Towards Understanding the Relation
between Religions and Cultures in

Southeast Asia
Joseph I. Fernando

Abstract
In the face of modernity and its erosion of traditional values, we
need to preserve something of the wisdom of traditional culture.
The traditional cultures have taken thousands of years to evolve
and are necessary to preserve. They are the carriers of the accu-
mulated wisdom of the people since Antiquity. They give man a
sense of belonging, acceptance, and assurance. They enshrine the
values, which define meaning, guide, motivate, and lead people
to fulfillment. We find cultural traditions still alive in the rural
communities of Southeast Asia. It is to these communities that
we need to turn to guide us on our road to the future.

The Significance of Religion
Marx wrote in the Introduction to a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right:
“Religion is … the imaginary realization of human being, because human
being possesses no true reality; Thus the struggle against religion is indi-
rectly the struggle against that world whose aroma is religion … Religion is
the opium of the people. The real happiness of people requires the abolition
of religion, which is their illusory happiness.”1 Feuerbach argued in his The
Essence of Christianity that “the secret of theology is anthropology.”
Whatever man says about God is an expression in mystified terms of his
knowledge about himself. “God is the imaginative projection of man’s
species-essence, the totality of his powers and attributes raised to the level
of infinity … man’s knowledge of God is an attempt to perceive himself in
the mirror of exteriority; man exteriorizes his own essence before he recog-
nizes it in himself, and the opposition between God and man is a ‘mystified’
version of the opposition between the species-being and the individual …
Man asserts in God what he denies in himself.”2

Joseph I. Fernando is a lecturer in philosophy at Assumption University of Thailand. This
article originally appeared in Prajna Vihara: Journal of Philosophy and Religion 7, no. 2
(Jul.-Dec. 2006), which is published by the Graduate School of Philosophy and Religion,
Assumption University of Thailand.



132 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 24:4

Is religion really the opium of the people? The answer is both yes and
no. There is a distinction between religion in principle and religion in prac-
tice. Religion in practice can be exploitative. In fact, exploitation by religion
has been prevalent all over the world. One can think of the exploitative reli-
gious practices, for examples, in ancient India and Europe.

The materialists known as Lokayatikas or Charvakas in ancient India
held that only this world or loka is real. “The materialist theory had a good
deal to do with the repudiation of the old religion of custom and magic.”3
The common man was weighed down by the burden of rituals in India in the
sixth century BC. Orthodox Hinduism was excessively ritualistic. Many
could not afford the cost of the rituals. Without the rituals, it was almost
impossible to establish contact with the deity. Religion was in the hands of
the priests. Priesthood had become almost priest-craft: “The masses of men
were addicted to the ceremonies and observances prescribed by those who
lived on food provided by the faithful … The priest who pretended to be the
channel of divine power dominated the religion of the country … he pre-
tended to be in the confidence of the gods and addressed the needy: ‘Son,
make a sacrifice to God and a payment to me, and thy sins will be forgiven
thee.’ The system of salvation by silver could not answer to the deeper needs
of the human heart.”4

Gautama Buddha was aware of this: “The cruel rites with which wor-
ship was accompanied shocked the conscience of Buddha.”5 He searched for
a way to free people from the clutches of ritualism. His departure from
orthodox Hinduism was a protest against all that was not humane. He was
silent on God but emphatic on the practice of morality. His stand could be
said to be that it is not necessary to be vociferous about God but obligatory
to be good and do good. As the Christian Scripture says: “Not everybody
who says to me ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but the one
who does the will of my Father in Heaven.”6 Is it not the will of the Father
in Heaven that people must be good and do good?

Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud vehemently opposed religion. For Marx,
religion is part of the superstructure resting on the base of economics. In
feudalistic Europe, the serfs would listen to the sermons by priests who
exhorted them to obey their feudal masters. Their suffering on earth was
negligible compared to the eternal happiness they would have in heaven
after death. They were told: “You will get a pie in the sky after your die.”
But the serfs were in need of the pier “here and now.” No wonder he con-
sidered religion as the opium of the people. Nietzsche was disgusted with the
Christianity of his times and declared in his The Gay Science: “God is dead.



God remains dead. And we have killed him” (aphorism 125). For Freud, reli-
gious beliefs are considered infantile illusions.

