In his article in Religion: The Missing Dimension of Statecraft, Edward Luttwak points out the prominence of religious leaders in current world affairs and the increasing role of religion in conflict resolution. Luttwak mentions Catholic involvement in the Solidarity trade union movement in Poland in passing, but I'd like to explore this influential movement in a little more depth, as I feel it provides an interesting example of the roles religion can play. Althought it can be a potent source of conflict, it can also be used to resolve conflict or to implement social change by peaceful processes.
The Polish trade union "Solidarność", or "Solidarity," was founded by unemployed electrician Lech Walesa in 1980 to protest the central Communist control of all trade in Poland and to fight for workers' rights and social change. The workers wanted the right to organize and to strike, which was denied them under the Communist administration. The movement's anti-communist sentiments were seen as a threat by the government and were forcefully suppressed during a period of martial law. Nonetheless, the movement rapidly gained a large following, eventually topping 9 million members--a quarter of Poland's population. The Solidarity movement continually advocated for worker's rights and more open trade using non-violent means, even when their leaders were imprisoned and the organization was forced underground. After nine years of continued non-violent resistance, Solidarity was able to form the first non-communist government in the Soviet Bloc. This non-violent revolution set the precedent for other Soviet Bloc countries, and what could have been violent revolutions were generally resolved by prolonged non-violent protest and resistance.
The success of the Solidarity trade union is remarkable, and testifies to the fortitude and solidarity of its members, but also to the support the movement received both from American trade unions and from Pope John Paul II, who was of Polish origin. The majority of the Polish people practice the Catholic faith, which was suppressed under the officially Atheist Communist state. The Catholic faith served as a powerful unifying factor among the members of the Solidarity movement, and Catholic social teachings were prominent in the discourse of the group. Many priest were outspoken members of the movement, and some were even killed for their activism.
With the election of Pope John Paul II, the first Polish Pope, in 1978, Poland's national ties to Catholicism grew even stronger. In addition, Pope John Paul II would soon prove to be an outspoken advocate for their cause, which lent legitimacy to the Solidarity movement in the international community. In his now-famous speech on Warsaw's Victory Square in June 1979, Pope John Paul II addressed a crowd of 500,000, emphasizing Poland's Christian roots and cultural tradition and enjoining them, "Do not be afraid." This speech was a catalyst in the Polish movement for democracy, and many say that it led directly to the formation of the Solidarity movement. In the years that followed, Pope John Paul II continued to speak out in favor of the movement, even meeting with its leader Lech Walesa in prison and stressing themes of solidarity with the poor and oppressed in his papal writings.
At this moment in history, Catholicism's non-hegemonic role allowed it to be a powerful force for social change in the country. As Luttwak points out in his article, this type of religious motivation for political change is unlikely to happen when the religion is closely allied with the state. In this case, however, the combination of an oppressed majority religion and a new Pope who was both an international leader and a son of Poland gave the movement the broad base, values, and legitimacy it needed to succeed in bringing democracy to Poland through a non-violent revolution.
05 December 2011
17 November 2011
The Value of Religious Peacemaking
In Chapter 4 of R. Scott Appleby's The Ambivalence of the Sacred, he looks at case studies where "militants for peace", religious actors strongly devoted to non-violence, have made a difference in peacemaking efforts. After spending most of the course examining religious violent actors, learning about religious non-violent actors has been a nice change. These religious peacemakers help to reframe the conflict from a conflict between one ethnic or religious group that is "good" and another "evil" into a conflict between those who seek peace and those who continue to use deadly violence. These "enemies" are to be fought with the moral voice and peaceful teachings of a religious tradition.
Throughout the semester, we've read about religious violence in many forms and remarked that these conflicts are shaped by myriad situational factors. The same can be said for religious peacemaking, which takes on as many forms as there are conflicts: Ghosananda's marches in Cambodia, the Mennonite Central Committee, the Alexandria Process, the Community of Sant'Egidio, all of these groups have used different methods to advocate for peace. What they have in common is their emphasis on the peaceful teachings of their religions and their sense of "mission" or "moral obligation" to devote themselves to working for peace.
I found the case of the Community of Sant'Egidio especially inspiring. To think that a small group of high school students who wanted to serve the poor and "Love thy enemy" could blossom into an international community of thousands negotiating for peace on the basis of unconditional friendship! This kind of success required a great deal of commitment and integrity from its members, and even then it was by no means the only factor in promoting peace. It was, however, a useful non-political catalyst that helped bring moral values and shared humanity into the conversation.
