Fast Food for the Soul
When capitalism & globalization collided, time became money & success now depends on decreasing costs, increasing productivity and maximizing profit. In this day and age, who has the time to cook?
I did a quick calculation and I realized that I can't even afford my own services as a cook, especially when I compare to cheaper alternatives available in the marketplace. Anyway, why muck around with something that is not even my niche business? Micky Dees knows what people want and has found the most profitable way to provide these products and services. Plus, Ronald McDonald was astute enough to realize and demonstrate that people will come to appreciate consistency, even if the products are mediocre. I can still remember the complete relief I felt when we found a McDonalds after a long day of "being lost in translation" in Beijing. That was one yummy Big Mac.
To keep up with the changing spiritual needs of the world’s population, most major religions are gearing to give us fast food for the soul. Just like you can get a Happy Meal anywhere, you can go into a church, a mosque, a synagogue and expect to be given sustenance, condiments in nice little packets. If you are lucky, you might even get some extra something like the newest Disney figurine tucked in with your meal.
It is amazing but religious leaders have uncanny knowledge of branding. McDonalds creates brand royalty by putting effort into packaging and advertising, so that its products are attractive & easily distinguishable. Even though there is a subtle difference in taste, Coke is the Real Thing and Pepsi is the Taste of the New Generation. Not the same thing at all . . .
Similarly, modern religions like to highlight their distinctness so that they can stand out against the competition. In the global marketplace of spirituality, every religion has to market it's selling point . . . only this product will give you a ticket into heaven. . . this patented formula will work wonders and grant you forgiveness for your sins. . .
It is difficult to imagine but it was not always like this. Most religions started out with ordinary people looking to connect with the divine. Before religions became standardized, religious groups were more like bands of people trying to follow a good example. Before the concept of copyright infringement, you could conceivably take someone else’s good idea and try it out for yourself. It is only in this context, this article describing the early interaction between Islam & Christianity (which seems so vastly different now) makes sense.
Are there times when you walk into a chain restaurant and want to ask for something you can't find on the menu? Can I get some hot sauce with my Happy Meal? And some religious tolerance on the side?
I did a quick calculation and I realized that I can't even afford my own services as a cook, especially when I compare to cheaper alternatives available in the marketplace. Anyway, why muck around with something that is not even my niche business? Micky Dees knows what people want and has found the most profitable way to provide these products and services. Plus, Ronald McDonald was astute enough to realize and demonstrate that people will come to appreciate consistency, even if the products are mediocre. I can still remember the complete relief I felt when we found a McDonalds after a long day of "being lost in translation" in Beijing. That was one yummy Big Mac.
To keep up with the changing spiritual needs of the world’s population, most major religions are gearing to give us fast food for the soul. Just like you can get a Happy Meal anywhere, you can go into a church, a mosque, a synagogue and expect to be given sustenance, condiments in nice little packets. If you are lucky, you might even get some extra something like the newest Disney figurine tucked in with your meal.
It is amazing but religious leaders have uncanny knowledge of branding. McDonalds creates brand royalty by putting effort into packaging and advertising, so that its products are attractive & easily distinguishable. Even though there is a subtle difference in taste, Coke is the Real Thing and Pepsi is the Taste of the New Generation. Not the same thing at all . . .
Similarly, modern religions like to highlight their distinctness so that they can stand out against the competition. In the global marketplace of spirituality, every religion has to market it's selling point . . . only this product will give you a ticket into heaven. . . this patented formula will work wonders and grant you forgiveness for your sins. . .
It is difficult to imagine but it was not always like this. Most religions started out with ordinary people looking to connect with the divine. Before religions became standardized, religious groups were more like bands of people trying to follow a good example. Before the concept of copyright infringement, you could conceivably take someone else’s good idea and try it out for yourself. It is only in this context, this article describing the early interaction between Islam & Christianity (which seems so vastly different now) makes sense.
Are there times when you walk into a chain restaurant and want to ask for something you can't find on the menu? Can I get some hot sauce with my Happy Meal? And some religious tolerance on the side?
9 Comments:
What's in a package? All valid observation.
