October 23, 2006
-
Controling religious Conflict?
This week's Socrates_Cafe questions include this one:
Religion currently plays a major role in world affairs. How much of a role should it have, in your opinion, and how do you think it should be regulated?Religion, as a primary institution of every society, has always played an important, and often primary, role in relations between nations and cultures, as well as sometimes dominating its own culture or nation.
Cultural conflicts are often religious in nature, or at least have a major religious component. As religions and sects are often competitive or opposed to each other, they are sometimes the primary focus of conflict as they seem to be in Iraq currently.
Here in the United States we have chosen to protect religions from the intervention of government and thus from the possibility of being persecuted by any religion which manages to dominate the government and there have been only a few short periods of our history where there has been open inter-religious warfare - most notably those involving the persecution of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) during the mid-nineteenth century.
This cannot be said of most of the rest of the world, where open religious warfare has been almost continuous for most of recorded history.
While supporting the idea of religious toleration, the United Nations has been almost powerless to stop or prevent religious persecution. The present conflict in the Darfur area of the Sudan is a case in point. The Sudanese government yesterday ordered the UN peacekeepers to leave the area which has led to major escalation of the war there.
As religion almost always cloaks its support for violence in moral justification, it is unlikely that any attempt to control or curb religiously motivated violence can succeed without overwhelming military domination - and that as history has shown - is only temporary.
As long as various religions accept the necessity for violent action against other religions or sects, the best the world can hope for is a sort of religious detante with a grudging agreement to "live and let live"Â. Such accords are always temporary.
In my opinion, Religion's role in society should be restricted to moral exposition and comfort. The moral statements should never include the demands for orthodoxy of those "non-belivers" who choose to opt out of the religious rules. Laws regulating behavior should not have a religious basis.
Comments (25)
"Laws regulating behavior should not have a religious basis." Should this rule apply to the publicly stated reasons for a law, or should it extend also to the individuals voting for or against it? How should someone involved in the lawmaking process whose religion advocates living all aspects of their lives in a religious manner resolve the conflict in themselves between that command and the principle of secularism?
I'm sorry, I should have made myself a little clearer. I was thinking of those laws governing the legal behavior of citizens of a nation. Of course such laws will reflect the mores of the culture which are often interpreted by the cultural religious institutional framework. There is, in my opinion a fine line between laws predominately religious in nature and those reflecting the nation's cultural basic values. I think it's unreasonable to demand that non-believers follow the laws of a particular religion. A couple of examples of this are the divorce laws in Italy and Ireland. both are Catholic countries and divorce is either forbidden or practically unobtainable (At least until recently in Italy and still not in Ireland, I think) There are lots of people in both of these countries who would like to be divorced - but can't. On the other hand, most religions condemn murder, as do most law codes. I don't think a rational person would think such laws were the property of any particular religion.
As far as I know, there are few nations where a person's voting record can be legally challanged because of their religious beliefs.
As far as the question of religious intrusion into secular politics goes, we have to depend upon the ethics of the politicians involved
Why control "Religious Conflict"? Is conflict bad? Is religion bad? What are the circumstances? What about "Tribal Conflict" ...Ideological Conflict?
I agree with most of what you say here. However, there are some stunning sentences I totally disagree with it.
It's not religion, it's the USE of religion wrongly. Man will use whatever means are available in times of trouble or peace to wrongly or rightly change the world for the better. Martin Luther King used his Christian beliefs to change America. Gandhi practiced Hinduism, which gave him strength. Mother Theresa anyone? As Victor Frankle said, "There are only two types of people in the world: The decent and the indecent." You should know that religious wars of the 20th Century didn't amount to a feather compared with the flock of 100 Million slaughtered, starved and executed in the name of Communism ...right? So where is the topic on Hugo Chavez and/or Leftist politics?
This is what is so frustrating about Socrates Cafe. You people constantly rehash issues that expose your world view (your bias) over and over again. It's like you still live in the summer of '67.
I think all armed, violent, and deadly conflict should be avoided.
I'm interested in your comment: "It's not religion, it's the Use of religion wrongly." How do you separate religion from its uses and leadership? Doesn't it say someplace "by their fruits, you shall know them"?
I take it that you don't consider Communism a religion? It surely has/had all the characteristics of one - including St. Lenin, stuffed and on display in Red Square and went to considerable (and unsuccessful) trouble to stamp out all the competition, as the Chinese are doing currently.
I'm with you about constantly rehashing issues - please propose some new ones.
My hope is that we will alter our world views through open discussion and exposure to new points of view.
I was teaching those '67 flower-children back then. You're right - I remember them fondly - they had some new ideas and were willing to act on them - they really did change the world.