In order for a religious peacemaking group to be effective in the long term, Appleby says that that they must "span a spectrum of actors at different levels of society, all of whom are working in collaboration for the nonviolent resolution of conflict and the building of stable political structures and social relations" (122). That's quite a tall order, but some groups, like the Community of Sant'Egidio, the Mennonite Central Committee, and others, are working hard to make it possible. When religious peacemakers cooperate with other secular (governmental and non-governmental) peacemaking groups, their committment to moral values can help give the peacemaking efforts real strength. It seems fitting to me that the religion which was part of the problem also be part of the solution.
Throughout the semester, we've read about religious violence in many forms and remarked that these conflicts are shaped by myriad situational factors. The same can be said for religious peacemaking, which takes on as many forms as there are conflicts: Ghosananda's marches in Cambodia, the Mennonite Central Committee, the Alexandria Process, the Community of Sant'Egidio, all of these groups have used different methods to advocate for peace. What they have in common is their emphasis on the peaceful teachings of their religions and their sense of "mission" or "moral obligation" to devote themselves to working for peace.
I found the case of the Community of Sant'Egidio especially inspiring. To think that a small group of high school students who wanted to serve the poor and "Love thy enemy" could blossom into an international community of thousands negotiating for peace on the basis of unconditional friendship! This kind of success required a great deal of commitment and integrity from its members, and even then it was by no means the only factor in promoting peace. It was, however, a useful non-political catalyst that helped bring moral values and shared humanity into the conversation.
In order for a religious peacemaking group to be effective in the long term, Appleby says that that they must "span a spectrum of actors at different levels of society, all of whom are working in collaboration for the nonviolent resolution of conflict and the building of stable political structures and social relations" (122). That's quite a tall order, but some groups, like the Community of Sant'Egidio, the Mennonite Central Committee, and others, are working hard to make it possible. When religious peacemakers cooperate with other secular (governmental and non-governmental) peacemaking groups, their committment to moral values can help give the peacemaking efforts real strength. It seems fitting to me that the religion which was part of the problem also be part of the solution.
13 November 2011
Hindutva and the Front National
I've been thinking over the Kakar readings lately, and the readings on the "New Hindu Identity" really had a lot of strong parallels to the recent French debates on national identity. National identity has been a hot conversation topic in France over the past few years, and in 2009 the Minister of Culture announced the "Grand débat sur l’identité nationale"/Great Debate on National Identity. While the implementation of this national debate was a little stilted and forced, the topic of national identity was all over the news and many strong opinions were presented on the subject. The main question here was "What does it mean to be French?"
You would think that would be a simple question to answer.
But no. It was actually a highly controversial debate. Setting aside the frustrations of the many Frenchmen who were convinced the debate was designed only to make the government look good before elections, the debate also touched right on the hot-button issues of immigration and "communitarianism." After WWII, France needed workers to reconstruct their ravaged country, and turned to their North African colonies for manpower. Eventually the workers were allowed to bring their families and settle down. These families of North African origin are now in their second, third, or even fourth generation in France, yet many of them are not fully integrated into society (because of problems of high unemployment, poor housing, etc). For some, even though these children of immigrants were born and educated in France, they are not "truly" French.
Enter the Front National. This extreme right-wing political group, founded by Jean-Marie Le Pen and currently headed by his daughter Marine Le Pen, is most famous for its views on immigration. The party calls for a complete halt to immigration, in particular from Muslim countries. Until rather recently, the party leaders demanded the "humane and dignified" repatriation of all legal immigrants in France. Now they only ask for the repatriation of all illegal, criminal, and/or unemployed immigrants...
For the Front National, there is a big difference between these children of North African immigrants (often called "beurs") and the "indigenous" French, or "Francais de souche" (literally "French from the stump/roots"). Overlooking the fact that almost everyone in France has an "immigrant" somewhere in their background and the France itself was formed by waves of invasions and different tribes, the Front National has created a shimmering history for itself of national purity and the pristine values of the Republic. FN followers panic that polls show that by 2060, "Francais de souche" will be the minority in France, because the North Africans "breed like animals" and will crush the secular French society with their "radical Islam."
As in the case of the New Hindu Identity movements, here we see another case of the majority group in power feeling threatened and victimized by the minority. By creating an image of the pure, perfect France (led by Joan of Arc, no less..), they split off everything that is dirty, dangerous and animal-like onto the French of North African origin. The Front National has not been responsible for any violence, but recognizing these same characteristics of splitting and "narcissistic rage" makes me worry.
