Islam, the Media and Mental Health

Much of what is known about Islam and Muslims in Western societies is derived from the mass media. This includes newspapers, magazines, radio, television, films, books and websites. In the book titled Islam and Contemporary Civilisation, Rane (2010:136) positions mediated Islam as a dilemma and notes that the aforementioned “sources have particular power and potential in modern society.” They give meaning to issues and events covered and thereby have the potential to influence the public’s opinions, attitudes and beliefs. In the absence of first-hand experience, the mass media also generally become a primary source of information (Rane 2010: 136).

Since 9/11, there has been increased media and government scrutiny of the Muslim population (Ciftci et al 2013: 26). The American public’s attention has increasingly focused on Arab and Muslim Americans since this date. Although Islam dates back more than 1400 years and has had roots in Western nations for many centuries, interest in Islam and Muslims prior to 9/11 incidents in America was minimal (Ahmed & Amer 2012: 3). 9/11 therefore led to an increased visibility of Muslims and interest in Islam (Ahmed & Amer 2012: 3).

Despite the increased interest in Islam, the average person has very little knowledge about the religion and its followers (Ahmed & Amer 2012: 3). Following the attacks, the media played a major role in creating negative attitudes toward Muslims by disseminating misconceptions and misunderstandings about Islam (Ahmed & Amer 2012: 10). According to Amri and Bernak (2013: 46), “right-wing media figures have smeared the image of Muslims and Islam and make no apologies for their Islamophobic views and beliefs.”  For example, it portrays Muslim males as militant, aggressive fundamentalists with violent tendencies (Ahmed & Amer 2012: 274). According to Ahmed and Amer (2012: 274), Muslims are often presented as foreign “enemies of freedom, tolerance and pluralism.”

Although Muslim beliefs and ethnic sub-cultures are heterogeneous, Islam is often perceived as a monolithic group (Ciftci et al 2013: 23). Muslims are therefore negatively stereotyped and subjected to significant interpersonal and structural discrimination (Ciftci 2013: 23). Take the wearing of the hijab for example. In Western societies, the wearing of the hijab is often misrepresented in the media (Tabassum 2005: 63). The image of a Muslim woman in hijab is used to demonstrate an encompassing negative stereotype (Hassan 2010: 2). It advertises the view that Islamic hijab wearers are adherents of a religion that promotes anti-Western values such as indiscriminate violence and gender oppression (Tabassum 2005: 63). So, these Muslim women are practicing a minority religion in countries that do not understand it (Williams & Vashi 2007: 271).

The media may have a detrimental impact on the stereotypes non-Muslims develop as well as on the psychological health of Muslims themselves (Nadal et al 2012: 30). The negative representation of Islam in mainstream media can increase levels of anxiety and stress for Muslim people and alienate them from society (Ahmed & Amer 2012: 274). These negative images on the news or in fictional television shows may therefore impact on Muslims’ self-esteem and identity (Nadal et al 2012: 30).

It is therefore necessary for the media and other institutions to be much more vigilant in preventing these types of stereotypes from continuing in order to promote optimal mental health for Muslim people (Nadal et al 2012: 30). Being victim of such overt discrimination on a consistent basis can have an additive effect on one’s mental health (Nadal et al 2012: 32).

References

Ahmed, S. & Amer, M. (2012). Muslim Mental Health: Handbook of Mental Health Issues and Interventions. New York: Taylor and Francis.

Amri, S. & Bemak, F. (2013). “Mental Health Help-Seeking Behaviors of Muslim Immigrants in the United States: Overcoming Social Stigma and Cultural Mistrust.” Journal of Muslim Mental Health 7 (1): 43-63.

Ciftci, A., Jones, N. & Corrigan, P. (2013). “Mental Health Stigma in the Muslim Community.” Journal of Muslim Mental Health 7 (1): 17-32.

Nadal, K., Griffin, K., Hamit, S., Leon, J., Tobio, M. & Rivera, D. (2012). “Subtle and Overt Forms of Islamophobia: Microaggressions toward Muslim Americans. Journal of Muslim Mental Health VI (2): 15-37.

Rane, H. (2010). Islam and Contemporary Civilisation: Evolving Ideas, Transforming Relations. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

Tabassum, R. F. (2006). Listening to the voices of hijab. Women's Studies International Forum, 29 (1), 54-66. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/10.1016/j.wsif.2005.10.006

Williams, R. H. & Vashi, G. (2007). "Hijab" and American Muslim Women: Creating the Space for Autonomous Selves." Sociology f Religion, 68 (3), 269-287. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20453164

Buddhism

Buddhism is widely recognised as a religion that professes no harm, ahimsa and non-violence. The doctrine of non-violence can be associated with many religious traditions however. So, Adam and Codling (2008: 178) argue that is not ahimsa, but rather emptiness that is the essence of Buddhism. Buddhism teaches that nothing possesses an underlying essence or independent existence (Adam & Codling 2008: 178). This includes the notion of evil.

According to Loy (n.d.), one of the main causes of evil in this world has been human attempts to eradicate evil, or what has been viewed as evil. From a Buddhist perspective, much of the world’s suffering has been a result of our way of thinking about good and evil (Loy n.d.). However, in Buddhism, evil has no essence or substance of its own. It is a product of impermanent causes and conditions (Loy n.d.). This religion emphasizes three roots of evil, known as greed, ill will and delusion (Loy n.d.). These can be recognised as the “three poisons.”

There is a basic Buddhist teaching that highlights that we suffer and cause others to suffer because of the three aforementioned roots of evil. According to Adam and Codling (2008: 181), “the presence of these impure motivations in one’s mind bars one from the awareness that sees reality as it is.” For example, Buddhism cannot justify the thousands of deaths that occurred from the 9/11 bombings. Rather, the Buddhist solution involves transforming greed into generosity, ill will into loving-kindness and delusions into wisdom. In other words, Buddhists are urged to distinguish the sinner from the sin. Again considering 9/11, bin Laden and the other al-Qaeda leaders are examples of how the roots of evil can overwhelm the mind.

