In-depth Analysis:

This text addresses a significant distinction between religion as a human institution and God as the almighty, transcendent being, cautioning against confusing the two. The author makes a powerful critique of historical events where religion was used as a tool for domination, specifically referencing the Arab and European colonizations of Africa, and highlights the importance of understanding that religion is a man-made structure that serves specific needs, rather than a divine mandate.

1. Religion as a Man-made Institution:

The opening statement emphasizes that religion is not synonymous with God. Religion is described as an institution created by humans to serve human needs, often shaped by cultural, political, and historical circumstances. This distinction is key: while many religions claim to connect individuals to a higher power, the text asserts that religion itself is shaped by the intentions and decisions of those who control it. The critique centers on the idea that institutions of religion can often manipulate divine principles for earthly power or agendas.

The historical examples used — the Arab invasion of North Africa and the use of Christianity to justify the transatlantic slave trade — serve as strong illustrations of how religion can be co-opted for conquest, exploitation, and oppression. The text contends that these acts had no divine authorization, reinforcing the notion that religion can be misused to further human agendas rather than acting as a true conduit to God.

2. Religious Pluralism and Freedom:

The author makes a point about the importance of religious freedom, aligning with Pan-African values. The mention of Marcus Garvey, El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (Malcolm X), and other figures with different religious backgrounds illustrates the acceptance of religious diversity within the context of Pan-Africanism. This openness to different religions, as long as they don’t work against the freedom or dignity of others, advocates for a balanced approach to spiritual practice, without imposing one belief system over another.

By stressing the point that Garvey, Malcolm X, and others were devout in their own beliefs but still fought for the freedom of all, the text suggests that the conflict often arises not from the diversity of religious beliefs but from the imposition of one belief system over others. This is a call for tolerance, highlighting that people’s relationship with the divine should not be a source of division but a source of mutual respect.

3. The Problematic Image of a “White Christ”:

The text moves into a more provocative critique, particularly of the depiction of Jesus as a white figure in Western Christianity. This argument centers around racial identity and the importance of cultural representation. For the author, the portrayal of Jesus as a white man is an affront to African identity and history. This critique is not only a rejection of historical misrepresentations of the divine but also a call for African people to reclaim their image and identity in religious iconography.

The argument here is twofold: First, there is a historical claim that Jesus, as an African, should be represented as such, not only because of geographical context (Ethiopia) but because of the broader cultural and racial identity of the figure. The author also brings into focus the importance of African people seeing their own image reflected in religious figures as a means of self-empowerment and affirming their cultural heritage. Second, the reference to the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD) is used to highlight the role of imperialism in shaping Christian dogma and iconography. The suggestion that Constantine changed Jesus’ birthplace to align with European values marks the turning point in how Christianity was altered to serve the needs of the empire rather than remaining true to its origins.

4. The Reclamation of Identity and Belief:

Central to the text is the call for African people to reconnect with their roots and reclaim their cultural and spiritual identity. This is not merely about rejecting Western religious imagery, but about affirming the connection to the African heritage and recognizing the divine as something that resonates with their experience. The author emphasizes that Jesus, being born in Ethiopia, should be seen as part of the African diaspora’s spiritual legacy.

This is a larger philosophical point: reclaiming one’s identity, whether religious, cultural, or historical, is a key aspect of self-determination. The author argues that by removing the distortions imposed by colonial powers and reconnecting with the original, unaltered history of figures like Jesus, Africans can restore dignity and pride in their spiritual practices.

Broader Implications:

The critique of religion in this context is a call for spiritual autonomy and cultural integrity. It acknowledges the human tendency to use religion for political, economic, or social manipulation but also recognizes the potential for religion to be a tool for personal and collective empowerment. The text challenges the monolithic and imperialistic portrayals of religious figures and argues for a more accurate, culturally inclusive understanding of divinity.

It also brings to light how religion has been weaponized throughout history, particularly in the context of colonialism and slavery. This historical perspective encourages African-descended people to reassess their religious affiliations and iconography, advocating for a form of spiritual liberation that is not beholden to the oppressive structures imposed by colonizers.

Finally, the message is one of unity in diversity. While advocating for self-determination and reclaiming African spirituality, the author stresses the importance of religious freedom, echoing the belief that people should practice their faith without it being used as a tool for oppression or exclusion. The tension between religion and God, and the need to distinguish between the two, is a reminder that the divine transcends human-made systems, and spiritual freedom lies in recognizing this distinction.