You would think that would be a simple question to answer.
But no. It was actually a highly controversial debate. Setting aside the frustrations of the many Frenchmen who were convinced the debate was designed only to make the government look good before elections, the debate also touched right on the hot-button issues of immigration and "communitarianism." After WWII, France needed workers to reconstruct their ravaged country, and turned to their North African colonies for manpower. Eventually the workers were allowed to bring their families and settle down. These families of North African origin are now in their second, third, or even fourth generation in France, yet many of them are not fully integrated into society (because of problems of high unemployment, poor housing, etc). For some, even though these children of immigrants were born and educated in France, they are not "truly" French.
Enter the Front National. This extreme right-wing political group, founded by Jean-Marie Le Pen and currently headed by his daughter Marine Le Pen, is most famous for its views on immigration. The party calls for a complete halt to immigration, in particular from Muslim countries. Until rather recently, the party leaders demanded the "humane and dignified" repatriation of all legal immigrants in France. Now they only ask for the repatriation of all illegal, criminal, and/or unemployed immigrants...
For the Front National, there is a big difference between these children of North African immigrants (often called "beurs") and the "indigenous" French, or "Francais de souche" (literally "French from the stump/roots"). Overlooking the fact that almost everyone in France has an "immigrant" somewhere in their background and the France itself was formed by waves of invasions and different tribes, the Front National has created a shimmering history for itself of national purity and the pristine values of the Republic. FN followers panic that polls show that by 2060, "Francais de souche" will be the minority in France, because the North Africans "breed like animals" and will crush the secular French society with their "radical Islam."
As in the case of the New Hindu Identity movements, here we see another case of the majority group in power feeling threatened and victimized by the minority. By creating an image of the pure, perfect France (led by Joan of Arc, no less..), they split off everything that is dirty, dangerous and animal-like onto the French of North African origin. The Front National has not been responsible for any violence, but recognizing these same characteristics of splitting and "narcissistic rage" makes me worry.
23 October 2011
Sectarian Violence in Egypt continued
I don't want to continue on the same theme forever, but since I've written that last blog I've been seeing articles about Copts and Muslims in Egypt everywhere. In the current issue of Smithsonian magazine, the article "Aftershocks" by Joshua Hammer gave me a closer look at the many factors influencing recent outbreaks of sectarian violence in Egypt. He spent some time meeting with Coptic Christians from many walks of life and interviewing them on their experiences in post-Mubarak Egypt. He also interviewed the head of the Salafist movement in Alexandria and some more moderate Muslim community leaders. It was a relatively balanced article that was helpful in giving a clearer view of the situation. I'd recommend it. (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/A-New-Crisis-for-Egypts-Copts.html)
It left me thinking about two main things. First off, it reminded me that bad consequences usually seem to entail when a religious group is forbidden to build their places of worship. When the group in power forbids a religious group from building their churches, mosques, etc, they are hoping to deprive them of places to gather and of a physical presence in the land. This tactic, seen in Egypt with the building of Christian churches as in France with the building of mosques, is meant to suppress the "undesirable" religious group and to exclude them from having a place in society. But in the cases I've seen so far, it seen to have mostly negative consequences for all involved.
First, the group that isn't allowed to build their mosque/church/temple feels repressed. Being denied places of worship is a pretty clear statement of "we don't want you here." But instead of having the "desired" outcome of decreasing the group's influence, growing sentiments of injustice and persecution often seem to blossom into protests (which sometimes become riots) and sometimes acts of violence. In France, restrictions to where/when/how mosques can be built add to feelings of exclusion and even racism towards France's Muslim citizens, often of immigrant origin. In the past, this clear injustice has been a rallying point for more fundamentalist-style groups. I don't think it's a good idea to make groups get the feeling that they are trapped and oppressed--it could lead to more radical and desperate "solutions" to their problem. One of the main events that led to the recent Maspero riots in Egypt was the destruction of a Coptic church by a group of Muslims who deemed it "unlawful" for them to build.
The second point is one I'm still working out, so I'll leave it open. In so many of these articles, I read about the rise of Salafism, the Muslim Brotherhood/related groups in the wake of so many of these North African (& Middle Eastern) revolutions. Some say that Salafist groups are growing because now they are allowed to gather publicly--to be visible and attract members. But I wonder if these conditions of revolution, change, violence also play a role in making Salafist views more popular than before...it could be interesting to go back to the last chapters of Juergensmeyer and see what he would say.