Another interesting post. I am left with only one question at the moment...
Is America really better at avoiding religious persecution, are or we just better at covering it up?
Buikdingamystery has a good question. Personally, I really think we handle religious differences and conflicts better than most other countries. As the most religiously minded of the developed countries, we take our religions very seriously but we also take the principles of religious liberty and toleration very seriously. Protecting religions from government intrusion is important to us and we MOSTLY manage to keep the government and religion apart. The Waco incident is a notable exception in recent times; but remember, that started because of a violation, or suspected violation of laws having nothing to do with religion, at least from the government's viewpoint.
The question this raises is how far can a religious, or quasi-religious sect go in violating laws deemed necessary to protect the public. Remember, if Koresh had accepted the warrant an un-armed marshal tried to serve, that tragedy would not have happened.
How does one restrict the role of religion to moral exposition and comfort when God and one's eternal salvation are involved?
"Doesn't it say someplace "by their fruits, you shall know them"?"
Creed has a point here in looking to some fruits of religion that were genuinely, well, fruitful: both of the two major world-changing nonviolence campaigns in recent times (MLK's and Ghandi's) were given impetus and support by religious systems. I don't think it's too far to say that without the Bhagavad Gita, there would have been no Ghandi the political figure-- too much of his philosophy was based on his interpretation of it. That potential for good things doesn't mean that religion should be allowed to dictate life in the public sphere, but it's interesting to think about.
Tychecat: you propose that communism is a religion in its own way. I think this is a brilliant statement. What is a religion? If a political system (something which is created to dictate behavior in the public sphere) can also be a religion, where does one draw the line? Is democracy also a religion? We have our holy books, our gurus, our idols . . . many of us certainly believe in democracy as the salvation of the temporal/political world . . .what makes this an acceptable religion for public life (or, if you prefer, not a religion at all) and the others the opposite?
An interesting point about the Bhagavad Gita - a very long dialog between Krishna and Arjuna - it happens while they were preparing for a battle - part of the long inter-family struggle which makes up the Mahabharata (The Hindu Holy Text)
I do tend to see "Religion" from the sociologist's viewpoint - as a basic social framework - along with Family, Government, Education, and Economics - which every culture uses to interpret its basic value system. Communism was a great deal more than just a form of government, it included a strong (if flawed) philosophic base and moral system.
Every culture defines "Religion" and "God" according to its perceptions and value system, which is probably why we have almost as many definitions as there have been cultures. Perhaps you could say that God reveals Himself to members of a culture according to their cultural/physical conditions. the Gods of the Inuits are not necessarily defined the same way as the Gods of the Polynesians.
RYC ~ Don't you DARE bring your high-and-mighty, holier-than-thou attitude to my site.
"I'm sorry you don't like the idea of open debate."
Tell me how the Socrates_Cafe board REFUSING to link my entry, equals ME being the one who doesn't like open debate?
I am sorry that you are blinded by your own ignorance.
Oh, don't bother looking either, you won't find the post. I removed it. No sense cluttering up my site with trash for your pathetic little "cafe."
"I think all armed, violent, and deadly conflict should be avoided."
I consider that a personal attack on my common sense. I think that is an immoral and indefensable position. One must have gone to a modern university to attain such foolishness.
"An interesting point about the Bhagavad Gita."
Yep. And as Gandhi says in his book - which I've read - "My Experiments in Truth" it is best to listen to the Bhagavad Gita. I remember when I was exploring other religions listening to the book on tape over and over walking around the park in meditation. Nearly walked out of my skin, I entered into another state of being. It is an interesting book to say the least. I also remember that Arjuna DOES FIGHT in the end. Even the honored deity of a pacifist fights. Of course Gandhi wasn't dealing with terrorists like we've seen nowadays and neither was MLK, both were dealing with civilized societies. Unless CNN or Dan Rather were there reporting the terrorists would behead MLK or Gandhi if they staged a peaceful protest against non-violence outside a Hezbullah training ground. And Gandhi would've tried it. He wrote a letter to Churchill telling he should to give Mr. Hitler what ever he wanted. That is a fact.
This is an interesting discussion. I definitely agree with your last statements: "In my opinion, Religion's role in society should be restricted to moral exposition and comfort. The moral statements should never include the demands for orthodoxy of those "non-belivers" who choose to opt out of the religious rules." Can't add anything better than just to agree.
Peace.
"Of course Gandhi wasn't dealing with terrorists like we've seen nowadays and neither was MLK, both were dealing with civilized societies."
I have to respectfully disagree. There have been riots, massacres, and terrorist acts within and about each of these "civilized" societies . . .MLK and Ghandi were protesting something, after all.