Yet just because religion has been abused by certain so-called religious
people and others, it cannot merely be condemned as the opium of the peo-
ple. Religion has been a panacea for the ills of the soul. In a country like
India, from time immemorial there has been a longing to become one with
the Divine. Earthly life has been understood as prelude to eternity. This long-
ing expressed itself in simplicity, austerity, learning, meditation, and contem-
plation. This longing was manifest in philosophy, literature, music, painting,
sculpture, dance, architecture, and so on, the antiquity of which is unparal-
leled in human history. Although secular themes too found their expression
in human creation, the predominant theme was, of course, religious.

With the advent of Christianity, the barbaric tribes of Europe found them-
selves civilized and tamed. The barbarians were the Celts, Germans, Slavs,
and others – “the non-Italic and non-Greek peoples of Europe who inherited
the Greco-Roman civilization and formed most of the present-day European
nations. Like the Italic peoples, they were speakers of Indo-European
dialects.”7 Many were called to a life of holiness. Towering intellectuals like
St. Augustine, St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Bonaventure were
holy men. The founding of monastic orders by St. Benedict, St. Dominic, and
St. Francis of Assisi, the Gothic cathedrals and the cathedral schools that
eventually evolved into such great universities as Oxford, Cambridge, Padua,
and Salamanca; the works of artists like Michaelangelo and Leonardo da
Vinci; and literary creations and immortal musical compositions – these were
all inspired by religion. In the Islamic and Buddhist worlds, we also find
amazing creations that evolved from deep religiosity. 

Religion has been the bedrock of hope for millions of people down
through the centuries. It has been the source of purpose and fulfillment in
their lives. Religion has given them a reason to live and a meaning to their
death. It has enabled them to live, to give, to forgive, to serve, to suffer for
worthy causes, and to work for peace and unity. Without religion, the world
would be engulfed in spiritual darkness. For millions of people, human life
would be unthinkable without religion because they are guided by the pre-
cepts of their religions. The fact that people take their religions seriously
indicates that man is not only a rational, social, and political animal, but also
a religious animal. Scores of people have laid down their lives and are ready
to do so even today in defense of the values upheld by their religions. Reli-
gion has a tremendous hold on man. Man, as a mortal being, realizes that
death puts an end to his earthly existence. All his toil and moil will come to

Fernando: Towards Understanding the Relation between Religions and Cultures 133



a halt one day. As Heidegger puts it, man is a being-towards-death. His life
is fleeting, temporary, and finite. St. Thomas Aquinas demonstrates in him
Summa Theologica that man has only one end: God.8 His happiness consists
only in God, not in wealth, honors, fame, glory, power, bodily good, pleas-
ure, some good of the soul, and created good. Is it not, then, wise to seek the
ultimate reality, which is his final end and source of all happiness?
Interestingly, Asia is the cradle of religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism,
Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and so on. It is worth
investigating into the relation between religions and cultures, especially in
Southeast Asia.

The Southeast Asian Context
Plato aptly remarked that philosophy begins in wonder. Man is not only a
wonderful being but also a wondering being. He wonders about the things
around him, within him, and beyond him. This sense of wonder and the
curiosity to search for answers to perplexing questions have led him to phi-
losophy and religion. There have been several stages in the development of
the religious consciousness of man from animism to monotheism. There is
hardly any culture without religion. Religion has been a major force pro-
pelling great cultural accomplishments. The great epics of Ramayana and
Mahabharata, the Angkor Wat temple complex in Cambodia and the Boro-
bodur temple complex in Java are some examples of the impact of religion
on literature and architecture, respectively.

A. L. Basham writes in his The Wonder that was India: “The whole of
South-East Asia received most of its culture from India … Other cultural
influences, from China and the Islamic world, were felt in South-East Asia,
but the primary impetus to civilization came from India.”9 Traditionally, in
mainland Southeast Asia, Burma/Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, and
Vietnam have been Buddhist nations. Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei are
predominantly Islamic nations. The Philippines is the only predominantly
Christian nation in Asia. Singapore is truly a cosmopolitan city-state. The reli-
gions of Southeast Asia today are Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism,
and Sikhism. None of these religions were native to Southeast Asia. Indian
Buddhist missionaries and Hindu priests, merchants, and settlers introduced
Buddhism and Hinduism, respectively, in Southeast Asia from India. The
Sufi merchants and masters from India, Persia, and Arabia introduced Islam
into Southeast Asia.