It left me thinking about two main things. First off, it reminded me that bad consequences usually seem to entail when a religious group is forbidden to build their places of worship. When the group in power forbids a religious group from building their churches, mosques, etc, they are hoping to deprive them of places to gather and of a physical presence in the land. This tactic, seen in Egypt with the building of Christian churches as in France with the building of mosques, is meant to suppress the "undesirable" religious group and to exclude them from having a place in society. But in the cases I've seen so far, it seen to have mostly negative consequences for all involved.
First, the group that isn't allowed to build their mosque/church/temple feels repressed. Being denied places of worship is a pretty clear statement of "we don't want you here." But instead of having the "desired" outcome of decreasing the group's influence, growing sentiments of injustice and persecution often seem to blossom into protests (which sometimes become riots) and sometimes acts of violence. In France, restrictions to where/when/how mosques can be built add to feelings of exclusion and even racism towards France's Muslim citizens, often of immigrant origin. In the past, this clear injustice has been a rallying point for more fundamentalist-style groups. I don't think it's a good idea to make groups get the feeling that they are trapped and oppressed--it could lead to more radical and desperate "solutions" to their problem. One of the main events that led to the recent Maspero riots in Egypt was the destruction of a Coptic church by a group of Muslims who deemed it "unlawful" for them to build.
The second point is one I'm still working out, so I'll leave it open. In so many of these articles, I read about the rise of Salafism, the Muslim Brotherhood/related groups in the wake of so many of these North African (& Middle Eastern) revolutions. Some say that Salafist groups are growing because now they are allowed to gather publicly--to be visible and attract members. But I wonder if these conditions of revolution, change, violence also play a role in making Salafist views more popular than before...it could be interesting to go back to the last chapters of Juergensmeyer and see what he would say.
18 October 2011
Sectarian violence: the Maspero riots
On October 9th of this year, a non-violent protest by thousands of Coptic Christians in front of a state-run TV building in Maspero, Egypt turned violent when police and local "thugs" intervened, leaving 26 protesters dead. Some news sources refer to the incident as a "battle" with aggressors on all sides, others refer to a "massacre" of unarmed protesters. Different newspapers have chipped in with their theories of the causes for the riot--some theories more believable than others. The building and renovation of churches has been a constant point of
contention, and the demolition of a church that was rumored
not to have proper authorization by Muslims was the direct cause of this most
recent protest.
The Coptic Christians, who make up about 10% of Egypt's population, have been charged with "threatening national unity" since the fall of Mubarak's secular government. Coptic Christians' leaders and intelligentsia are seen as spreading "meaningless propaganda" and encouraging foreign interference in Egypt's affairs (http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/23491/Egypt/Politics-/AlJamaa-AlIslamiya-condemns-Copts%E2%80%99-protests,-hints.aspx). On the other side, the Coptic Christians accuse the new government of allowing Islamist groups and the military to persecute them. Some even refer to it as genocide.
This instance of sectarian violence reminded me of the cases of Hindu-Muslim violence in the movie Earth and the book the Colors of Violence about the Hindu-Muslim riots in Hyderabad, India. In both cases, sectarian violence intensified in this period of political sensibility when places in society are renegotiated. Each side has their own version of the events, and it seems to me that the "triggers" for most of these riots say a lot about the fears of each group. For example, a large riot between Muslims and Christians in Egypt last May began when rumors circulated that the Christians were holding a woman who had converted to Islam as a captive. It would be interesting to analyze what makes each group think of the other as a threat and how that influences their response to a perceived affront. The situation in Egypt is complicated, and the articles I was able to find on the Maspero riot varied widely in their accounts of how the violence started and who was involved. For me, this only emphasized how differently two groups might view an event and how they could each use the same event to strengthen their view of things.
The Coptic Christians, who make up about 10% of Egypt's population, have been charged with "threatening national unity" since the fall of Mubarak's secular government. Coptic Christians' leaders and intelligentsia are seen as spreading "meaningless propaganda" and encouraging foreign interference in Egypt's affairs (http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/23491/Egypt/Politics-/AlJamaa-AlIslamiya-condemns-Copts%E2%80%99-protests,-hints.aspx). On the other side, the Coptic Christians accuse the new government of allowing Islamist groups and the military to persecute them. Some even refer to it as genocide.
