“Si Dios Quiere.” About Water and Tea, about Ethics and Religion.

Why freedom of religion must end where it harms others — and why compassion should matter more than dogma.

Society & Politics

“Si dios quiere.” God willing. A few words heard daily in many parts of the world. Between illness, hope, farewell and everyday life. For many, they are comfort, humility, or an expression of trust in something greater. But sometimes they are something else entirely: an elegant and convenient way of handing responsibility away.

No question, spirituality can provide grounding. It becomes socially problematic, however, where religion begins to replace personal responsibility. Faith can be something deeply personal and beautiful — but to believe is not to know. That sounds banal, and yet it is one of the most frequently ignored realities in public debates about freedom of belief.

Religions were created by human beings. Many of their rules originally made good sense: they provided orientation in a chaotic world, built community, and protected people in times when science barely existed. That deserves respect. What does not deserve automatic respect, however, is the notion that millennia-old belief systems should still, in many places today, fundamentally stand above ethical concerns.

The historian Yuval Noah Harari describes religion as one of humanity’s first great “operating systems”: shared stories and values that enabled millions of strangers to cooperate. A fascinating thought. Yet any system that regards criticism as attack and refuses necessary evolution will eventually become a social risk.

Why is religious extremism growing stronger again in our time? The answer often lies in fear, uncertainty and disorientation. People who feel left behind by society seek clear answers, belonging and meaning. Psychology describes this phenomenon in part through what is known as Terror Management Theory: the more threatening and uncontrollable the world appears, the stronger the need for fixed truths and simple explanations. And it is precisely there that religious dogmas, however outdated they may be, once again find fertile ground.

At the same time, a clear counter-movement is visible in many countries: well-educated, economically stable people are increasingly distancing themselves from institutional religions - without necessarily rejecting spirituality or the search for meaning. Others, meanwhile, find support precisely in strict belief systems. That alone is not the problem.

The problem arises where religious convictions begin to silence ethical criticism.

Freedom of religion is a fundamental right. But no right is unlimited. The freedom of the individual ends where avoidable harm is inflicted on others, which is why it is important to establish a clear boundary: No cultural, religious or economic argument justifies avoidable suffering inflicted on sentient beings.

This touches on many issues that modern societies must finally discuss more honestly. Female genital mutilation (FGM): affects millions of women and girls worldwide. Frequently passed down as cultural tradition and legitimized religiously, it prevents no suffering but creates new suffering instead. Child marriage: strips children of their self-determination and possibilities for development. No religious or traditional argument makes it moral. Ritual slaughter without prior stunning: If avoidable suffering results, why should religious tradition automatically take precedence over animal welfare?

A modern ethical society must not ignore suffering simply because it is religiously justified. This does not mean rejecting spirituality. Quite the contrary. What many people seek in religion are often deeply human needs: community, hope, meaning, ritual, consolation, the feeling of being part of something greater.

The 14th Dalai Lama put it accurately:

 “Ethics is to religion as water is to tea. People can live without tea - but not without water.”

And should that not be the right perspective? United in faith - whatever name it carries - to bring forth the good in humanity, to give orientation and ward off harm: was that not the original intention of those spiritual teachers and founders of religion when they first spread their teachings? Should religion not stand for compassion, dignity and community? Bring hope into an often brutal world - rather than turning people against one another in the name of millennia-old dogmas?

No religion should matter more than humanity itself. And it should certainly not be a tool for defending outdated worldviews still spread today through aggression, intimidation or even violence. This is precisely where the attempt to rethink how to improve today’s rather divisive situation should focus: no glorification, no demonization but instead establishing ethical boundaries. Specific to this, it means: There are practices that modern societies must finally discuss more honestly.

Everything that connects people, strengthens compassion and causes no suffering should have a place in a free society: prayer, meditation, fasting, celebration, living in community. What becomes unacceptable is where religion, or the interpretation of faith, begins to legitimize suffering, suppress criticism, and / or strip people of their dignity.

Thinking critically and analytically about religions and belief systems — with the knowledge available to us today — is not directed against people of faith. It is directed against systems that place themselves above ethical responsibility. Because compassion, dignity and justice are not religious or atheistic values. They are human values.

And would that not be exactly the common foundation on which we should finally agree?

Dear reader, your perspective matters. This article is an invitation to respectful, reflective dialogue. How might such boundaries be shaped together? Where should these boundaries lie and who should set them? What experiences do you have on this topic? Share your thoughts in the comments, honestly, with substance and without blinders. Because that is exactly what eticania.org is about: not imposing uniform thinking but thinking further and ahead together.

References

Armstrong, K. (2009). The case for God. Knopf.

Becker, E. (1973). The denial of death. Free Press.

Dalai Lama XIV. (2011). Beyond religion: Ethics for a whole world. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Frankl, V. E. (2006). Man’s search for meaning. Beacon Press. (Original work published 1946)

Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, S. (1986). The causes and consequences of a need for self-esteem: A terror management theory. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Public self and private self (pp. 189–212). Springer.

Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon Books.

Harari, Y. N. (2015). Sapiens: A brief history of humankind. Harper.

Pew Research Center. (2025, March 26). Around the world, many people are leaving their childhood religions. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/03/26/around-the-world-many-people-are-leaving-their-childhood-religions/

Taylor, C. (2007). A secular age. Harvard University Press.

Vail, K. E., Rothschild, Z. K., Weise, D. R., Solomon, S., Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (2010). A terror management analysis of the psychological functions of religion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 84–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309351165

Weber, M. (2002). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (P. Baehr & G. C. Wells, Trans.). Penguin Books. (Original work published 1905)

World Health Organization. (2024). Female genital mutilation: Key facts. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation