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.