Week 12

In class on Monday we watched the movie “The Pastor and the Imam,” a movie about just that, a pastor and an Imam, who are working to create peace in Nigeria between the Christians and Muslims. Throughout the film, the two were showed holding workshops with religious leaders and followers in various towns/villages across Nigeria. Each time they separate the listeners into their respective religious groups, discuss likes and dislikes of the other, then reconvene and present these findings. This offered the context of dialogue that allowed the different groups to relate, sympathize, and understand one another. The movie was very powerful and moving, but even after watching all of these workshops they held, the part that resonated with me most was the final minute of the move. This last scene was a shot of the Pastor and the Imam, sitting side by side, explaining what allowed them to get along and respect one another even though they were from different religions. Both returned to their respective religious texts, with the Pastor stating “love thy neighbor” and “thou shall not kill,” while the Imam said “Allah tells me to make space for everyone.” Through returning to the original teachings of their own religions, each can find a clear overtone of peace and understanding required by each of their Gods.

In relation to my previous post, the Pastor and the Imam are perfect examples of how dialogue, especially dialogue initiated by religious leaders, is so effective in conflict resolution and religious peacemaking. Although it is a method that takes time and possibly generations to accomplish, I think it is the most sufficient and successful way to sustain peace and understanding between two conflicting groups. It has the ability to not just cover up, but heal the wounds caused by years of fighting and hatred in its ability to transform human sentiment and foster cooperation.

Week 11

This week in class we shifted our focus to religious peacemaking. We talked about the importance of relationship building and the dynamic of inter- and intra-faith interactions. Within these spaces, the context of dialogue is key. Once a group talks amongst themselves and undergoes intra-faith dialogue, they create collective group identity and identify common fears, wants, needs, likes, and dislikes (in relation to themselves and other religions). Once two separate groups go through this process, then they are staged for successful conflict resolution through inter-faith dialogue. As two groups come together, they can recognize commonalities between religious practices and begin to relate to one another in the pain and suffering that they go through. In addition to this, they are able to make out commonalities between their religious beliefs and understand that forgiveness and peace are a part of both. From this point, it is in hopes that each religious group will come to terms with the wrongful actions of their own group and find legitimacy in the other (as human beings with feelings and as a founded religion).

When reading about this process of conflict resolution and peacemaking it made complete sense. Not to be too simplistic, but as a child, the last thing that seems instinctual is to go and sit down with someone you dislike and try and calmly and peacefully talk out your problems. Rather, a child will portray their hatred or dislike through their words and actions and see no need to get along with the other. I bring this up not to say that religious groups are childish or immature, but that an instinctive part of human nature seems to be the internalization of feelings and expressing them through words and action rather than the feeling/need to love the one you hate.

However, since so many religions do preach this concept of peace and understanding and to “turn the other cheek,” there seems to be a hope that once these inter- and intra-faith dialogues are initiated, there is a likely chance that conflict resolution will ensue.

Week 10

In James W. Jones’s Blood That Cries Out From the Earth, the theory of “splitting” as a causal factor of religious conflict is brought up. This theory, as Jones describes, functions on two levels. On the individual level, it is the idea that “I am good, but Satan is tempting me and making me do something bad.” In conjunction with this, on a societal level it is the idea such that “Hindu’s are good, but Muslim’s are making me do something bad.” In both cases, it gives provides an individual with someone to hate, meaning they do not have to hate themselves for their imperfections or the bad things they do. This idea of projecting ones discomfort with themselves outwards on another, according to Jones, is a key psychological factor behind religious conflict.

I think this theory makes a lot of sense, however, it attaches a perpetual discomfort and dissatisfaction to religion. Rather than religion providing a positive meaning to life, it seems to suggest that religions demand such unachievable excellence from individuals that it inevitably leads them to feel failure and inadequacy. This seems particularly odd to me considering the Western view of religion and its characteristics of providing individuals with a positive purpose in life.

Week 9

This week in class we talked about the three different responses to victimization that Kakar outlines in The Colors of Violence. He describes how these responses are (1) loss of agency/disempowerment, (2) Andulus Syndrome (mourning a loss and grandiose past), and (3) fundamentalism. The later of the three is different than the other two in that it focuses on the humiliation felt by the victims rather than a feeling of mourning or grieving. This, in turn, leads to the anger and rage embodied by fundamentalist groups and results in their violent attributes. I found this an interesting insight into the drive behind fundamentalism. It reminded me of all the times as a child where the feeling of humiliation, due to fights or arguments with my friends, left me so angry that it felt like the only way to get over it was to retaliate with physical aggression. As simple as a comparison as this may seem, it made me realize how much this characteristic of humiliation and violence are basic human instincts. Only as I grew up and matured did I develop the self control and composure needed in life and learn that physical aggression no longer stood as a viable reaction to discontent. However, when one grows up in a culture and society that is plagued with poverty and violence, this learned need for restraint in reaction to frustration/humiliation may not take precedent. Although it offers no excuse, this idea presents a forum for understanding why such violent fundamentalist groups exist.