This instance of sectarian violence reminded me of the cases of Hindu-Muslim violence in the movie Earth and the book the Colors of Violence about the Hindu-Muslim riots in Hyderabad, India. In both cases, sectarian violence intensified in this period of political sensibility when places in society are renegotiated. Each side has their own version of the events, and it seems to me that the "triggers" for most of these riots say a lot about the fears of each group. For example, a large riot between Muslims and Christians in Egypt last May began when rumors circulated that the Christians were holding a woman who had converted to Islam as a captive. It would be interesting to analyze what makes each group think of the other as a threat and how that influences their response to a perceived affront. The situation in Egypt is complicated, and the articles I was able to find on the Maspero riot varied widely in their accounts of how the violence started and who was involved. For me, this only emphasized how differently two groups might view an event and how they could each use the same event to strengthen their view of things.
09 October 2011
Does religion necessarily create out-groups?
While taking a study break to read one of my favorite blogs, I came across a passage that seemed especially relevant to our class. I'll get to it in a minute.
First, a little disclosure. I'm a practicing Christian of an Eastern Catholic tradition, and I hope to pursue a graduate degree in Eastern Christian Studies. I study world religions because I love it and I always want to know more about other religions/worldviews.
For me this particular class on religious violence deals with a very real and widespread problem in the world that touches every religious tradition and really the whole global community. Through the class I'd like to learn how to understand the roots of this violence and to build peace in my small (or larger) way. But coming from a religious tradition, I also ask myself if religion is the problem in all this, and if at the root of all religion there will necessarily be violence. Are we the problem?
Our class has already addressed most of these problems on multiple occasions. The broad conclusions I've drawn from these discussions are that no, religion is not the only problem. Many outside contribute to religious violence as well. We've also discussed the factors inherent to religion that do feed and support this violence-- religion deals with life and death and moral code, posits a view of the cosmos that often includes an image of cosmic war, and promotes the formation of an in-group and out-group.
In the examples of religious violence that we have examined so far, most of the religious groups involved have been "fringe" groups that did not have the support of the majority of the religion or the religion's main authority. It is still important to note that these religions "gave birth" to these movements, but I'm always curious what the rest of the religious group has to say about this religious violence, and whether religion always promotes the formation of out-groups that so easily become enemies on a cosmic scale.
That's where this blog passage comes in. It comes from a popular Orthodox Christian blog (http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/) and addresses the nature of the mind and heart in Orthodox theology. I was interested by the description of "the mind":
From my limited knowledge, I think that Buddhism (or at least the Tibetan Buddhists that I am more familiar with) has a similar discourse. The elimination of the ego-self is an important part of Buddhist practice, and part and parcel with this is understanding the interdependence and unity of the world. I find that most religions have this sort of discourse which serves to counter in-group/out-group formation. Whether or not this is the dominant discourse seems to vary by religion and time period. But in any case, this discourse can have a positive role that could inhibit some of religion's violent tendencies. I think it is an attitude to be promoted among religious groups.
First, a little disclosure. I'm a practicing Christian of an Eastern Catholic tradition, and I hope to pursue a graduate degree in Eastern Christian Studies. I study world religions because I love it and I always want to know more about other religions/worldviews.
For me this particular class on religious violence deals with a very real and widespread problem in the world that touches every religious tradition and really the whole global community. Through the class I'd like to learn how to understand the roots of this violence and to build peace in my small (or larger) way. But coming from a religious tradition, I also ask myself if religion is the problem in all this, and if at the root of all religion there will necessarily be violence. Are we the problem?
Our class has already addressed most of these problems on multiple occasions. The broad conclusions I've drawn from these discussions are that no, religion is not the only problem. Many outside contribute to religious violence as well. We've also discussed the factors inherent to religion that do feed and support this violence-- religion deals with life and death and moral code, posits a view of the cosmos that often includes an image of cosmic war, and promotes the formation of an in-group and out-group.
In the examples of religious violence that we have examined so far, most of the religious groups involved have been "fringe" groups that did not have the support of the majority of the religion or the religion's main authority. It is still important to note that these religions "gave birth" to these movements, but I'm always curious what the rest of the religious group has to say about this religious violence, and whether religion always promotes the formation of out-groups that so easily become enemies on a cosmic scale.