Buddhism focuses on the karmic consequences of actions of ignorance and deadly hatred in a person’s next lives. From this point of view, terrorists will be stuck in an everlasting cycle of karma and never reach nirvana. According to Loy, “to study Buddhism is to study yourself; to study yourself is to forget yourself; to forget yourself is to be awakened and realize your intimacy with all things.” Buddhist enlightenment or ‘awakening’ requires mindfulness of our ways of thinking. It is concurrently believed that terrorists have the capacity to understand how evil their actions have been, and to try to atone for them. As we know that this is very unlikely to occur, Buddhists therefore mourn this occasion. Impure actions, such as those motivated by an intent to harm therefore have negative effects (Adam & Codling 2008: 181).

Of the three poisons, it is delusion that is generally considered the fundamental human problem. It indicates the presence of mistaken views that function to obscure one’s awareness of the way events actually occur (Adam & Codling 2008: 182). The path leading to awakening involves training oneself to be nonviolent in thought, word and deed. Nonviolence is thus viewed as a natural, spontaneous expression of the highest spiritual realization. The intent to harm is an expression of hated, which is necessarily based on delusion. For example, acts of terrorism are based on delusion because they involve an intention to harm. What counts in the end is the inner spiritual condition of the person, understood in terms of the absence or presence of the three poisons (Adam & Codling 2008: 187).

References

Adam, M. and W. Codling. (2008). Buddhist Perspectives on Terrorism. In B. Rennie and P. Tite, Eds., Religion, Terror and Violence: Religious Studies Perspectives. New York: Routledge.

Loy D.R. nd. The Nonduality of Good and Evil: Buddhist Reflections on the New Holy War. http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/101797.htm

Bhawuk, India and Hinduism

There is a daily experience of peace and harmony that has characterized India for thousands of years of recorded history (Bhawuk 2012: 144). In his chapter, Bhawuk (2012) discusses the general state of peace existent in India and details the contributory cultural factors. He goes on to say that this unique, continuing tradition of peaceful harmony arises through the diverse religions practiced there. This framework can be argued to offer hope for engendering peaceful coexistence in other regions of the world today.

Hindu adherents make up 80.5% of the Indian population (Bhawuk 2012: 140). Therefore, this religion can be argued to be an important contribution to the peacefulness of India throughout history. Hindu adherents pray for happiness and health for everybody, everywhere. They wish that all may see only auspicious events and that no one may be unhappy. They pray for peace, as well as ever-increasing peace, everywhere. Therefore, in the Indian culture, peace is an important part of daily life. To emphasize its importance, it is chanted or prayed for on every auspicious occasion by its Hindu populace (Bhawuk 2012: 139).

India is consequently often represented as a culture of peace, peace that has existed for thousands of years in spite of the presence of many conflicts and wars recorded in its history. This is commendable as, according to the Indian census data from 2001, India is also one of the most diverse countries, with respect to religion, and practitioners of most world religions can be found there, including Islam and Christianity (Bhawuk 2012: 140). Additionally, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains are all indigenous to India, and have traditionally lived harmoniously. The question is, how? Even when kings championed Buddhism in India, they did not use swords to convert people to their faith, but practiced nonviolence (Bhawuk 2012: 141).

The history of religious violence and conflict can be contended to arise through cultural distance and a lack of knowledge of other religious beliefs (Bhawuk 2012: 144). Ultimately, education or having knowledge of other cultures is greatly important in terms of peacebuilding. There is great value placed on dialog in providing an understanding and appreciation of others. For instance, one of the cognitive tools used by Indians to create harmony and peace is the simultaneous acceptance of the opposites (Bhawuk 2012: 145). In other words, dialog is the Indian way of creating peace. Additionally, India is one of the few countries that celebrates religious diversity by granting national holidays to celebrate import festivals, including Christian, Muslim and Buddhist holidays (Bhawuk 2012: 151).

Additionally, if a person is not at peace with himself or herself, he or she is likely to create conflict rather than bring peace between communities and nations. Gandhi, for example, was at peace within and in his interpersonal interactions, and that is why he could bring peace to communities and nations (Bhawuk 2012: 140). According to Ragini and Wagner (2009: 303), Gandhi had “a sharp understanding of the Indian psyche which helped him to create a powerful repertoire of symbolic representations associated with non-violence.” This legacy of non-violence, which was both spiritual and political, played an important role in India and the world. However, it is not accepted by all.

Although Bhawuk ultimately argues India, and therefore the Hindu culture, to be largely peaceful, Ragini and Wagner dispute this in terms of fundamentalism. Hinduism is not exempt from such fundamental tendencies (300). Fundamentalism can be defined as “the activity of a group that is directed against the dissolution of traditional order in the course of modernization and that is characterized by a discernible pattern of religious militancy” (Ragini & Wagner 2009: 300). For example, Hindutva fundamentalism in contemporary India depends on rejecting the symbolism of Gandhi’s non-violence, which is widely esteemed as a landmark achievement in the course of India’s struggle for independence from the British Empire. The prevailing social representation of Gandhi and his politics of non-violence are thus condemned to be secularist and anti-Hindu by this group.

So, India, supposedly the most peaceful country on earth, is not exempt from fundamentalism and violence or religious prejudice. If this country cannot sustain peace, then what hope is there for the rest of the world? No country or person is truly selfless and at peace with one another. There will always be religious disagreements or people with fundamental views. The best we can hope for or aim for is to create a world of dialog. Although there is some form of religious violence in India following Ghandi’s rein, India still has a lot to teach the rest of the world in terms of communication, acceptance and dialog.

