DEar Vanilla,

Violence and religion?

Vanilla I agree with you.

Sometimes a group may be inspired by religion to challenge the existing order. Religion can play a part in social conflict because religious doctrines can provide a moral standard against which existing social arrangements may be judged - and perhaps found wanting.

These challenges rarely come from the dominant religious organisations, for they and their leaders are usually too closely linked to the social and political establishment. Instead, the challenges tend to come from religious movements near the fringes of society, from dissident groups within the dominant religion.

In many of the highly unequal and impoverished societies, (like the South in the US), and Central and South America, for example, religion has been associated with the social and economic elite. Yet in recent years a minority of Preachers, Priests and Nuns, have embraced "liberation theology," which blends Christian compassion for the poor with an explicit commitment to political change through class struggle.

Most Church leaders view "liberation theology" with dismay, but the movement poses a significant challenge to the status quo.

In the United States religion used to persistently inspire criticism of the existing order - sometimes by liberals, sometimes by
conservatives. I'm not sure how true that is today - especially under the Bush Administration - which uses religion as an idealogical weapon, emphasizing differences in faith in order to justify conflict.

cont'd

A nation at war invariably assumes that its gods are on its side -
even when, as in the case of the two world wars of this century, several of the warring nations worshiped the same deity.

Wars fought on ostensibly religious grounds are often marked by extreme bloodiness and fanaticism, but religious differences are not necessarily the causes of the wars, even though the participants themselves may think they are.

The medieval Crusades, for example, appear at first sight to have been a purely religious conflict in which European Christians were trying to recover the Holy Land from Muslims. A closer analysis suggests an additional reason, - the European nobility launched the Crusades partly to gain control of the trade-routes to the East and partly to divert widespread unrest among their peasantry.

Similarly, contemporary conflict between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East may seem to arise from religious differences, but the tension is really over competing claims by two different ethnic groups for the same homeland.

In much the same way, the conflict in Northern Ireland on the surface seemed to be one between Catholics and Protestants, but its roots layed much deeper in ethnic and class divisions between Irish of native descent and those descended from British settlers.

The point that I'm trying to make in a 'long-winded' way, is that -
it is too narrow to blame religion for all of society's problems.

Even Karl Marx's critique of religion, was occasionally overlooked by
Communist leaders.

At a Vienna summit meeting in 1979, the Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev commented that, "God will not forgive us if we fail": and in 1985 Mikhail Gorbachev, told Western reporters, "Surely God on high has not refused to give us enough wisdom to find ways to bring an improvement in our relations."

Neither remark was reported in the Soviet media.

Boazy: "you have an obligation to show exactly what is the direct connection between the beliefs/values and the study result."

Sure, I appreciate that. Well, the Gregory Paul study "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies" is reproduced in its entirety here: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

If you have a look at the bibliography, you'll find many other relevant studies.

You can download Brad Bushman's study "When God sanctions killing; Effect of scriptural violence on aggression" as a PDF here: http://www.sitemaker.umich.edu/brad.bushman/recent_publications

The full studies interrogate the connection between belief and well-being in the first instance, and belief and violence in the second. Both are published in refereed journals. Do you have any academic reason for finding them ridiculous, or are you saying that because you don't like what they say?

By the way, the Pew Global and BBC surveys are both straight surveys — simple stats about religiousity and nationhood.

I don't see my first post as a diatribe — the correlation between religion and violence in nations and communities is well established and pointing this out responds directly to Foxy's question.

Foxy: "it is too narrow to blame religion for all of society's problems."

Of course, of course. I entirely agree. And I know a little about liberation theology and I know that religion (not just Christianity) can inspire social change. The black civil rights movement is another example.

Still, the correlation is interesting and worth exploring.

Dear Vanilla....

My major problem with such studies.. (I scanned the first one at this point) is that they are too broad.

The point 'religion' is not sufficiently defined. What I'm saying is that a community which is based on faith, will be far LESS violent than one based on nothing. Perhaps Ireland would be a good case to use as an example.

Connaught.... a Catholic area in the West of Ireland. Murder rate 6.46/million. Now.. move across to the border with Northern Ireland in 1972 it was 24/million and by 79 down to 8.87 this was a place of POLITICAL conflict..and I reject the idea that it was primarily 'religious'.. the religious difference was historical based on English invasions, so I deem it political. (we can play chicken and egg some other time on this one) I am aware that even in that violent context, sincere Catholics and protestants had times of wonderful joint fellowship.

The USA murder rate spiked upward as the 60s unfolded.. i.e. when the abandonment of God and embracing of secularism became rampant.

Bottom line.. I don't think one can objectively link 'religion' to violence unless it is a religion which specifically commands it..and I'm sure you don't want me to go down that well worn path here as well right?

My concern is, that you are lumping 'Christianity'(as a faith) in with 'Religiousity' and then connecting this with social disorder and violence and lack of well being when I know that such is not the case.

"By this shall men know that you are my disciples, that you have love, one for another" John 13:35 believe it....or not.

Boaz: "My major problem with such studies.. (I scanned the first one at this point) is that they are too broad."

As I read the article, your criticism is without substance. Can you explain what you mean in terms of the definitions it uses? (I assume you're talking about the first article, as you haven't read the second?) It seems to me the article defines religiousity as belief in god. If violence is political, it is not part of this study. Eighteen countries are surveyed — the small population of Northern Ireland may affect the result of the UK, but only slightly.

The crime rate in the US spiked not in the 1960s in the 1980s and 1990s (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States ) — and it is indisputably more common in the more religious states. These are also the poorest states, of course.

Boazy: "I don't think one can objectively link 'religion' to violence ..."
On the contrary. Many researchers, including the ones I cited, have done just that. Do you have any evidence to counter them other than you don't agree? (I mean substantial evidence, not just your own experience.)