Confronting September 11: Religion and Violence
- ‹ previous
- 7 of 15
- next ›
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.
- ‹ previous
- 7 of 15
- next ›