References

Bhawuk, D. (2012). India and the Culture of Peace: Beyond Ethnic, Religious, and Other Conflicts. In D. Landis and R.D. Albert. Handbook of Ethnic Conflict, International and Cultural Psychology. Springerlink Online.

Ragini, S. and W. Wagner. (2009). Cultural Mechanics of Fundamentalism: Religion as Ideology, Divided Identities and Violence in Post-Gandhi India. Culture and Psychology 15(3): 299-236.

Courting Blakness

A lack of knowledge of various religious and cultural beliefs can be argued to be a leading factor towards violence and discrimination. According to Foster (2014: 256), ignorance ‘is a primary source of and impetus of violence.’ Cross-cultural and cross-faith understanding is therefore crucial to modern society. This is especially relevant when considering the history of violent and discriminatory acts directed at Indigenous Australians. Henceforth, doing something towards building peace, acceptance and tolerance for Aboriginal people is of upmost importance. The Courting Blakness art exhibition does just this.

This month, the University of Queensland’s Great Court was filled with artworks for the Courting Blakness Recalibrating Knowledge in the Sandstone University public exhibition. Three visually astounding, abstractly challenging and thought stimulating artworks were placed at various points throughout the Great Court.

The chosen location for this public exhibition was significant in itself. The selected university environment represents a particular history. The Great Court describes a meeting place of different academic disciplines, artists and thinkers throughout the ages. The carvings on the sandstone buildings describe this specific history of intellectuals. So, this exhibition invites the academic university community, and therefore the future people, thinkers and leaders of the world, to reflect on relevant history and engage with the Great Court through new conversations about issues that matter to both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

In an increasingly digital age, by getting students to stop and think, art in the unique space of a university campus can act as social activism. This aforementioned exhibition takes advantage of a potential university space to interact with issues to do with Aboriginality in contemporary society. Courting Blakness approaches the university sphere to address Indigenous discrimination and difference. It confronts ideas about humanity through the space of public art.

This exhibition does not specifically aim to teach the audience anything in particular, but rather gets people to think and feel. This is especially the case with Debt by Ryan Presley. This particular piece presents a range of revised Australian bank notes on the face of large-scale text. It readdresses the visual iconography of colonial Australia by substituting Indigenous leaders as the notes’ character theme. This gets the audience thinking about racial difference and the violence that has been directed at Indigenous Australians throughout history. It can be interpreted as a reflection or a mirror of today’s society. The images of important, yet somewhat forgotten, Indigenous Australians take over white Australia’s dollar bills just like the Europeans took over and colonised Australia. It reinstates and causes reflection on the rightful and true owners of the land. It reminds viewers of the ongoing devastation and pain that colonialism brought to Aboriginal people.

By bringing this exhibition into the Great Court, it consequently reinterprets the space and reshapes the way people think about Australian identity. It inspires students to think about their contemporary society in conjunction with Aboriginal politics. By changing this intellectual space, it encourages persons to think about an idea they may not have thought about before. It thus presses the current population of the university to enter into a new dialogue. It therefore actively creates awareness of Indigeneity in a modern Australia, removing any chance of ignorance.

Reference

Foster, C. (2014). Learning Violence and Unviolence in Religious Education. Religious Education: The official journal of the Religious Education Association 109 (3), 251-257.

Christianity and Evangelicalism

Harpviken and Roislien (2008:351) recognise that religion is an integral dimension within many armed conflicts. The religion of Christianity is no exception to this. Like any other religion, Christianity has been involved in instances of both peace and violence throughout history.

In their essay, Ehrenhaus and Owen (2007:276) reflect on the performance of ritual lynching within the white Christian evangelical worldview that predominated among members of the white supremacist community responsible for lynching African-Americans. They state that, through a fusion of cultures with faith centred on the violent death of Christ on the cross, this practice of lynching can be read as a ritual re-enactment of blood sacrifice, or “propitiation for the sin of blackness and expiation for the white supremacist community” (Ehrenhaus & Own 2007: 276).

Between the 1880s and 1930s, Evangelicalism was the dominant religious perspective worldwide, serving as a foundational pillar of a national white supremacist culture (Ehrenhaus & Owen 2007: 278). It affirmed the primacy of emotion over intellect and rationalism. Within this worldview, sacrificial lynching reaffirmed a sacred covenant among the members of the white Christian community and between that community and their God (Ehrenhaus & Owen 2007: 278). Especially for white Southern Evangelicals, that covenantal social order had been violated by the Reconstruction Era, by the federally mandated intrusion of blackness into the now defiled sacred public space of the white community (Ehrenhaus & Owen 2007: 278). This commonly resulted in sadistic torture and the burning (often alive) of victims. According to Ehrenhaus & Owen (2007: 281), “by lynching African Americans accused of breaching social boundaries, the white community produced and reproduced the sacrificial act of blood sacrifice that was at the centre of their faith.”

Salvation from sin is the central tenet of Evangelical faith (Ehrenhaus & Own 2007: 1278). As Christ was sacrificed for humanity’s salvation, Evangelical adherents concurrently believe sacrifice, as a symbol of torture and death, is at the heart of salvation. This logic permeated the moral susceptibilities of the white community and served as a legitimating rationale for a culture of violence (Ehrenhaus & Own 2007: 278). How could such obscene acts of human immortality take place in what were understood to be the most devoutly Christian portions of the nation? How could these adherents engage in these unimaginable communal acts of brutality that were so clearly un-Christian?

The explanation for such bloodletting is not found in a retreat from Christian doctrine and scripture, but in its embrace. Public ritual lynching was a performative affirmation of fundamentalist Christian faith in a white supremacist national community (Ehrenhaus & Own 2007: 277). It functioned, for the dominant white Christian community, as acts of devotion, as blood sacrifices to a God whose covenant with the white Christian community had been “violated by the intrusion of blackness” into the sacred spaces of that covenant (Ehrenhaus & Own 2007: 277).

