There was once a woman, in her grandeur of presence, in the wealth of extravagant living, through experiences and teachings of the elderly came her education, came her understanding of life’s phenomenons, those of which that philosophers died at the stake to question, those that were branded heresy by those that protect the teachings of the old.

The woman was of a popular faith, claimed to be the world’s fastest growing faith in the age of technology, the aquatic age, the age where the divide between man and woman has become gray, where the very fundamentals of society were being taken down, re analyzed, and put forth repeatedly. The woman was of a faith that embraced polygamy, a faith that preached among many other holy pillars, that men have the upper hand in creating judgments, that men were the logical voice of society, while women were the motherly emotional voice. A side step question to the subject would be to ask, if men are the logical voices of society, then who made man, if not a woman?

Be it what it may, the woman believed whole heartedly in the faith, preaching every aspect to countless people, reminiscing the so called days of glory of the faith, when the rule under the flagship of the religion would cross halfway through the globe, spreading what can be considered as either holy or genocide, depending on the eye of the beholder. It’s a funny thing, creating a viewpoint, it is as if there would be no consistent view on any topic, they say, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter; the question however, is larger than that of which that can be explained by a simple paradox, the question remains, are human rights being violated on the pretense of conflicting beliefs?

The woman would later marry, and live a life embraced by the fixation of spiritual fulfillment, but it would be that same fulfillment that would destroy the very foundation of the household that she had built, the very pillars that she had once stood for were the reason for the downfall of the people she loved most, the partner she had chosen, and the offspring that had resulted from their companionship. For she lived by a faith that preaches polygamy, a value that does not stand to fight the basic human instinct that revolts against the breach of territory, the deep intrinsic feeling that longs for monogamy, for single companionship, for the one true love, as love would be perceived. And although the value of multiple spouses might be permitted by the faith that she has embraced as far back as she can remember, there is an undeniable gut feeling of unfairness, of unjust treatment, of betrayal. Sadly, through the large number of experiences the woman has had, and the people of faith she is surrounded by, there is not a single mention of the illegitimacy of the faith-created value; for it would be a blasphemy to speak anything against that which was brought down generation after generation, carried down either by sword or word; funnily enough, only an ‘S’ separates the two.

It is as if all matters of life are to be questioned, unless they are those that create the basic fundamentals of society, and no matter how much pain the woman goes through, that deep instilled reluctance to revolt against an obvious faulty rule still prevails. But the question I would like to ask is not why the woman, or any person in that figurative sense, would not ask those questions, why she would not stand against the set of rules that she had inherited and embraced; but rather the question would revolve around whether religions build the core structure of beliefs and intrinsic feelings, or rather they were basic human traits.. I guess the question is, do religions create values, or do values create religions?