Tasneem
I just went to see "Kingdom of Heaven" last night and it seemed eminently salient to your topic. Maybe it was a consequence of the desire to not offend members of either workd religion, but the movie portrays both Baliam (Orlando Bloom-- the man who defends Jerusalem from Saladin) and the first king and others on the Christian side as distinctly similar to Saladin in that all three men (and those of conscience around them) are committed to a kind of secular detente that, above all, treasures Jerusalem as a place of worship for all. I'm not sure how well the real historical figures stand up to that, but the guy in the mask was pretty wicked, so I hope that at least was real.
I am not sure if I can connect "Kingdom of Heaven" to this other than point out that Muslims and Christians have been interacting for centuries and they may have some things in common, like their desire to lord over Jerusalem.
I am a little bit curious about "Kingdom of Heaven", mostly because of Orlando Bloom (yes, he is cute). After playing sidekicks like "the Elf" and whimpy "Paris", I am curious if he is convincing as the main character . . .
What does religious tolerance mean? When I tolerate nonsense from someone, it still remains nonsense although being tolerant means I restrain from reacting negatively. Does religious tolerance mean something similar? Does it mean that a believer may believe that I am going to hell for not believing in Jesus/Muhammad or Bible/Qur'an no matter what else I do in life, but he/she will tolerate my existence (inspite of my potentially good deeds)?
When I referred to "religious tolerance", I meant "religious acceptance". Since religious convictions cannot be proved or disproved and most people tend to follow the religious affiliations of their parents (the power of childhood associations), we have no right to judge others or their beliefs.
Since we have to all live together in this life, let's leave the heaven/hell decision on someone better qualified. . .
This post has been removed by the author.
I know what you meant... :) I was just picking on the use of the term "religious tolerance". I guess a better term would be "religious harmony", or like you said- "religious acceptence".
BTW, nice article. People do not have time to go through the teachings and context of those teachings of a particular religion. They tend to go for the "fast food" version. No wonder, most people (including me) have a very convenient view of any religion... some focus on the positive, some on the negative, some on both, but in a limited manner.
Which brings me to the question: If it takes so much time and effort to understand a religion in its entirity, do we need organized religion? Do we need to be dogmatic about whatever little we know of it? Do we lack the intellect and energy to find our own path and our own rationale in life? Is the rationale of those who started these religions valid today, and for you and me?
One rationale to follow a particular religion, even if superficially, is the comfort of belonging to the masses. For this reason, people sacrifice some freedom of action and thought. And, whereever there is a group, there is are more emphatic people- leaders. And leaders tend to polarize the groups. More importantly, many leaders (unlike what we would like to believe) are ego-maniacal and do not have their social responsibility towards the humanity as the guiding principle. As a person who realizes this, what is our social responsibility? It is to try to be the leader (scale of leadership/sphere of influence doesn't matter) that will counter the force of the misguiding leaders. Be someone who instills people's faith in their own intellect and judgement, rather than on some arbitrary external sources whose context has been lost in space and time, or never was humanitarian (let alone foolproof) to begin with.
Another reason is that, even if humanitarian by nature, many leaders have a very bleak view of the intellect of the masses, just like some parents and teachers. They have the option of either dictating good teachings, or nuture the environment where people can think on their own (with some minimum direction). I do not see that happening in most cases as most leaders do not take dissents and disagreements very kindly. Again, it goes back to the point of ego.
Coming to your point about repeatablity... for example, Gandhi (another ego-maniacal) and some others said that all religions are the same at their core, which, I am not sure is true. I think that people just like to believe it since it is a comforting feeling... like the overbearing and comforting taste of mayo in a sandwich :)
Which brings me to the question:
It looks like you have more questions than I can answer . . .
The main problem I have with religious "fastfood" is the limited menu. On closer study, most of the established religions have long tradition of religious thought and generally have more to offer.
As for most religions being the same . . . I think that is a hard case to prove. However, I think most religions are trying to answer similar questions but their approach and conclusion might be different. Not suprisingly, Judeo-Christian religions have alot of similarities both in theory and practice.
I also happen to find the mayo in the McChicken guiltily comforting.
This is the new fast-food version of Islam being propagated in pockets of Kerala and Tamilnadu. Disturbing indeed.
Post a Comment
<< Home