week 3

Last week we read an excerpt from the book Cruel Creeds, Virtuous Violence in which Jack David Eller explains how religious groups often act as interest groups. This idea ties directly into the writing of Mark Juergensmeyer in Terror In The Mind of God when he discusses the different types of Westerner religious groups that align themselves with Christianity. He explains the Christian Identity movement and how they feel it is a "necessity for the Anglo-Saxon race to retain its purity and political dominance, and the need for Western societies to establish a biblical basis for government" (Juergensmeyer33) and how in the US this "ideology has taken a more strident and political turn" (34). This shows how rather then their only/main goal being to spread their religion and convert others, the Christian Identity have the goal to improve the social dominance of a race and increase their political power. In other words, they are acting in group interest for power and stature rather then to simply spread religion. The reason I bring this up is because I think it is important to realize that this is another way conflict and religion are tied together. It is an example of the way that groups separated by religious difference tend to oppose each other politically, socially, and economically as well, once again leading to conflict between religious groups that is not directly caused by religion.

Week 2

In his book Cruel Creeds, Virtuous Violence, Jack David Eller speaks of the conflicts between ethnoreligious groups. He starts off by explaining how religion and ethnicity are often infused in creating "ethnoreligious" groups that embody the classical theory of "us" vs "them," leading to conflict between these groups that "are not exclusively about religion but are about other things too" (Eller 208). This, consequently, creates conflicts between ethnic and groups that is often pinned on religion but, as Eller proves through multiple case studies, is rooted in various other factors as well. One of the factors that stood out to me was the fact that the boundary that separates two groups often becomes the focus of each group, rather then "the cultural stuff that encloses it" (Eller 210). This presents the idea that these ethnoreligious groups function on the grounds of self interest. As Eller explains, "they are certainly not trying to covert each other to their religion nor are they disputing each other's doctrines," rather "what they are disputing against each other is access or control over 'mundane areas like development plans, education, trade union, land policy, business/tax policy, army' and other worldly concerns" (Eller 212).

This is an important point to notice because it displays how religion becomes the blame for global violence, when often time it is only one of the factors that separate these groups and not the cause of violence at all. All it serves as is a distinction of "us" vs "them" and once "us" starts fighting "them" it is blamed on their religious differences. But if one were to step back and look, they would see that the fighting may be instead over access to goods and political power. This makes me wonder, if a common nationality that became the primary form of self identification could be be established among the warring religious sects in various nations, could this creation of a common interest group through nationality help end ethnoreligious violence? or would it only bring escalate it to a national level?

Violent Religion or Religious Violence?

How can one define or justify religious violence? Are religions violent or are people? The difficulty in answering these questions lie in the fact that religion is based on belief and interpretation, both of which are arbitrary and subjective forms of evidence. In his book Holy Terrors, Bruce Lincoln breaks down religion and writes that it is defined by four domains: discourse, practice, community, and institution. Through his explanation, he successfully breaks down religion and helps explain why violence, along with various other aspects, are characteristics of religion.

One of Lincoln's most compelling arguments was his statement that, "religious discourse can recode virtually any content as sacred, ranging from the high-minded and progressive to the murderous, oppressive, and banal, for it is not any specific orientation that distinguishes religion, but rather its metadiscursive capacity to frame the way any content will be received and regarded." This brings up the strength of the role that interpretation plays in religion. It poses the idea that religion can be, and often is, used as a form of justification for acts that break a societies collective moral code. Furthermore, Lincoln states that "no practices are inherently religious, and any may acquire a religious character when connected to a religious discourse that constitutes them as such," which expands on the role of interpretation even more. It suggests how susceptible something, no matter how seemingly perverse to the masses it may be, is to becoming a practice justifiable by religion. As long as a religious leader can find in their scripture a historic act, story, or phrase that can be interpreted to condone an act such as violence, violence then becomes a religious act.

Although I may be taking this to the extreme and applying these ideas directly to violence rather then other nonviolent religious practices, these ideas help to explain the foundation and existence of religious violence. After all, the individuals who commit these violent acts in the name of religion are often not inherently violent psychopaths, but persons inspired by their religious ideology.