It is interesting to think that this religion, being Christianity, can be responsible for both sides of this war. Whilst Evangelicalism followers see the religion as a source of violence and an explanation for the violent sacrifice of black people, the African American community used the faith as a source of endurance and resistance (Ehrenhaus & Own 2007: 280). Additionally, other religious institutions and white ministers expressed their collective opposition to lynching by drawing upon scripture, the same scripture that began the violent acts in the first place (Ehrenhaus & Own 2007: 280). So, this occurrence perfectly exemplifies that religions have been involved in both violent and peaceful acts throughout history. Religious adherents can take scripture out of context to commend violence, or read it in its entirety and act towards peace and justice.

References

Ehrenhaus, P. & A. Owen. (2004). Race Lynching and Christian Evangelism: Performances of Faith. Text and Performance Quarterly 24(3/4): 276-301.

Harpviken, K. & H. Roislien. (2008). Faithful Brokers? Potentials and Pitfalls of Religion in Peacemaking. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 25(3): 351-373.

Judaism and Peacebuilding

It is universally recognised that Judaism is a religion which has experienced religious violence first-hand. In terms of the Holocaust, as well as in the pre-Holocaust and post-Holocaust eras, Jewish adherents have had to deal with intense violence and the loss of generations of their culture. However, although it must be acknowledged that this religion has undergone a history of anti-Jewish hostility, Judaism, like any other religion, is not necessarily simply an innocent victim of religious violence.

Firstly, in his paper titled Judaism and Peacebuilding, Marc Gopin (2004: 113) discusses how it is possible to point a significant numbers of religious Jews in the direction of peace-making. He recognises that, in light of the Holocaust and traditionally second-class citizenship endured in the Middle Eastern communities of Islam, peacebuilding and peacemaking as vocations will be dismissed by the section of the Jewish community that has the longest memory (Gopin 2004: 113). However, he goes on to say that it is this part of the religion’s population that needs religiously and culturally rooted conflict resolution the most (Gopin 2004: 113).

Gopin contends that the first stage of Jewish peacebuilding, for some followers, is mourning (2004: 114). He says, “mourning is a healthy evolution out of rage over the past” (Gopin 2004: 114). More often than not, what is mourned is mourned in ways that create violence. Therefore, a peacemaking mourning process must speak to the deepest identity needs of a group. Gopin (2004: 114) says, “there is no conflict, especially deadly conflict, that does not involve loss. These losses, often unacknowledged, are the fuel of conflict.” Some Jewish adherents thus need to acknowledge loss, accept it and begin rebuilding their people’s lives without the need for conflict. In other words, one must indulge in memory and accept the past for a more peaceful future.

Although the events of the Holocaust can be blamed for acts of violence and conflict throughout history, the roots of Judaism can also be argued to cause religious violence. To certain Jewish adherents, other religions’ views are deemed unacceptable (Gopin 2004: 116). This ideology in itself is inherently violent. According to Gopin (2004: 116), the Jewish tradition “tends to operate in a theological and moral construct as if no other systems exist.” This ideology arises from the belief that the Jews are the ‘chosen people,’ chosen to be in a covenant with God. This is the most important and foundational root of Judaism. However, in classical Judaism, “the religious psyche is meant to be self-loving in order to be loving in an other-directed sense” (Gopin 2004: 116). The classical basis of this is the Golden Rule, which comes in its earliest form from the Torah in Leviticus 19:18: “Do not take vengeance, or bear a grudge. And you must love your neighbour as yourself, I am the Eternal God” (Gopin 2004: 116). This rule needs to be recognised in terms of peacebuilding.

The most important issue facing the integration of religion and peacebuilding is the multi-cultural, multi-religious and secular nature of most contemporary social settings. Nowadays, society must be prepared to creatively integrate religious traditions with secular constructs, as well as with constructs from other religious and cultural traditions. Judaism must therefore adapt to the contemporary world, put the past behind them and adopt the Golden Rule in an effort to build a world of peace and acceptance. History cannot be changed but the future can be.

Reference

Gopin, M. (2004). Judaism and Peacebuilding. In H. Coward and G.S. Smith. Eds. Religion and Peacebuilding. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Indigenous Worldviews and Experiences

It is a well-known fact that the European conquest of Australia resulted in the dispossession of its Indigenous people, forcing them onto the fringes of colonial society (Attwood 1989: 1). According to Attwood (1989: 1), this apparent belief in cultural superiority is a “violent approach.” From the mid-1830s, the coming of European settlers brought a wave of violence and disease and the number of Aborigines declined markedly (Attwood 1989: 2).

Attwood (1989: 7) especially highlights a Christian mission settlement called Ramahyuck. He states that the main aim of this mission was to civilise and Christianise the Indigenous Australian people (Attwood 1989: 7). Christian missionaries held the firm idea that they had to transform ‘blacks’ into men and women in their own image. They believed they could only succeed if the Aborigines’ cultural order was fundamentally destroyed. They felt that they had to settle the Aborigines because their wandering and unsettled habits were diametrically opposed to the civilised life they so much wanted to inculcate.

In other words, missions like Ramahyuck were “changing Aborigines’ sense of themselves” (Attwoord 1989: 16). Over time, the Aboriginal people became culturally and economically dependent on the mission. This amounted to a severe narrowing in their opportunity to choose and meant they had to accommodate themselves more and more to the missionary order. This was therefore a violent approach towards the Aborigines, removing their identity. Aboriginal spiritualism is based on a connection with the land. And, one of the key things with colonialism was removal from the land. As a result, Aboriginal identity was lost. The removal of identity can have a monumental impact on a culture and is therefore a violent approach.