The Filipinos became Catholics due to the colonization of the Philippines
by the Spaniards in the sixteenth century and some of them later became

134 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 24:4



Baptists due to the American presence in the country. Although these reli-
gions have contributed much to the cultures of Southeast Asia, the natives of
these lands had their own cultures prior to the advent of these religions. What
are the values and practices of these indigenous cultures? Were these cultures
enriched or hampered by the advent of the new religions? Have there been
conflicts between the native cultures and the adopted religions? How much
of the native culture is preserved? Has there been an enculturation of these
religions in Southeast Asia? If some of the native cultural practices were
abandoned in the wake of embracing a new religion, can we rediscover their
values and preserve them for posterity? This is an urgent task today, espe-
cially in the context of globalization, which allegedly threatens, to some
extent, the existence and continuity of our cultures.

The Filipinos converted by the Spaniards became more like Spanish
Christians, just as those converted by the Portuguese in Goa, India, became
like Portuguese Christians. Yet they have also developed their own Asian
Christianity identity that is distinct from their western roots. Likewise, to be
a Muslim in Indonesia or Malaysia is not to be exactly like a Muslim in
Saudi Arabia. A Muslim in Saudi Arabia is a product of Arabic culture with
its own history, ecology, and traditions. Indonesian and Malaysian cultures
existed long before the advent of Islam in these countries.

Has there been a symbiotic relationship between religions like Islam and
Christianity and the cultures of Southeast Asia? In this context, what comes
to mind are the pioneering efforts of the Italian Jesuits Matteo Ricci in China
and Robert de Nobili in India in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
respectively, with regard to the enculturation of Christianity. Ricci and de
Nobili attempted to present Christianity not as a western religion with west-
ern trappings, but as a universal faith of salvation to people everywhere.
They believed that the Christian faith must incarnate itself in the native cul-
tures of the people. Ricci and de Nobili were not mere missionaries; rather,
they were visionaries of enculturation. Nearly 400 years later, the Catholic
Church for the first time spoke about the need for enculturation and the inter-
relationship between the Gospel and culture in the Vatican II documents.10 In
the light of this paradigm of enculturation, what is the impact of religions
like Christianity and Islam on Southeast Asian cultures?

Significantly, when a native culture encounters a non-native religion,
there may be a mutual impact. For example, Christianity had its impact on
Indian culture. The Christian presence in India influenced the abolition of sati
(burning the widow on her husband’s pyre), of child marriage, and of the
devadasi system (temple prostitution). The Christian missionaries threw open

Fernando: Towards Understanding the Relation between Religions and Cultures 135



their schools to all children in a country where some sections of society were
traditionally denied education. The Sermon on the Mount profoundly influ-
enced Gandhi in his advocacy of non-violence. Hinduism has had its impact
on Christianity. The Christians learnt from the Hindus to appreciate religious
tolerance. The Hindu belief in the divine presence in natural phenomena – the
trees, mountains, rivers, and so on – has enabled the Christians to understand
better divine immanence in the universe besides being aware of the transcen-
dence of God. Likewise, has there been a mutual impact of religions and cul-
tures in Southeast Asia? It may be said that religion is the core of culture. Just
as culture preserves religion within itself, religion too has to affirm the values
of the culture in which it is embedded.

Religion and ethnicities seem to go hand in hand in Southeast Asia. It
appears as if to be Thai, Burmese, or Cambodian is to be Buddhist; to be
Indonesian or Malay is to be a Muslim, and to be a Filipino is to be a Chris-
tian. The religion of the majority seems to determine the national character.
This is not how Southeast Asia should be. In fact, religions transcend ethnic-
ities and are universal. The minorities too play significant roles in the life of
the nation. Some microscopic minorities do make enormous contributions to
the nation. For example, the Christians in Asia have been pioneers in the
fields of education and health care. People of all religions constitute the rich
diversity of the nation. The minorities are not left to the mercy of the major-
ity in a democratic polity. Democracy is where all the citizens are equal
under the law and have equal opportunities. A nation is judged by the char-
acter, dynamism, and quality of life of its citizens, which include both the
majority and the minorities. Therefore, to be Thai is more than to be Bud-
dhist; it is also to be Muslim, Christian, and so on. To be Filipino is also to
be Muslim. To be Indonesian or Malaysian is also to be Christian, Hindu,
Buddhist, and so on.

