Religious Conflict[1]
Is Religion the Problem? The answer is yes and no, according to Kimball (2002). Tonight, we will discuss absolute truth claims, blind obedience, seeking the End-Time, ends justifying means, and pacifism, “just” wars, and “holy” wars.
Claims of Absolute Truth: Knowledge of God
There are multiple ways of knowing in a religious sense. This sacred knowledge is tied to language and symbols. For instance, what do we mean when we say “God”? God is a title not a name (Allah=God=Gott=Dieu). Furthermore, these religious messages can conflict with past statements or even with logic. Consider this question: Could an omnipotent creator make a stone that is too heavy for “him” to pickup?
Types of Theism
Over the course of time and dependent on locality, people have followed different patterns of religious belief. Below is a list of the main types of theism.
- Dynamism-place or object with special powers
- Animism-spirits or forces inhabiting objects
- Polytheism-various gods with one in charge
- Pantheism-worship of whole things like nature, world-Wicca/Gaia
- Henotheism-One god of the tribe but recognizes others [2]
Dualism/bitheism-opposites-two spirits - Deism-impersonal God [3]
- Theism-Personal God. This type of theism may involve many gods (poly), two (bi), or 1 (mono).
Some major faiths that are monotheistic are Judaism, Christianity, Islam. Monotheists tend to think their god is not contingent on anything else (aseity), is omnipotent and omniscience, and without moral flaw.
Claims of Absolute Truth: Abuse of Sacred Texts
Shakespeare wrote that “Even the devil can cite scripture for his purpose.” Claims of absolute truth lend themselves to simplistic slogans, and therefore are easily exploited.
People susceptible to literalist religious interpretations assume that their holy book makes sense. For this to be possible anything other than straightforward text (metaphors, allegories, etc.) are to be avoided. Sacred Texts are also known as “proof texts.” Exploiting proof texts leads to zealotry.
Bart Ehrman’s 2005 book, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why is an excellent example why people should not take a literalist interpretation of the bible. He points out how the various manuscripts were rewritten from earlier rewritten texts. This process has led to mistakes and intentional changes in the stories. The main issue, though, is the lack for original texts or “autographs.”
Consider the Thomas Jefferson Bible that excludes the supernatural aspects of Jesus. See Erik Reece’s “Jesus without Miracles.” Harpers. December 2000.
Claims of Absolute Truth
Missionary religions are those religions that take it upon themselves to try and convert nonbelievers to their faith. Christianity and Islam are missionary faiths. For instance, Southern Baptists targeting non-Christians during their Holy festivals.
The Trouble with Truth. There is an divergence in opinion about whether truth is dynamic and relational or that it is static and without peer.
“The true believer is apt to see himself as one of the chosen, the salt of the earth, the light of the world, a prince disguised in meekness, who is destined to inherit the earth and the kingdom of heaven too.” –Eric Hoffer in The True Believer (1951). Quoted in Johnstone, 2007:133.
Blind Obedience
We have already discussed what sects and NRMs are. We have also discussed the power of charismatic authority figures (Weber). These ideas will help inform our discussion of blind obedience. Basically, blind obedience requires one to become a slave to the ideology. Nonbelievers will perish while believers are rewarded with salvation. Structural imperatives replace individual’s agency. See Normon Cohn’s The Pursuit of the Millennium.
There is no need for individual thought. The leader thinks for you. Withdrawal is based on a tension with wider society. True believers may be urged to withdraw from society. An example is fundamentalist Christianity and public schools. There has been some discussion of removing FC children from public schools.
Seeking the End-Time
Premillenial dispensationalism beliefs suggest that the world will end after a set of phases. Works such as The Late Great Planet Earth by Hal Lindsay and The Left Behind Series have even influenced U.S. foreign policy. Many FC’s believe that the U.S. & Israel should bring about the apocalypse. Many FCs do not support or even find ways to thwart Middle East peace initiatives.
On the home front, FCs are trying to construct a Jesusland were United States is some form of a Christian theocracy. FCs believe that something has been lost that needs to be restored. You may have heard some Teapartiers lamenting the loss of their country and how they need to “take it back.” This is not way of viewing the world is not only confined to Christians. Fundamentalist Christians sound and act like fundamentalist of other religious persuasions that live around the world.
