Such a question will
inevitably promote discussion, debate and perhaps some outrage at the mere
suggestion. But, before I say my piece and invite your comments and
contributions, perhaps I should define the terms, so that we all know what we're
discussing:
Tradition is defined as
belief, custom, etc., passed along from generation to generation by non-written
means; those
beliefs, collectively; established and accepted practice or
custom; principles held and generally followed by a branch of the arts, adopted
from and handed down through experience and practice; doctrine regarded as possessing
divine authority with no written evidence; the spoken messages of Christ and
the apostles, passed on by word of mouth through generations; words and actions
of
Muhammad not incorporated in the
Qur'an but transmitted orally before being
recorded.
Custom is held to be
habitual or common practice; a usual way of behaving; usage, fashion or habit; established
usage which, because it has continued for a long time, has taken on the force
of a law or right.
The world is overrun with
examples of custom and tradition; many are religious in origin, others stem
from early ignorance of certain realities, yet others have developed as
responses to threats from outside the boundaries set by those groups practicing
them. We, mostly, take such things for granted and promote their continuance
without much thought for either their origins or their real social effects. So,
is any harm done by such continuation? Is it possible that some customs and
traditions are not good things?
Let's look at some of the
most popular and widespread.
Christmas is almost on us. This celebration of the
birth of a notable prophet, a figure responsible for the formation of one of
the world's great religions, is touted as a demonstration of love, generosity
and general goodwill to all men. Peace and harmony are tied into the very
meaning of this tradition. So, can it be seen in any way as other than a good
thing?
Well, the timing of the
ceremony, as most people are aware, is way off if it is an actual commemoration
of the prophet's birth, since it's believed he was actually born in the summer
months. So, the first aspect I question is the lack of honesty in the dating.
Of course, it's well known that the old Pagan ceremony that was traditionally
held at the mid-winter point long before Christianity came on the scene, was
hijacked by the church in order to allow the celebrants to more readily accept
the new religion. So, the timing of the celebration immediately takes on the
nature of a con-trick, something devised to make more palatable a set of
beliefs that were at variance with those of the people it was invented to
convert. Such trickery is hardly the way to promote a doctrine that purports to
have truth at its heart, I think.
In Islam, the position of
the woman is traditionally that of subordinate; traditionally, though not
according to the holy book of the faith. The Qur'an states quite clearly that
men and women are of equal value and worth. However, the later commentaries,
supposedly recorded as the words and actions of the prophet, Mohammed, are open
to interpretation that women are rightly considered subordinate to men. Such
downgrading of the gender would fit in well with the beliefs of a man brought
up in a brothel, of course. And they fit in well with the traditions of a
culture which has regarded women as goods and chattels since the beginning of
recorded history. One has only to look at the ethnic communities where Islam
first developed and note the custom of awarding their leaders numerous wives
and concubines to see that the male attitude to the position of women in such
societies was less than generous. The
Islamic belief that men who are martyred
in the cause (whatever that cause may be determined to be) will be rewarded by
an eternity in paradise served by anything up to 72 virgin maidens, indicates
that women are seen as the playthings and servants of men. No such reward
awaits those women who sacrifice themselves to the cause, however. And,
clearly, the fate of the 72 virgin maidens is hardly something to be relished. So,
I question the custom and tradition held so dear by the sects of this religion
in this regard.
The tradition of regarding
pork as unclean, elevated to quasi-legal status in certain communities, stems
from early observations that
pig meat can cause many illnesses. Of course, with
modern farming techniques and the knowledge that such meat must be well-cooked
to avoid the problems, the risk has been reduced to similar proportions as
those of eating any other meat. But it's noteworthy that the ban on eating pork
remains. It's been enshrined into the culture of those communities and is upheld
as something positive simply on the grounds that it is customary, traditional.
Another example of the religious authorities being unwilling to accept that the
basis for their laws might actually be questionable.
In certain parts of the
Middle East and Africa it's customary for young women to be circumcised. This,
of course, is a euphemism for brutal damage to the victims genitalia. The
custom, carried out without anaesthetic, involves the removal of the clitoris
and, frequently, the stitching together of the labia minor to prevent penetration.
This tradition, often continued and encouraged by the mothers of the victims,
is designed entirely to serve the men of the communities. The thought behind it
is that women will not 'stray' if there is little pleasure for them in the sex
act. The victim's stitched labia are cut open once the woman marries so that
her husband may penetrate her, regardless of any pain she may suffer. This
custom is defended by those within the community on the grounds that it is a
long held tradition. And, of course, it the combination of the status of
tradition with subliminal brain-washing that allows the mothers to continue to
perpetrate this violence on their daughters.
I could go on. There are
many examples of similar customs and traditions:
wife burning at the death of a
husband, the disfiguring of women who refuse a suitor's advances, the killing
of daughters who 'dishonour' a family by refusing to marry the chosen husband.
All, of course, with serious consequences for those affected. There are also lesser
customs and traditions that do more subtle harm. The custom of the
Abrahamic
religions in their elevation of commerce to the level of some sort of divinely
inspired activity, for example, has allowed business to proceed without any
real concern about its effects on those who are less well off. And the custom
of giving at Christmas, whilst producing some very real generosity of spirit as
well as actual charity, has caused many millions to put themselves into debt in
order to avoid being thought either mean or too poor to give as much as their
neighbours.
So, to return to my
question: is it possible that some customs and traditions are not good things? I
think you'll know my answer, but I'm interested to learn yours. Are you willing
to get involved in the discussion here? It's easy enough to make a comment
below.