That's where this blog passage comes in. It comes from a popular Orthodox Christian blog (http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/) and addresses the nature of the mind and heart in Orthodox theology. I was interested by the description of "the mind":
In order to be right about anything, the mind has the need to find someone or something that is wrong. In a sense, the mind is always looking for an enemy (the person who is “wrong”), since without an enemy, the mind is not quite sure of its own identity. When it has an enemy, it is able to be more confident about itself. Since the mind also continually seeks for certainty, which is a by-product of the desire to be right, the process of finding and defining enemies is an ongoing struggle for survival. Declaring enemies is, for the mind, not an unfortunate character flaw, but an essential and necessary task.This mindset of us-them, right-wrong is a natural human way of seeing things. That doesn't mean that it's ok. In this particular article, Fr. Meletios continues by advocating for a religion of "the heart" which is characterized by a search for similarity rather than difference, that tries hard not to judge others, and is ego-less. Whether or not many practitioners or even leaders follow this sort of religion is another story, but I'm glad this kind of discourse exists.
Unfortunately, being right is not what people really need, even though a great deal of their lives may be taken up in its pursuit. Defense of the ego is almost always a matter of trying to be right. Interestingly enough, Jesus never once suggested to His disciples that they be right. What He did demand is that they be righteous. In listening to His words we find that we spend almost all our energy in the wrong direction, since we generally pursue being right with every ounce of our being, but leave being good to the weak and the naive.
People fight wars, commit genocide, and deprive others of basic human civil liberties, all in the name of being right. There is little doubt that if a further nuclear war ever takes place, it will be because the person pushing the button believes himself to be right. About something.
Religion, at the level of the mind, can be a terrible thing, causing wanton destruction to individuals, families, and even entire nations, all in the cause of being right. Almost every religious system can, and in most cases, has operated solely at this level at some point in its history. This is the level of religious awareness that can cause the servants of the King of Peace to wage war on those who think thoughts different from their own; it bestows on those who have been commanded to forgive their enemies the right to annihilate their foes. ---Archimandrite Meletios Webber
From my limited knowledge, I think that Buddhism (or at least the Tibetan Buddhists that I am more familiar with) has a similar discourse. The elimination of the ego-self is an important part of Buddhist practice, and part and parcel with this is understanding the interdependence and unity of the world. I find that most religions have this sort of discourse which serves to counter in-group/out-group formation. Whether or not this is the dominant discourse seems to vary by religion and time period. But in any case, this discourse can have a positive role that could inhibit some of religion's violent tendencies. I think it is an attitude to be promoted among religious groups.
Why are so many terrorists male?
Class on Thursday was pretty intense. We watched a part of a video on Hindu-Muslim violence in India which featured speakers at a Hindu rally. The speakers addressed a seemingly all-male audience, referring to their Muslim adversaries as "the eunuchs", "the cut," and "those who have been shortened," referencing the Muslim practice of circumcision. By symbolically emasculating their opponents, they weakened them and also made them less than men. As someone suggested (and then withdrew) in class, this emasculating discourse served as a way to dehumanize their opponents.
While there is definitely an impassioned discussion to be had about the idea that "loss of masculinity = loss of humanity", that's not the point that I'd like to make today. The big thing for me that after all these weeks of examining case studies of religious violence, this was the first time we talked about the majority of these violent actors being men. I mean, yikes, is it something we took for granted? And if so, why is this seen as normal? Do we assume that men are by nature more violent than women? I don't think that's a good assumption to make, and there are more reasonable ways to explain this phenomenon.
Societal roles seem to play a big part. We live in a world where it is men who go to war and where men are the ones traditionally asked to mobilize and fight for a cause. There are exceptions, but as a rule men are the ones who make up our armies and militias. The same logic seems to apply to cosmic war. Perhaps the imagery of the armies of Good battling the armies of Evil appeals more to men who are expected to step up into their Man-as-Soldier role.
While there is definitely an impassioned discussion to be had about the idea that "loss of masculinity = loss of humanity", that's not the point that I'd like to make today. The big thing for me that after all these weeks of examining case studies of religious violence, this was the first time we talked about the majority of these violent actors being men. I mean, yikes, is it something we took for granted? And if so, why is this seen as normal? Do we assume that men are by nature more violent than women? I don't think that's a good assumption to make, and there are more reasonable ways to explain this phenomenon.
Societal roles seem to play a big part. We live in a world where it is men who go to war and where men are the ones traditionally asked to mobilize and fight for a cause. There are exceptions, but as a rule men are the ones who make up our armies and militias. The same logic seems to apply to cosmic war. Perhaps the imagery of the armies of Good battling the armies of Evil appeals more to men who are expected to step up into their Man-as-Soldier role.