One’s identity as belonging to a particular religious or ethnic commu-
nity cannot be a threat to another’s identity as belonging to another religious
or ethnic community. As autonomous persons, people profess and practice a
religion that they find meaningful. Therefore, there is no question of a threat
to anybody’s identity as long as the citizens recognize that value of peaceful
coexistence, mutual appreciation, cooperation, and collaboration. A threat
arises when religious groups become fundamentalist or fascist, and acquire
misguided motives and vested interests. In fact, the Church or the religious
body is the only moral voice of society. Holiness is nurtured in a religious
environment. More holy men and women are needed today than in any other
time in human history. Holy persons who are committed to the love of the

136 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 24:4



divine and the human are called upon to bring light, love, and healing to the
lives of people. In the absence of holiness, spirituality, devotion, and service,
mere organization and administration of the Church or the religious body
would be lifeless and meaningless. Without holy men and women who are
meek, simple, caring, and loving, the world would be a hell. Truly holy per-
sons transcend the barriers of language, religion, race, and ethnicity and reach
out to all human beings in loving service. Such persons respect the senti-
ments, freedom, and rights of others. For example, truly holy Hindus and
Muslims would not impose on others abstinence from eating beef and pork,
respectively. Similarly, those living in predominantly Hindu and Muslim
areas would voluntarily abstain from eating beef and pork, respectively, as a
mark of respect for and identity with the brethren of other religions.

St. Paul expresses this concern so well in his letter to the Romans
(14:15-23):

But if you hurt your brother because of a certain food, you are no longer
walking according to love … the kingdom of God is not a matter of food
and drink; it is justice, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit … Let us look,
then, for what strengthens peace and makes us better. Do not destroy the
work of God because of food … And it may be better not to eat meat or
drink wine, or anything else that causes your brother to stumble. Keep
your own belief before God, and happy are you if you never act against
your own belief. Instead, whoever eats something in spite of his doubts is
doing wrong, because he does not act according to his belief, and what-
ever we do against our conscience is sinful.

Religion, of course, primarily meets the moral and spiritual needs of
man. It guides him to the realization of ultimate reality. This does not mean
that religion is indifferent to the other aspects of human life – the political,
economic, social, cultural, technological, and so on. Religion sees man in his
wholeness. Man is not a fragmented being. Religion guides the whole man
to his final destiny. So, all aspects of human life are the concerns of religion.
Religion seeks to integrate all these aspects of life into a meaningful whole.
Whenever human wholeness is threatened by politics, economics, business,
technology, and so on, religion has to intervene in an effort to redeem it.
Moreover, religious bodies have to cooperate with governmental and non-
governmental agencies to promote human welfare. Such an alignment pre-
supposes solidarity among religions themselves.

Like the World Parliament of Religions, there should be a Southeast
Asian Confederation of Religions to promote social action. Each Southeast

Fernando: Towards Understanding the Relation between Religions and Cultures 137



Asian nation should have a federation of religions. All these federations can
be formed into a larger Confederation of Religions. Such organizations can
enhance the effectiveness of each religion, in solidarity with others, for
social action. Religions must come out of their isolation and forge a unity for
social action. Sometimes religions are represented on the occasion of an
inter-religious prayer service. This is not enough. Despite the difference of
doctrines among themselves, they have the common goal of serving man.
This common goal is sufficient to lead them to form a Confederation of
Religions with a view to work for human wholesomeness in the context of
modernization, technology, and urbanization.

Modernization, Religion, and Culture in Southeast Asia
I would like to probe into the role of religion and culture with regard to the
quality of life in Southeast Asia in the context of modernization. Moderni-
zation is a postcolonial phenomenon in Asia. After gaining independence
from their former colonial masters, the nations of Asia, with their right to self-
determination, embarked on the course of modernization. Modernization is
the fruit of science and technology. It includes industrialization, effective
means of transport, communications, medical care, time-saving utilities, lib-
eral education, international trade, and so on. Modernization was expected to
improve the quality of life. But has the quality of life really improved in these
nations? What is meant by the quality of life? Does it consist only of eco-
nomic development? Although economic development certainly makes a
major contribution, there are several other desirable things to improve the
quality of life. The quality of life has much to do with what it means to be
human and what is a good life. Does a good life mean only the satisfaction of
economic needs? No. Man has other needs to fulfill in order to be human.
What are they?