Although the majority of the Australian population recognise this dispossession of Aborigines, unfortunately, this idea has continued through to today’s society. The situation for Aboriginal people living in contemporary Australian society can be said to link to the legacy of colonial contact. In an interview with Murray Paterson, an Indigenous Coordinator at a Brisbane high school, Palm Island was exemplified. He stated:

“People from seven different language groups were placed here. These people were put on Palm Island because, based on social Darwinism, they were going to die. But they did not die, they are still there today. However, the seven different language groups are dysfunctional, such as issues of ‘who is in charge.’ Some of the social stigmas and issues are to do with these language groups, but they were just put there as missions as such. So, colonialism has had a massive impact on these people” (M. Paterson, personal communication, September 5, 2014). 

So, it is no lie that colonialism impacted on Aboriginal people in a massive way. However, we cannot change the past. We have to acknowledge it and have an understanding of it, but we can only go forward from it. There is no sense pretending that it did not happen. However, there is also no sense in pretending that Western education and Western science is a negative thing either. So, the pros and cons of colonialism cannot really be discussed. Pesantubbe (2004: 40) explains that to assuage suffering and growing into healing, we need to undertake a decolonisation of our minds. We need to acknowledge the past and look at the present. What we do here and now can make a difference. We need to keep moving on.

Reference

Attwood, B. (1989). And God said… let them have dominion. In The Making of the Aborigines. Sydney, London & Boston: Allen & Unwin.

Pesantubbee, M. (2004). In search of the White Path: American Indian peacebuilding. In H. Coward and G.S. Smith. Eds. Religion and peacebuilding. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Thomas Reynolds and Violence in Monotheism

After reading numerous academic papers arguing that religion is inherently violent, Thomas Reynolds' paper titled Beyond Violence in Monotheism was a welcome change. Reynolds (2009) takes a new stance on the issue of religious violence by offering a peace-making reading of monotheistic traditions. He foregrounds a potentially universal and interreligious God of justice, compassion and mercy.

Reynolds (2009: 81) firstly highlights the fact that many who write about religious violence implicate the notion of monotheism. He says that these academics deem monotheism to serve a dangerous purpose. They translate the belief in one God into claims of absolutism that in turn lead to intolerance and rivalry (Reynolds 2009: 81). Therefore, to many scholars, monotheism, or the utter belief in one true God, leads to violence. However, although it has become so easy to blame religion for the violence in our world, it is just as easy to say that the affirmation of God is fundamentally about peace (Reynolds 2009: 81).

According to Reynolds (2009: 81), “the affirmation of one God can in fact cultivate a self-transcending posture of concern for others.” In this sense, God becomes a potentially universal and interreligious God of justice, compassion and mercy (Reynolds 2009: 82). This therefore translates as a peace-making reading of monotheistic traditions.

Reynolds' (2009: 81) “God of peace” is subject to human corruption however and this is where the idea of religious violence arises. One cannot deny that monotheistic religions, including Islam, Judaism and Christianity, have been violent throughout history. Although these religions have been involved in extraordinary acts of compassion and generosity, they have also participated in many occasions of bigotry and violence.

Later in his paper, Reynolds (2009: 81) draws upon Rene Girard's notion of violence and desire. Girard believes that violence begins with desire (Reynolds 2009: 84). As human beings, we desire what someone else desires. So, the act of desire creates a kind of rivalry between the desiring parties. This, in turn, leads to violence. However, this does not make much sense. For instance, what is there to desire between the Abrahamic faiths (Islam, Judaism and Christianity)? These religions all believe in the same one almighty God. So, what is it that they truly desire from each other? For instance, Islam cannot logically believe their God to be any better than the God of Judaism or Christianity because they are the one and same God. Why can’t these religions accept that they share the one God and continue in peaceful co-existence? Is violence and hatred really easier than peace?

No culture, tradition, political scheme or religion can contain or exhaust the fundamental "mystery of God" (Reynolds 2009: 99). No person really knows how many God/s there are or if there are any God/s at all. One simply puts trust in their own beliefs. Therefore, no religion can be said to be better than another. For instance, all adherents of Abrahamic faiths believe in the one almighty God. So, it can be argued that the imaginative naming of God invites solidarity among these religions (Reynolds 2009: 100). Despite their differences, their singular belief in the same God should create unity and acceptance among the groups rather than violence. This again raises the idea of a potentially universal and interreligious God. So, why doesn't this interreligious God create solidarity among the Abrahamic faiths? Why is this not a mechanism for peace-making? What is there to be violent about when all Abrahamic faiths believe in the one God?

Reference

Reynolds, T.E. (2009). Beyond Violence in Monotheism: Interfaith Possibilities. Studies in Interreligious Dialogue 19 (1): 81-101.

Jeff Nall and Fundamentalist Atheism

In his article, Fundamentalist Atheism and its Intellectual Failures, Jeff Nall (2008: 264) proposes a new breed of atheism called “fundamentalist atheism.” Fundamentalist atheism seeks to obliterate religion from modern society as it perceives religion as a major threat to civilisation. In this sense, atheism has become a social movement. It can therefore no longer be simply defined as a "non-belief in God" (Nall 2008: 265). Nall (2008: 264) goes on to say that this type of atheism is fuelled by the rise of secularism, or the separation of church and state.

Fundamentalist atheism narrowly defines and stereotypes religion to bolster its claim that religion is a violent threat to civilisation (Nall 2008: 264). As fundamental atheist, Christopher Hitchens (2008: 19), contends "as well as a menace to civilization, [religion] has become a threat to human survival.”  This form of atheism consequently defines religion as anti-science, a motivator of violence and adverse to progress. It sees religion as the principal impetus for violence in the world and the root of human evil. So, the only way to establish peace in the world, according to fundamentalist atheism, is to obliterate religion altogether.