25 September 2011
"Machine Gun Preacher" and the LRA
When I saw the title of the recent movie "Machine Gun Preacher," I immediately assumed that it might be an interesting study in religious violence. From what I understand, it tells the true story of a Pennsylvanian ex-con & Hell's Angel, Sam Childers, who converted to Evangelical Christianity, got his life together, and became a preacher. On a relief trip to Uganda and Sudan, he witnesses the atrocities of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) and decides that he can't simply return to life in the US. From then on, he spends most of his time living in Sudan, building orphanages, rounding up abducted children, and gunning down the LRA. A Christian preacher who kills to protect children, and is motivated to do all this by Jesus Christ? Childers was quoted as saying "I found God in 1992, but I found Satan in 1998 in Sudan," by which he means Joseph Levy. (www.emmanuellevy.com)
The movie briefly addresses the question of using violence to stop violence, and in one scene a character suggests that Childers must be aware of the fine line between his actions and the violence perpetrated by LRA leader Joseph Kony. On the other hand, many laud Childers as the only group that holds their ground when the LRA moves into the area. They are currently the only NGO who conducts armed rescue missions into LRA territory.
The LRA itself is a much more complicated study of religious violence. It is a movement led by charismatic leader Joseph Kony that directly copies a failed earlier movement by Ugandan traditional healer and "Messenger" Alice Lakwena. Both movements are motivated by "the Holy Spirit" to use whatever means necessary to instate a new government based on the Ten Commandments. But in order to do this, the LRA kidnaps children and forces them to be child soldiers (killing other children and their parents), commits mass rapes, and forces little girls to be sex slaves.
On the LRA's side, it's difficult to say how much religion plays a role, since their actions are so mixed up in nationalism and geopolitics. I think that for them, religion provides Kony with a means to pull his army together, and an "unselfish" reason to fight and pillage. But in all I think it's a complicated issue that merits further enquiry. Here are some links related to the movie, Sam Childers, and the LRA. The user comments on the last one are particularly interesting.
http://www.emanuellevy.com/comment/machine-gun-preacher-true-story-of-sam-childers/
http://www.rfi.fr/actuen/articles/106/article_1807.asp
http://www.christianpost.com/news/machine-gun-preacher-real-life-sam-childers-more-unbelievable-55857/
The movie briefly addresses the question of using violence to stop violence, and in one scene a character suggests that Childers must be aware of the fine line between his actions and the violence perpetrated by LRA leader Joseph Kony. On the other hand, many laud Childers as the only group that holds their ground when the LRA moves into the area. They are currently the only NGO who conducts armed rescue missions into LRA territory.
The LRA itself is a much more complicated study of religious violence. It is a movement led by charismatic leader Joseph Kony that directly copies a failed earlier movement by Ugandan traditional healer and "Messenger" Alice Lakwena. Both movements are motivated by "the Holy Spirit" to use whatever means necessary to instate a new government based on the Ten Commandments. But in order to do this, the LRA kidnaps children and forces them to be child soldiers (killing other children and their parents), commits mass rapes, and forces little girls to be sex slaves.
On the LRA's side, it's difficult to say how much religion plays a role, since their actions are so mixed up in nationalism and geopolitics. I think that for them, religion provides Kony with a means to pull his army together, and an "unselfish" reason to fight and pillage. But in all I think it's a complicated issue that merits further enquiry. Here are some links related to the movie, Sam Childers, and the LRA. The user comments on the last one are particularly interesting.
http://www.emanuellevy.com/comment/machine-gun-preacher-true-story-of-sam-childers/
http://www.rfi.fr/actuen/articles/106/article_1807.asp
http://www.christianpost.com/news/machine-gun-preacher-real-life-sam-childers-more-unbelievable-55857/
18 September 2011
Religious violence & communities
"No man is an island."-- Each person is connected to others through social links, and through these links to a larger community.
In the first chapter of his book Terror in the Mind of God, Mark Juergensmeyer highlights what seems to be a surprising fact: terrorists, like everyone else, are part of communities. Often, their communities tacitly or explicitly condone the acts of violence that they commit.
I'm part of several communities (my church community, or my college community, for example) that help me to understand what a powerful support community can be. I rely on their support and approval for many things that I do, and I extend my support to them as well. I have no problem understanding the power of community. But it's difficult to imagine a community condoning violent acts like the 9/11 attacks, Hamas suicide bombings, or IRA strikes. These acts are not committed by isolated individuals but are made possible by support from a broader community.
Reading from Jack Eller's Cruel Creeds, Virtuous Violence helped me to understand how these groups can form. "Ethnoreligious" groups congeal around a perceived cultural difference, using religion, class, language, etc. as a marker that separates their group from another. In times of conflict, people group together to stand against an enemy. When they form ethnoreligious groups, the conflict can have cosmic implications and can grow in to a battle of good versus evil. When the definition of a community becomes a religion and this community feels that they are under attack, this is the type of group that could be more willing to "reinterpret" moral codes and to offer support to actors in religious violence.
