invidiualistic and private, or small-group oriented, in their religious life that large religious institutions as we now know them will have little social or political influence or even become obsolete. Some observers have detected trends in this direction.
---This is seen in every religion, as "Priests" label certian members as "excommunicated" no longer holds the same power as it once did.
Syncretism
Some have suggested that the world religion might become syncretic, that is, taking the best elements of each to form a new universal religion. To be sure, as the world becomes more of a global village, more and more exchanges of ideas and practices occur between faiths, as they have in the past.
---This could easily happen, but if it does...I'm certain the identity of the Khalsa/Sikhs will be thrown away.
Pluralism
A possibility for the religious future that seems to be emerging more and more is the acceptance of pluarlism--the coexistance and multiplication of different religions and cultures in the world and within most countries -- as a good in itself.
---This is what Guru Nanak preached. But, how long can the Sikhs overcome this? When your kids are growing up next kids who are atheists, or who do whatever they wish to do, with no regards to kesh, or morals? But, I do think...if pluralism comes out on top...Sikhism may have a slight chance to survive, even the identity. But, societal trends show this being the least popular "new religion".
And thats it, good read, hope you all read it