For man to live a truly human life means primarily to live with dignity.
His dignity and worth as a person should be affirmed. This means that he
should live a decent life. Decency requires the satisfaction of basic needs
such as food, shelter, and clothes. Decency also implies rights and freedom:
the right to life, security, livelihood, education, property, and so on; freedom
of thought, expression, and assembly; freedom of belief and opinion; and
freedom of mobility, tastes, and pursuits. A decent life can be quantitative
and qualitative – quantitative insofar as the things people need are measura-
ble; qualitative insofar as people achieve their well-being in terms of rela-
tionships, community, freedom, and creativity. Amartya Sen speaks of

138 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 24:4



development not merely as economic, but also as contributing to the enhance-
ment of the capabilities of people.11 People have many capabilities, such as to
live a healthy life, to develop their talents, to decide freely what is good for
them, to pursue careers of their choice, to interact meaningfully with others,
to develop their emotions, to be creative, to participate in activities of the
community, to be part of decision-making, to work for environmental protec-
tion, to promote peace and harmony, and so on. The development of numer-
ous capabilities contributes to the growth of persons and communities.

Although modernization has accelerated economic growth, it has caused
some other problems in the region. There has been an exodus from the rural
areas to the cities in search of job opportunities. Overpopulation in the cities
affects the quality of urban life. Congested traffic, pollution, overcrowding,
shantytowns, poor sanitation, crime, mafia, and so on are the problems in the
cities. The exodus to the cities affects the rural economy too. Farming suffers,
the environment decays, cottage industries and handicrafts shrink, and vil-
lages wear a forlorn look due to neglect, desertion, and lack of resources.
Both the cities and villages need redemption. They can be saved from further
ruin by limiting the exodus from the villages to the cities. One of the most
urgent tasks today is rural development. The villages must be developed in
such a way that the necessary amenities are available to the villagers so that
they do not migrate to the cities in search of them. As far as possible, people
must be enabled to live satisfying lives in the developed villages.

Modernization has its impact on the moral values of the people too.
Moral values like honesty, integrity, and so on tend to suffer a setback in a
highly competitive and success-driven society. Interpersonal relations are
likely to be measured in terms of economics. Family, as the most funda-
mental and vital unit of society, is threatened by divorce, unfaithfulness,
separation, and so on. Money-making activities take too much of one’s time,
leaving little time for spending with family, caring for others, and/or perform-
ing meaningful religious rituals to maintain cohesion in the family and com-
munity. Gradually, cultural traditions slip out of one’s consciousness within
this concrete jungle. In this context, how important it is to understand why
Gadamer upholds the importance of tradition!

Asia is traditionally known for the values of simplicity, religiosity, hos-
pitality, and joy. The Asians have generally preferred a simple lifestyle that
is marked by possession of a few things needed for daily use. Consumerism
and greed have crept into Asian societies because of globalization and aping
the West. A difficult task is how to strike a balance between simplicity and
modernization. A profound sense of religiosity generates hope, meaning, and

Fernando: Towards Understanding the Relation between Religions and Cultures 139



purpose in the lives of the people of Asia. The Asians view earthly existence
as transitory and seek the ultimate reality according to their religious tradi-
tions. But of late, the values of religion have been affected by consumerism,
materialism, and hedonism. Traditional Asian hospitality has been trans-
formed into the hospitality industry today. Hospitality has become a mar-
ketable commodity. How hard it is to be hospitable, warm, generous, and
caring without being paid! Joy has been a distinguishing mark of the Asian
spirit. The Asians laugh, joke, and are cheerful even if they are poor. They
are seldom given to despair, depression, and gloom. Dominique Lapierre’s
The City of Joy is an ample proof of this.12

Conclusion
How can the erosion of cultural values be stopped? In what ways can culture
be preserved and promoted? How is a holistic approach to life possible?
Searching for answers to these questions is essential, because it is part of
one’s search for meaning in life. What is the role of religion in contributing
to a good life? What are the dynamics of religion in providing meaning to
life? In Southeast Asia, has religion been hijacked by the economy or has it
adapted itself to the changing times or compromised with modernization?
Has any religion undertaken a critique of Southeast Asian society, which it
seeks to serve? It is a matter of great concern not to lose one’s consciousness
of cultural heritage amidst the flux of modernization. 

