Religious Violence

Guide Rating -

Religious leaders normally argue that religion is a force for good and love in the world. Yet, at the same time, we see religion regularly used for war, mass murder, and even genocide. Why does this difference exist - how can religion be claimed as a basis for peace while so many use it as a basis for terrorism?

According to Christopher Catherwood in his recent book, "Why the Nations Rage," the problem is not simply religion. It is, rather, religious nationalism. At the core of his argument is the question of how people define themselves. When people feel politically and economically secure, their environment is stable and so, therefore, is their identity.

However, when the political and/or economic environment is not stable then neither is their identity - and in such situations people are much more willing to condone or even engage in violence in order to secure that identity. This, of course, is exactly the situation we see occurring among Muslims in the Middle East:

At the heart of Islamic rage today is a profound sense of humiliation in the face of the West. President Bush and countless others have asked, "Why do they hate us?" The answer is this sense of shame and loss, and the perceived global predominance of the West over the Islamic world. Bin Laden wants to restore what he feels is the natural balance, a Muslim superstate, with Islam as its religion, occupying its rightful place at the center of global power.

Contrast this with the situation in a stable political and economic system in Iran, for example, where there were pro-American riots after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. This goes a long way towards demonstrating that the problem is not simply Islam.

Having a secure identity doesn't just influence how a group deals with the outside world - it also influences how a group deals with internal minorities and dissent. When a group feels politically secure and thus secure with their self-identity, it is easier to tolerate the existence of minorities with different identities and different allegiances. This is the source of the historical Muslim tolerance of Jews and Christians - when Islam actually was predominant in the world, neither group was regarded as a threat, and hence there was little reason for prejudice and oppression. Today, the status of religious minorities in the Middle East has changed for the worse.

What this means, then, is that neither religion nor nationalist self-identification can be ignored when it comes to determining the causes for terrorism. It isn't just religion, as some believe, because not all religious conflicts have resulted in violence. It also isn't just questions of national pride, because not all nationalist and ethnic conflicts have resulted in violence.

Instead, the key seems to be the ways in which the two interact, resulting in a very unhealthy nationalism, unhealthy ethnic identification and unhealthy religion. Nationalism and ethnicity create a source of identity while religion provides a transcendent explanation for a people's suffering, along with violent means for overcoming the humiliation and shame. When people understand this, they will better understand the roots of religious terrorism today.

Catherwood's book is a good source for coming to grips with violent religion and its various causes. He reviews the writings and arguments of a number of other authors who have addressed the topic, thus allowing a reader to get a nice overview of what scholars today have said. Catherwood certainly doesn't agree with all of those he cites, though I feel that his disagreements with Samuel Huntington's thesis in "Clash of Civilizations" is not as significant as Catherwood says. Nevertheless, Catherwood's book is also shorter and easier to read than most of those on this topic.