In our readings for this past week, we saw how naturally and easily this type of ethnoreligious group can form in the right circumstances. Reading about conflict in Lebanon, Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, and (closer to home) in the US has made me think about how readily and naturally conflict seems to start. How can we work to prevent it? As a member of a community, I have a responsibility to withdraw my support from any violent or destructive activities. That definitely gives me something to think about.
In the first chapter of his book Terror in the Mind of God, Mark Juergensmeyer highlights what seems to be a surprising fact: terrorists, like everyone else, are part of communities. Often, their communities tacitly or explicitly condone the acts of violence that they commit.
I'm part of several communities (my church community, or my college community, for example) that help me to understand what a powerful support community can be. I rely on their support and approval for many things that I do, and I extend my support to them as well. I have no problem understanding the power of community. But it's difficult to imagine a community condoning violent acts like the 9/11 attacks, Hamas suicide bombings, or IRA strikes. These acts are not committed by isolated individuals but are made possible by support from a broader community.
Reading from Jack Eller's Cruel Creeds, Virtuous Violence helped me to understand how these groups can form. "Ethnoreligious" groups congeal around a perceived cultural difference, using religion, class, language, etc. as a marker that separates their group from another. In times of conflict, people group together to stand against an enemy. When they form ethnoreligious groups, the conflict can have cosmic implications and can grow in to a battle of good versus evil. When the definition of a community becomes a religion and this community feels that they are under attack, this is the type of group that could be more willing to "reinterpret" moral codes and to offer support to actors in religious violence.
In our readings for this past week, we saw how naturally and easily this type of ethnoreligious group can form in the right circumstances. Reading about conflict in Lebanon, Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, and (closer to home) in the US has made me think about how readily and naturally conflict seems to start. How can we work to prevent it? As a member of a community, I have a responsibility to withdraw my support from any violent or destructive activities. That definitely gives me something to think about.
08 September 2011
"I have set before you life and death..." (Deut. 30:19)
In our readings from The Ambivalence of the Sacred by Scott Appleby, this paragraph leapt out at me as both very true and potentially frightening:
As human beings, we necessarily have a subjective view of the world. Our decisions are influenced by the social groups that we live in, but ultimately it is with the sum of our personal experiences and values that we make our choices.
Therefore, to really understand an act of religious violence, it is necessary to observe not only the religious beliefs in play, but also the social and political factors that may be affecting these individual choices. I feel that it's still too early in the course for me to posit any real solutions or preventative actions against religious violence, but it seems to me that such solutions are to be found by taking a holistic view of the causes of religious violence while remembering that ultimately the decision is set before an individual who must make the choice between life and death.
Now how to tip the balance in the way of life?
The unique dynamism of lived religion--its distinctive patterns of interaction not only with secular, nationalist, ethnic, and other elements of political or personal identity but also with its own sacred past-- means, among other things, that religious behavior cannot be confidently predicted merely on the basis of an individual's or group's affiliation with a specific religious tradition, especially if that tradition is conceptualized in the abstract. In this sense there is no "Islam," no "Christianity," no "Buddhism"--- only Muslims, Christians, and Buddhists living in specific contingent contexts, possessed of multiple and mixed motives, each of which might contribute to a particular action or decision taken.In other words, I've never met Christianity or Islam, but I have met Christians and Muslims living in the world and making decisions (even what they view as purely religious ones) based upon multiple factors. How they understand and apply the teachings of their religion can be shaped by personality, family environment, national identity and many other factors. This shouldn't be surprising. Isn't this how I make all my other decisions? Even as I try to make the most rational or just decision, my perception of what is rational or just is influenced by my past experiences, my values, and the attitudes of the communities that I live in.
As human beings, we necessarily have a subjective view of the world. Our decisions are influenced by the social groups that we live in, but ultimately it is with the sum of our personal experiences and values that we make our choices.
Therefore, to really understand an act of religious violence, it is necessary to observe not only the religious beliefs in play, but also the social and political factors that may be affecting these individual choices. I feel that it's still too early in the course for me to posit any real solutions or preventative actions against religious violence, but it seems to me that such solutions are to be found by taking a holistic view of the causes of religious violence while remembering that ultimately the decision is set before an individual who must make the choice between life and death.
Now how to tip the balance in the way of life?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)