This definition is based on a limited number of believers, being religious extremists or fundamentalists, who fit this stereotypical model. It therefore uses broad generalisations to condemn all religious adherents. For instance, some fundamental atheists claim that “Christianity is predisposed to foment violence and tolerance” (Nall 2008: 268). This statement is extremely incoherent however. Not all Christians are violent and intolerant. While there is a select percentage of the Christian population who do demand that the world conform to their ideals and promote religious violence, it is absurd to place this stereotype on every single adherent of this religion.

Additionally, these fundamentalist atheists see no difference between religious groups, sects within religions or among individual adherents of these religions. To them, a religious person is inherently violent and irrational no matter their personal beliefs or the extent of their religious beliefs. Instead, all religious paths are thought to lead to extremism. Apparently, there is no religious moderation. They believe that all religious people choose biblical literalism and extremism over critical and rational thought (Nall 2008: 269). This is simply not true. A plethora of beliefs and disbeliefs exist within each religious group.

This fundamentalist atheist viewpoint is somewhat hypocritical. As Nall (2008: 266) highlights in his article, “some fundamentalist atheists have called for actual war on Islam, or more specifically, for an attack on Iran.” Additionally, in 2007, Hitchens recommended a carpet bombing of Muslims alongside other violent recommendations (Nall 2008: 276). These proposals were based on biased readings of Islamic violence. So, this begs the question, are fundamentalist atheists hypocrites? They are highlighting extravagant violence as an apparent 'remedy' for the evil of religion. They also threaten to eradicate the entirety of a religion (i.e. Islam) because of the existence of a minority extremist group. In other words, they want to create a peaceful world in which religion does not exist by using the exact violence that they are wanting to eradicate. This does not seem logical. In fact, this thought is in itself irrational and inherently violent.

Nall (2008: 268) notes that fundamentalist atheists cite chapters and verses from sacred scripture to highlight that hatred and violence draws considerable support from the Bible. Here, the atheists are doing exactly what religious extremists do. Each group takes a particular passage from a sacred text out of context of the entire text to support their claim. In this situation, the fundamentalist atheist is the same as a fundamentalist religious person. There is seemingly no difference in extremism here, except for the group's own apparent purposes or benefits. Both sides of the debate are equally extreme in this case.

Nall goes on to say that this form of atheism is a response to fundamentalist religion. However, as aforementioned, many similarities can be drawn between fundamentalist atheism and fundamentalist religion. For instance, they both share the belief that what they believe is undeniably true. If one is right, the other is wrong. There is no middle path. Each therefore seeks to eradicate all contrary perspectives (Nall 2008: 269). Neither is open to discussion or taking one another's views into consideration. Atheistic fundamentalism exhibits an apocalyptic vision that we normally associate with religious fundamentalism. So, to conclude, these two types of fundamentalism are more alike than different.

References

Hitchens, C. (2008). Chapter 2: Religion Kills. In God is not Great. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

Nall, J. (2008). Fundamentalist Atheism and its Intellectual Failures. Humanity and Society 32: 263-280.

Jerrold Post and Contemporary Terrorism

In a modern society, when we think of "terrorism," religious connotations are commonly drawn. Terrorism is often thought of as a religious extremist ideal. This notion predominately arises from the "Islamic" attacks on the World Trade Centre in 2001, commonly recognised as 9/11. However, religious fundamentalism is unlikely to be the sole cause of terrorist acts. It has become far too easy to blame religions (especially Islam) for the violence in our contemporary world.

In his paper, Jerrold Post addresses the psychology of terrorism (2005). He details that there is no single psychological explanation for these violent acts. However, he foregrounds social psychology as the most powerful lens through which to explain terrorism (Post 2005: 15). He goes on to say that group membership and identity has a greater influence over terrorist behaviour than individual psychopathology or beliefs. I wonder, does this include religious beliefs? It is interesting to think that group identity plays a larger role in an individual's terrorist behaviour then their religious beliefs do.

Once an individual is recruited into a terrorist group, there is a clear fusing of individual identity with group identity. By belonging to a group, the terrorist individual feels accepted, important and needed (Rogers et al 2007: 258). So, by becoming a member, the individual's attitudes and behaviours are impacted. There is a great pressure for the individual to conform. There is a certain desire for respect and trust from the group. Being part of the group therefore provides the necessary justification for their violent actions. This fusing of the individual to the group is found across all organisations, regardless of their ideological affiliation (i.e. religious or secular). 

Is there really any difference between a religious terrorist movement and a secular terrorist group? Although we are constantly reminded that religious extremist groups are dangerous and detrimental to society, they are, put simply, just another terrorist group. They, like any secular terrorist group, share a collective identity. Violence is simply shared by people with a common habitus. So, technically, religious terrorist groups are no different to any other terrorist group. A terrorist group is a terrorist group, no matter their beliefs. It is the fact that they are 'religious' that draws so much more attention. This may be because, as I wrote in my last blog entry, that contemporary society is somewhat afraid of religion and thus finds it easier to blame religions for such atrocities.

All terrorist groups are similar considering their characterization or perception of "the enemy" (Post 2005: 21). This can be recognised as an "us versus them" ideology. Through this ideal, it becomes somewhat logical that the destruction of "them," or the source of all evil, becomes a moral obligation. However, although this is characteristic of many religious groups, it is not exclusive to religious groups. It can be related to all terrorist groups, religious or secular.

It can be said that this repeated focus on religion is an excuse to avoid focusing on the real social issues from which terrorism arises, such as the growing gap between varying socio-economic status (Rogers et al 2007: 260). The role of poverty in influencing terrorist violence is downplayed, while religion is dramatically highlighted. Many individuals who opt to join a terrorist organisation are raised in a climate dominated by hopelessness and despair, where extremism and violence is increasingly seen as the only course of action (Rogers et al 2007). Poverty is therefore a key social driver (Rogers et al 2007: 257).