Consider these two quotes:
“Those who control the past, control the future.” –George Orwell and “Those who control the present control the past.” –Orson Welles.
If history is a guide, this is not very successful in the long run for a society
The Y2K scare had a parallel millennial rhetoric attached to it. More about this in Chapter 7. See Craig Unger’s “American Rapture” in Vanity Fair. December 2005.
Ends justifying means
A frequent focus of faiths is defending their sacred spaces (e.g. Ganges/Mecca & Medina/Jerusalem). Often this goal is interwoven with political intrigue. There is also a us versus them (Intergroup Interaction) mentality. Such a mindset allows for the suspension of the Golden Rule.
There may be a fight between people of the same group (us versus us) (Intragroup Interaction). Issues such as racism, sexism, gays, or classism may divide a congregation but it could even just be how to decorate the sanctuary. For a method of analyzing intra-denominational conflict refer to Kniss, Fred and Mark Chaves. 1995. “Analyzing Intradenominational Conflict: New Directions.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 34:172-185.
MORE ABOUT THIS IN CHAPTER 8.
See Jeff Sharlet’s December 2006 article in Harpers, “Through a Glass, Darkly: How the Christian Right is Reimagining U.S. History.”
Karl Marx and the Agents of Control
Marx argued that conflict between the Bourgeoisie and proletariat primarily over power. The proletariat are exploited by the Bourgeoisie who use misdirection and encourage resignation of proletariats to their lot in life. Perhaps you heard the tune Big Rock Candy Mountain (see Oh Brother Where Art Thou)
Protecting the Institution
The Office of the Inquisition (1215-1965) functioned to tamp down heresy and maintain power within Rome. There are corollaries in other faiths. Orthodoxy to church teachings ranks above all else. The status quo is strictly enforced.
We need to continually reconnect with the ideals of our faith rather than with the space, what separates us from others, how we deal with each other, and the structure of our religion.
Pacifism, “just” wars, and “holy” wars
Pacifism is renunciation of violence. Pacifists seek peaceful solutions to problems. Before Constantine, early Christians were pacifistic in orientation (refer to the quote “All who take up the sword will perish by the sword.”).
Just Wars. What is just? The Crusades were considered just wars. As you may know the Crusades were a series of wars. Some involved peasants (1095 A.D.), some children. Often they were just excuses to kill Jews, Orthodox Christians, and Muslims. Compared to the Battle of Hastings in 1066, Crusaders did not have to do penitence for killing other people. Unlike most Christians today who view the Crusades a distant, past event, many Jews and Muslims have strong negative feelings about the Crusades.
Jihad
Most Westerners think Jihad means “Holy War.” Jihad actually means “striving” or “struggling in the way of God.” What that really means is to live a life that is moral and where the individual does good.
[1] Organization based on Kimball, Charles. 2002. When Religion Becomes Evil. San Francisco: Harper Collins. Marty, Martin. 1998. “Revising the Map of American Religion.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 558:13-27.
[2] Henotheism-the vanquished take on the God of the victor. The term originates from Max Muller, the father of comparative religion. His use of the term meant the devotion of a single God while accepting the existence of other gods.
[3] A belief system that envisions one god that has aseity and is morally without flaw is called a ethical monotheism. This is a god with intentions and that we, if we believe, must adhere to in terms of behavior.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cohn, Norman. 1957. The Pursuit of the Millennium. Fairlawn [i.e. Fair Lawn] N.J: Essential Books.
Ehrman, Bart D. 2005. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. 1st ed. New York: HarperSanFrancisco.
Hall, David. 2003. Philosophy of Religion: Part 1.
Hoffer, Eric. 1951. The True Believer; Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements. 1st ed. New York: Harper.
Johnstone, Ronald L. 2007. Religion in Society: A Sociology of Religion. 8th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Kimball, Charles. 2002. When Religion Becomes Evil. 1st ed. San Francisco, Calif.: HarperSanFrancisco.
Kniss, Fred, and Mark Chaves. 1995. “Analyzing Intradenominational Conflict: New Directions..” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 34:172.