Another concern is how religion can interact meaningfully with culture.
Such an interaction presupposes dialogue among religions themselves. The
religions of Southeast Asia, in trying to understand more of each other, can
foster friendship and solidarity for social action. Dialogue requires openness
to plurality, diversity, and recognition of the “other.” They need not shy away
from dialogue, saying that dialogue is a western concept and that Christians
are interested in it only to convert others. Dialogue is not for conversion,
but to understand the “other.” All understanding eventually leads to self-
understanding. There is a need for committed dialogue among religions.

The purpose of religions coming together in dialogue is not to brag about
each one’s religion. It is not to say: “My religion is the only true religion,” as
if others are false. Of course, one may be legitimately proud of one’s religious
heritage and rightly so. This does not mean that one can look down upon
other religions. In dialogue, a sincere attempt is made to understand the
other’s position. As Gadamer says, dialogue is guided by the subject matter
and not by the personalities involved in it. It requires openness and respect.

140 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 24:4



As persons seek to understand each other in dialogue, the emphasis is not on
the theoretical. Dialogue is praxis. It is a commitment and an opening
towards grasping the common ground on which we all stand. It is a revela-
tion of our shared humanity and the human condition that is inescapably
everyone’s lot. Religions coming together in dialogue ought to seek the prax-
is of addressing situations that need to be rectified. Buddhism, Islam, Chris-
tianity, and the other religions of Southeast Asia need to create a platform for
praxis. In a joint venture, they can address a number of issues more effec-
tively. This is the way religions become credible in a society where many
tend towards materialism, skepticism, individualism, and indifference.
Religion ought to retain its moral voice in relation to the concrete situations
in which people find themselves.

In the absence of dialogue among religions, the people of Southeast Asia
may not visualize their shared destiny and will lack a sense of direction
towards the future. Religion needs to do a lot of soul-searching with regard
to being a moral force in defining what it is to be human. To grasp what it is
to be human has much to do with overcoming the situations people are in:
human trafficking, profiteering, racketeering, and so on. In fact, the call to
rediscover the values of religion and culture in Southeast Asia is linked to
the destiny of the people of the region. The perennially relevant question
remains: What does it mean to be human?

Traditional cultures have taken thousands of years to evolve and are
worth preserving, since they are the carriers of the accumulated wisdom of
the people since Antiquity. Culture gives man a sense of belonging, accept-
ance, and assurance. Culture enshrines the values that define meaning as
well as guide, motivate, and lead people to fulfillment. This does not mean
that everything in a cultural tradition is good. Culture needs purification too.
Superstitious beliefs, for example, are not wholesome. The caste system is
an aberration and a blot on Indian culture. Caste is dehumanizing, divisive,
discriminatory, oppressive, and fascist. It recognizes the intrinsic dignity and
worth of only some – not all – persons. It builds walls – not bridges –
between people. It is a denial of brotherhood.

Modernization may be a threat to traditional cultures. With the advent of
modernization, there is a tension between change and continuity. How much
of the traditional culture changes, and how much of it continues? How best
can modernization and cultures be integrated? Does religion have a role in
this? Religion cannot be a mute witness to the destruction of traditional cul-
tures. People need to be part of traditional cultures. Culture, like the hearth
and home, is necessary for man; without it, he will be a wanderer and dis-

Fernando: Towards Understanding the Relation between Religions and Cultures 141



possessed. The rural communities, with their closer times and bonds of
union, should be preserved as an antidote to the faceless technological soci-
ety that may dehumanize people and threaten the survival of nature.
Whatever contributes to human wholesomeness, a sense of belonging, love-
liness, beauty, rustic simplicity, and the joy of being rooted in the soil must
be protected, preserved, and fostered.

Endnotes

1. Leszek Kolakowski, Main Currents in Marxism, 1. The Founders (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1989), 128-29.

2. Ibid., 115.
3. S. Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press,

2000), 283.
4. Ibid., p. 356.
5. Ibid., 354.
6. The Bible, Matthew 7:21.
7. New Catholic Encyclopedia (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of

America, 1967), 2:86.
8. Summa Theologica, I-II, Q. 1-5.
9. A. L. Basham, The Wonder that was India (New Delhi: Rupa & Co., 2001),

485.
10. Vatican II Documents, “Gaudium et spes,” 53-62.
11. Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (New York: Anchor Books, 1999).
12. Dominique Lapierre, in his The City of Joy, narrates his unique experiences in

Calcutta, where he finds the people strikingly joyful although many of them
are poor.

142 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 24:4