So, is religion really to blame for terrorism? Or, is poverty and similar social issues pushing individuals to join terrorist groups to feel accepted, needed and important ... and not forgotten? Is it just a coincidence that all members of a specific group are adherents of the same religion? Are we blaming and focusing on religious violence and terrorism so that we can push the real issues in our contemporary world aside?

References

Post, J.M. (2005). When Hatred is Bred in the Bone: Psycho-cultural Foundations of Contemporary Terrorism. Political Psychology, 26 (4), 615-636.

Rogers, M.B., K.M. Loewenthal, C.A. Lewis, R. Amlot, M. Cinnirella, H Ansari. (2007). The Role of Religious Fundamentalism in Terrorist Violence: A Social Psychological Analysis. International Review of Psychiatry, 19 (3), 253-262. 

Conflict: Contemporary Responses to War

What better year than the centenary of World War I then to hold an art exhibition inspired by the concept of 'conflict.' The exhibition, titled Conflict: Contemporary Responses to War, involves many works from contemporary artists that get the audience to think about the consequences of conflict. In a society that is so used to seeing or hearing about war, the exhibition gets people to stop, think and reflect on the atrocities in our world. It gets us to leave our everyday lives and delve into an issue that is bigger than ourselves. It makes us feel. The artworks provide us clues and ideas about the artist's intention, but they do not tell us what they mean or how to react, that is solely up to the individual viewer.

The art exhibition was deeply personal and reflective for both the artists involved and the viewers. Almost all of the works were contemporary artist's personal responses to the idea of conflict, whether influenced by memory or by the bigger picture. The artworks, dedicated to the theme of "conflict," were very thoughtful and effective; forcing their audience to evoke a sense of curiosity and a desire for more knowledge. The exhibition gets onlookers to think, feel and immerse themselves into the underlying meanings, whether intended or not, of the unique works. In this case, many of the artworks work as social activism.

Walking around the exhibition, the first artwork that stood out to me was titled The Blindfolded Leading the Blindfolded by George Gittoes. This marvellous ink-on-paper work really got me thinking. I took it as a reflection of conflict and war. The blinded figures leading one another down a path with no vision of what was to come was very effectual. These characters have no vision of the future, no knowledge of what lies ahead for them. They are being blindly led into war. This work therefore raises the questions: why are we constantly being led into war? Why war? Why is war and violence always the answer?

The meaning that arose from the aforementioned work was strengthened after viewing the video installation Formation V by Baden Pailthorpe. This work uses modern technology to explore the aesthetics and dynamics of military movement. Made using an Afghanistan-based war simulator, Formation V shows two opposing forces of US soldiers and Taliban combatants marching to war side by side. Oblivious to one another's presence, the usual violence of this relationship is transformed into a compelling, mesmerizing and unending walk that repeats itself over and over.

I stood, fixed to the spot, watching this installation for at least fifteen minutes. There was something dramatically poetic about watching the two armies walking aimlessly into the desert, side by side, with no real destination. They were simply walking, armed with guns but not using them on the opposition. This got me thinking, are either sides of the war more better than the other? They each believe that what they are doing is right, they all walk into war simply following their leader. Like the first artwork highlighted, the opposing forces simply marched with no real purpose. The blind was leading the blind, per se.

Considering the subject of religious violence, Formation V compares a fundamentalist Muslim movement with the US army. It highlights that there is no real difference between secular violence and religious violence. Both sides of the war march towards violence for their own beliefs and idea of what is right. What really makes their purposes for violence different then? Each army walks blindly, with all combatants holding a weapon, towards violence, towards nothing. So, how does religious violence really differ to that of secular violence?

For lack of a better term, the enjoyment that this exhibition provides is "disaster porn." It is something that should not be enjoyed as such, yet the inspiring artworks are in fact eye-drawing and breath-taking, invoking a sense of pleasure. I know these artworks should inspire feelings of guilt or sadness, but they do not. I thoroughly enjoyed the entire exhibition, leaving the gallery feeling inspired and thankful for the opportunity to witness such heartbreaking beauty.

William Cavanaugh and Religious Violence

According to William Cavanaugh, the idea that religion has a dangerous inclination to promote violence is a myth. He contends that any attempt to separate religious violence from any other type of violence (i.e. secular violence) is incoherent (Cavanaugh 2009: 4). He goes on to say that although religions "can and do promote violence under certain circumstances," it is incorrect to say that they are more inclined towards violence than any secular ideology or institution (Cavanaugh 2009: 5). Ideologies that are labelled secular, such as nationalism, Marxism or capitalism, can be just as dangerous and irrational as those labelled religious, such as Christianity or Islam. 

Cavanaugh details that the notion that religion has a tendency to promote violence is part of the conventional wisdom of Western societies (2009: 3). Western societies regard the secularization of politics as foundational for a rational and civilised society. So, the very separation of religion from politics is an invention of the modern West in attempt to reach this apparent aim. It is thought that there is no room for religion in a rational and civilised society. Or, simply no room for 'public' religion.

This myth of religious violence therefore helps to marginalize a 'villainous' religious Other, being in direct contrast to the so called 'peace-loving,' 'rational' secular subject (Cavanaugh 2009: 5). In this sense, religion is seen as an irrational and dangerous impulse that must give way, when it comes to politics, so that society can become rational. This argument ironically seems to forget that religion has historically played a significant role in promoting reconciliation and understanding between groups (Bushman et al 2006: 207).

For example, Muslims are casted as 'evil' because they have "not yet learned" to separate politics from the danger of religion. Islam is therefore branded with a negative stereotype of being a 'violent' religion from a society that does not fully understand it. The media especially, and constantly, advertises the view that Muslims are adherents of a religion that promotes anti-Western values such as indiscriminate violence. This in turn legitimizes coercive measures against them as the Other. Modern politics focuses on the minor negatives of religious history to sway the population to favour secularism. And, it appears to be working.