Lindsey, Hal. 1970. The Late Great Planet Earth. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Marty, Martin E. 1998. “Revising the Map of American Religion.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 558:13-27.
Reece, Erik. 2005. “Jesus Without the Miracles.” Harper’s Magazine, December, 33-41.
Sharlet, Jeff. 2006. “Through a Glass, Darkly.” Pp. 33-43 in Harper’s Magazine, vol. 313. Harper’s Magazine Foundation http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=23117324&site=ehost-live.
Stark, Rodney. 2006. Cities of God: Christianizing the Urban Empire. 1st ed. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.
Unger, Craig. 2005. “American Rapture.” Vanity Fair, December.
Weber, Max. 1993. The Sociology of Religion. Boston: Beacon Press.
This makes one wonder, if ancient texts and scriptures can be changed to fit any need to legitimize a version of the Word or to get a point across, does a truth really exist or has history been so manipulated that we don’t know…or will never know? I also found the topic of blind obedience very interesting. Do we follow what the scriptures say completely or do we ask questions? Does a person follow the same religion as their parents or does education and individuality play a role in being religious or non-religious? Is there real legitimacy in the role of religion or is it a form of mental and spiritual control or are we living our lives by the simple cycle of life and death and in control of our own destiny? Finally we as humans are capable of many things, this include war. Whether over something simple or complex, humans fight wars, but is there a such thing as a just war? Can religion sanction war? Can a deity really deliver a victory on the battlefield? Can a person kill another and still have salvation, or are all of these questions a waste of time and we are in charge of our lives and fates?
This excerpt is in part a response to the notes and in addition, an answer to the question posted by Princeton; “…are all of these questions a waste of time and are we in charge of our own lives and fates?”. To me, in NRM’s (and all were at some time) one of the most essential elements that links human-beings is just that; their humanity. It is my belief that embedded in each human is the inherent elements of “choice” and it is here where things like Karma, “living Christ-like”, etc. are differentiated. Indeed, all elements of religion rely on the notion of faith and because physically/scientifically nobody can report from both the living and dead side simultaneously, faith operates as a prerequisite for beliefs. I digress, the only thing that human beings have that they can control are what you say out of your mouth and what you do with your physical. Understanding that thought operates in both these field, tells your body to move and is catalysts for speech, essentially these two blessings are “sacred”. We as humans are spiritually indebted to the ability to figure out right/wrong and in some form are held responsible.
A wise man told me, “Always and never are two things that rarely ever happen”.
The older I get, the more I question religion all together. Now that I have learned that the Book in which many religions operate under have been altered or changed many times, I wonder have we been oppressed by the teachings of religion? I agree with my fellow classmate, does education take a person who is deeply religious, mind outside the box and makes him question what he has been taught. How do we know who to believe in concerning this issue? I think society has found a way to adjust their practices to govern religion according to their comfort zone. Why are many religious leaders concerned with young people going off to college and being brainwashed against religion by professors who will open their blinded eyes?
the substitute link of that movie:
More thoughts on…”is religion the problem?”
Like stated above, yes and no. Religion becomes a “problem” when people (emphasis on PEOPLE) take it too literally and seriously. When people believe that their god is the only god and that they are the chosen ones and that every other belief system is nonsense and every other human that believes in anything other than what they believe in is nonsense as well. I do believe that people need something positive to believe in, something to give them hope. As we have discussed before, there will always be religion as long as there are people. Therefore, there is no “cure” for religion, so why not try to reduce the causes of conflicts in religions?
Let us just look at the big picture: we are all here on earth for a very brief period of time. What we do with the time we are “given” is up to each individual, every day. Every person is trying to obtain basically the same things during their stay here on earth: companionship, purpose, security, legacy, etc., but are not all these things just an illusion? Can one really obtain anything absolute? I do not think so, so goes religion. One cannot say, unless blindly so, that their god is THE ultimate god, or their belief system is THE only one and anyone and everyone who does not agree is wrong. That amount of certainty must be a luxury to pass through life with…
Big Rock Candy Mountains
…and the hens lay soft boiled eggs…