The Balance of the "Do" vs. "Do Not" Philosophies

For thousands of years, religion was primarily used as a set of codes that instructed people on what not to do.  Religion guided the lives of followers, by setting limits and boundaries, with the intention of keeping people from behaving immorally. For example, the Ten Commandments, a code of laws followed by Jews, Christians, and Muslims, are mostly made up of what not to do. Followers cannot murder, steal, or be jealous of a neighbor.   This is an example of a “do not” philosophy of religion.  For most of history, religion told followers what not to do, rather than what they should do. 

It was not until the late 1800’s and early 1900’s that individuals began to believe in a “do” philosophy of religion.   The new idea was revolutionary.  Rather than be subjected to a structure defined by limits, followers were encouraged to look to religion for guidance on the actions they should take in their lives. This new perspective was based on the idea that religious followers should live their lives abiding by their religions’ rules and by making changes in their world. These changes were to reflect their religious values and strengthen their religion. Every religious follower had the responsibility to promote and affirm their religion in their society. 

This perspective inspired a range of religious people to throw themselves into working for change in society. Mahatma Gandhi was one of them. He felt that it was his religious responsibility to reform the social and political systems in India.  He believed that as a follower of Hinduism, it was his purpose to help the less powerful and less represented people in his society.

However, not all believers of the “do” philosophy have taken such noble action. Violent jihadist groups like Al Qaeda also follow a “do” philosophy of religion. They too have decided that it is their religious responsibility to support less represented and less powerful groups, although they do so in a violent way. They carry out fatal terrorist attacks on “western cultures” because they believe that they must fight for their religion.  This is an example of a group of individuals who are influenced by this “do” philosophy to take radical action that they believe is for the better of their religion and for the world. 

This leaves the question, if the “do not” philosophy does not encourage social justice, but the “do” philosophy can lead to mass violence, what is the most advantageous philosophy for people to live their lives by? I believe that people need to live a life where these two philosophies are balanced.  It is important to have a moral code that restricts certain behavior including murder, but it is also important to have the motivation to make a positive change for the world and for one’s religion.