In the study, When God Sanctions Killings, it became evident that people who believe that God sanctions violence are more likely than others to behave aggressively themselves (Bushman et al 2006). However, not every Christian who reads a Bible passage about violence will inherently turn violent themselves. It is the vast minority, being religious extremists, who take one single violent episode out of context and miss the overall message and understanding. They focus on one passage from scripture to explain their violent acts. Biblical scripture in its totality does not justify aggression. It is the religious minority who imply or force this villainous stereotype onto the majority.

So, why is religion so blasphemous in today's society? Why must people feel like they have to hide that they are religious to be able to feel included in a secular society? People should be proud of their beliefs and hold the freedom to express who they are and where they come from. This isn't in saying that the world is against religion as such, but against "public" religion.

As a studies of religion major, I witness the hostility towards religion in a secular world first-hand. When telling people that I study religion, I am constantly greeted with a shocked look and a "oh.. so you're really religious?" as if being religious is something bad or wrong. To me, this is, as Cavanaugh foregrounds, part of the "friend-enemy distinction" (2009: 5). When someone recognises themselves as publicly religious, they are somewhat labelled as absolutists, divisive, irrational and, in extreme circumstances, an 'enemy' to secular society. Why can't people answer this question proudly and confidently with "Yes, I am religious" without being afraid of being judged. Why must contemporary society be so "anti-public religion"? (Cavanaugh 2009: 12). Are people becoming afraid of religion?

References

Bushman, B.D, R.D Ridge, E. Das, C.W Key, and G.L Busath. (2006). When God Sanctions Killing: Effect of Scriptural Violence on Aggression. Psychological Science. 18 (3), 204-207.

Cavanaugh, W.T. (2009). Introduction. In The Myth of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of Modern Conflict (3-14). New York: Oxford University Press. 

Miroslav Volf and The Will to Embrace

Throughout history, many scholars have argued that the Christian faith predominately fosters violence. In his paper, Forgiveness, Reconciliation and Justice: a Theological Contribution to a More Peaceful Social Environment, Miroslav Volf contests this claim. He argues that this religion should instead be seen as a contributor to a more peaceful social environment (2000: 862). When it comes to Christianity (or any other religion for that case), he says, the cure against religiously induced violence is not less religion, but, more religion (2000: 862). The more we nurture religion as an ongoing tradition will help reduce violence and shape a culture of peace (Volf 2000: 862). This is a very interesting thought; one that contradicts the opinions of many mainstream sociologists, academics, politicians and the general public.

Volf says that "at Christianity's heart lie important resources for creating a culture of peace" (2000: 863). In other words, the will to embrace the Other is the most fundamental obligation of Christians. This is the unconditional and indiscriminate will to give ourselves to others and to welcome them. "It is a way of creating a genuine and deeply human community of harmonious peace," allowing us to see our enemies and ourselves with their eyes (Volf 2000: 873). To me, it can be likened to the ever-important teaching from Moses, "do unto others what you would have them do unto you" (Luke 6:31). The goal here is to create a community in which each recognizes and is recognized by all, mutually giving themselves to each other in love. So, the will to embrace is very significant to Volf as it can be seen as peace-creating and peace-sustaining.

I could not agree with Volf more. Instead of encouraging secularism, religious adherents should be given the freedom to practice their religion. It should be nobody's choice but the individual. I believe that religious people of any religious affiliation deserve the right to choose how they celebrate their faith. Instead of defining religion as something "wrong," "violent" and "incompatible with modernity," religious freedom, tolerance and acceptance should be encouraged. This is the significance of the aforementioned 'will to embrace' notion.

In my opinion, and through research conducted in my past, secularism, or attempting to remove religion from society, can in fact foster violence when imposed on religious peoples. For example, as I wrote in an essay last year:

"In 2004, France implemented a law that banned ostentatious religious symbols from public schools (Elver 2012: 111). This ban is primarily aimed at Muslim schoolgirls wearing the hijab. It is premised on an assumption that there is conflict between French secular views and Islamic fundamentalism (Brown 2001: 105). The law insists that it maintains France's values of secularism, regarding the hijab as representative of Islam's resistance to modernity (Scott 2007: 2). However, it can be argued that the banning of the hijab in France does not emancipate Muslim women, but punishes them (Scott 2007: 33). One Muslim schoolgirl who was forced to remove her hijab said it was "a moment of shame, guilt and a burning sense of injustice" (Gemie 2010: 33). So, rather than liberating Muslim girls, the new law made their lives more strenuous."

So, as France's law should support religious freedom (giving Muslim women the choice to wear the hijab), religious people all over the world should be given the freedom to express their faith unconditionally and without discrimination. Volf agrees. He contends that the cure against religiously induced violence is not less religion, but, more religion. By nurturing religions as ongoing traditions and living by Moses' example, we will help reduce violence and shape a culture of peace. So, in France's case, nurturing religious traditions, such as the wearing of the hijab, can be peace-creating and peace-sustaining.

References

Brown, M. D. (2001). Multiple Meanings of the 'Hijab' in Contemporary France. In W. J. Keenan (ed.). Dressed to Impress: Looking the Part (105-123). Oxford: Berg

Gemie, S. (2010). French Muslims: New Voices in Contemporary France. Cardiff: University of Wales Press

Elver, H. (2012). The Headscarf Controversy: Secularism and Freedom of Religion. New York: Oxford University Press

Scott, J. W. (2007). The Politics of the Veil. New Jersey: Princeton University Press

Volf, M. (2000). Forgiveness, Reconciliation, and Justice: A Theological Contribution to a More Peaceful Social Environment. Millennium, 29 (3), 861-877.