Do you have a link we can include?
Submit a link here.
In
the introduction to these readings, Professor Marc Gopin writes about
the complexity of identity and religion and its ability to shape human
behavior. He writes, "It turns out that since the beginning of time
great spiritual minds and courageous people of vision in all cultures,
in all corners of the globe, have evolved a rich tapestry of oral and
written literature, stories, rituals, and symbols, which express the
most exalted ethical values. This spiritual legacy is actually
responsible for inspiring indirectly, and sometimes directly, the great
modern ideas of human rights and democracy. At the same time these
people of vision gave rise to organized religions, which have inspired
millions to live ethical, decent lives, while inspiring others to live
lives of intolerance, hatred, and even mass murder. No organized
religion has escaped this dual legacy over the long course of human
history, despite the greatest hopes of its spiritual masters."
David Perry, director of the Ethics
Program at Santa Clara University, writes about how religion can be
used to divide the world into us and them:
There
seems to be a tendency in human societies to believe that one's own
enemies are the enemies of God, and need not be treated with the same
sort of respect that one is required to show to one's fellow citizens.
In some cases people are led to believe that the impurity or evil of
their enemies is so deep that they ought to be exterminated. There are
still people today who believe that their faith has a monopoly on the
truth. And many of them are quite willing to use force, even total war,
to spread their faith at the expense of others.
Mark Juergensmeyer, a professor of
Sociology and director of Global and International Studies at the
University of California, Santa Barbara, and author of Terror in the
Mind of God, writes that religion and religious imagery has the
potential to take a conflict and raise it to a cosmic struggle between
good and evil. When a conflict has reached that level, Juergensmeyer
describes it as sacralized or sacred. He writes:
When a
struggle becomes sacralized, incidents that might previously have been
considered minor skirmishes or slight differences of understanding are
elevated to monumental proportions. The use of violence becomes
legitimized, and the slightest provocation or insult can lead to
terrorist assaults. What had been simple opponents become cosmic foes
...the process of satanization can transform a worldly struggle into a
contest between martyrs and demons. Alas, this inescapable scenario of
hostility does not end until the mythology is redirected, or until one
side or the other has been destroyed.1
Describing acts of religious terrorism as
"symbolic statements aimed at providing a sense of empowerment to
desperate communities," Juergensmeyer believes "religion is crucial for
these acts." He explains:
....it
[religion] gives moral justifications for killing and provides images
of cosmic war that allow activists to believe they are waging spiritual
scenarios. This does not mean that religion causes violence, nor does
it mean that religious violence cannot, in some cases, be justified by
other means. But it does mean that religion often provides the mores
and symbols that make possible bloodshed-even catastrophic acts of
terrorism.
Violent ideas and images are not the
monopoly of any single religion. Virtually every major religious
tradition - Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist - has
served as a resource for violent actors.
If this has always been so, why are
such violent assaults on public order occurring now? I have looked for
the answer to this question in our contemporary global milieu.
Activists such as bin Laden might be regarded as guerrilla
antiglobalists. Even ethno-nationalist struggles, such as those in
Kashmir, have arisen in part because of an erosion of confidence in
Western-style politics and politicians. The era of globalization and
postmodernity creates a context in which authority is undercut and
local forces unleashed. In saying this, I do not mean to imply that
only globalization causes religious violence. But it may be one reason
why so many instances of religious violence are occurring at the
present time.2
Sudanese Islamic scholar, Abdullahi Ahmed
An-Na'im believes that while religion has been used by perpetrators of
violence, "there is no such thing as Christianity or Judaism in the
abstract." He continues:
Islam and Christianity and Judaism are what the believers make of them. They are what the believers believe and do... .
Religion is a resource, a powerful,
profound resource that most people appreciate. But what they make of it
- what moral, political and economic actions they take - is the
responsibility of the believers as they struggle with the scriptural or
theological discourse.
Islam can be a force for peace or a
force for war, a force for human rights or a force against human
rights. The question is which interpretations or understandings of
religion are likely under what conditions. And how to promote the
conditions that are conducive to what we favor the religion to be used
for, as opposed to condemning the religion as a negative force.3
The hope of all of these scholars is to
understand the way religion helps to shape our imagination and to find
within the religions of the world cures for violence instead of causes.
CONNECTIONS
- How can religious intolerance divide the world into us and them?
- What does Juergensmeyer see as the relationship between religion and violence? How would you explain the relationship?
- Many people see a
relationship between religion and violence as an oxymoron - a
contradiction in terms. Why do you think people believe that?
- How do local conflicts become transformed into what Jurgensmeyer calls a "cosmic war"?
- Religious violence
appears to be occurring across geographic boundaries and religious
traditions. What is it about our current environment that might explain
why religion is being used to justify violence across the globe? What
insights does Juergensmeyer offer?
- In reading three - on "Identity and Religion" - religion is described as a "storehouse of human wisdom." How do you think Juergensmeyer would define religion?
- The examples of Osama
bin Laden and Timothy McVeigh demonstrate the dangers of ascribing
people's actions solely to their religious beliefs. What are those
dangers?
- Juergensmeyer writes
that "Osama bin Laden and those like him have appropriated religion in
their dark view of the world." What does that mean? How can religion be
appropriated to fit a worldview?
- Given his comments
about the responsibility of believers and the context of religious
interpretation, what suggestions do you think the Sudanese Islamic
scholar Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im would make about combating religious
violence?
- In his conclusion,
Juergensmeyer recognized that many would find in religion "a cure for
violence instead of a cause." Many people across religious traditions
are doing just that. You might want your class to research the work of
individuals and groups who are working across faith traditions using
religion to stand up against violence. What strategies are they using?
Are they successful?
1Terror in the Mind of God by Mark Juergensmeyer. University of California Press, 2000, p. 163.
2 Ibid.
3 Quoted in "Islam and the Modern World" by Christopher Reardon. Ford Foundation Report, winter 2002, p. 22.
Note: The media selections posted in Facing Today do not necessarily represent the views of Facing History and Ourselves.