You'll notice that Ghandi took his policy of nonviolence directly from the Gita: To fight as Arjuna fought is not about killing people in the least, but about dharma . . .upholding the world through right action. Arjuna is the hero because he is the only soldier who refuses to fight, and then has to be convinced to do so by arguing with the Lord himself and thus learning that this particular conflict is not normal human conflict. For Ghandi, fighting in the way Arjuna did could ONLY mean nonviolence. His satyagraha (battle for truth) was communal, and it involved battling within himself as well. To be focused on obliterating "the enemy," even to have a person or group as "enemy" was antithetical to his philosophy. Others, of course, have interpreted the Gita differently.
Sorry to co-opt your thread, tychecat. Back to the topic at hand.
Does there need to be an element analogous to "God" or "the divine" for a system to be called a religion? (I'm still trying to decide if I can classify democracy or communism as religions or not.)
Religion by its very definition centers areound a belief in, and reverence for, a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. Neither Communism or Democracy fit into that category.
That said, people can believe so furvently in a cause or an idology that it might be compared to "the strength of" a religious belief. But in and of themselves they are not religions.
I'm tempted to go with you, singer, but Buddhism doesn't have that creator/governor power, really, and you don't have to believe in God to be Jewish. Where do those fit in?
I'm working on something like this:
1. A fundamental "truth" that has some sort of regulating/harmonizing effect on the world, that causes it to be the way it is. Few people really know this truth, but knowing it will enrich one's life so much that it will change one's entire relation to the cosmos.
2. A path (or paths) to discover that truth; a system. Sages who have followed it and can demonstrate their resulting "peace."
3. Some kind of ritual structure supplementing the path and relating it to everyday life.
4. A sense of awe and respect for the "littleness" of humans in relation to that truth (truth can be a deity, a mystery, a concept, and experience, or some combination of all of these.)
Anyone want to propose additions/subtractions/changes? This is a pet question of mine (comparative religion student, go figure ;p) so I'm always looking for some input.
If some definition of religion can include political systems like communism, what makes those politcal and/or religious systems dangerous? Is it the "us vs. them" thinking? A sense of entitlement? Dogma? Is it something else?
Maybe it's this: (She's on a roll, folks
) It's not really that a religion is the ruling system, per se . . .the problem is the profound attachment that people have to that system. If not everyone in the ruled area is of that religion--if they are not profoundly attached to the ruling system--they are fundamentally alienated from those in power, and thus left-out and easily exploited (called evil, whatever). Democracy does something to ameliorate this by attempting to let in more voices . . .so the ruling ideology is one of non-attachment to any particular voice; an impartial choosing of the most backed-up one. That leaves open the problem of our being profoundly attached to democracy. Anyone who is not democratically inclined, who doesn't buy in to the dogma of democracy, is then "the other" and easily exploited. The question is whether attachment to a non-attached system is any better than just plain attachment, and whether there is a way to prevent the problem altogether.
RYC ~ Thanks for attempting to start a fight with your socratic ramblings on my site. Much appreciated. You will be blocked if it continues. I have no desire to engage in conversation with closed-minded idiots who shield themselves behind cries of "open-minded tolerance" that ends where my opinions dare to differ from yours.
I think we are getting into the philosophic definition of Religion, which after all is the purpose of the Socrates_Cafe.
Perhaps we can consider the difference between Religion and Faith - Is one a sort of framework and the other a state of being?
We define Faith in a number of ways, in this context as a firm belief in certain moral and spiritual truths. Most Religious sects seem to provide structure and framework to Faith which is why I place it as a cultural Institution.
Unfortunately this basic part of every culture (Religion) has to interact with the other parts of the culture and in the process will influence the society in ways perhaps more political than spiritual.
A question for discussion might be: Should Religions be competitive? Attempting to persuade others to your beliefs is as old as mankind, but should Religion be used as a reason for warfare, repression, and murder?
The religious strife that accompanied the independence of India killed an estimated five million people including Ghandi, who was very publicly assassinated
What about "Controling Secular (humanism) Conflict"? Afterall didn't Mao (the secularist) kill untold numbers of Buddhist, Hindus and Christians?
"I have to respectfully disagree. There have been riots, massacres, and terrorist acts within and about each of these "civilized" societies . . .MLK and Ghandi were protesting something, after all."
I didn't say perfect societies. No culture or society is perfect. Now answer me this: Exactly what did Gandhi and MLK appeal to in their noble stances?
Gandhi and MLK were, of course, devout believers in their culture's moral and religious values and in King's case at least, an important religious figure and ordained minister. Gandhi's religious faith was apparently somewhat more complicated. Once when asked if he was a Hindu, he answered ( If I remember correctly) "Yes I am. I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew."
Calling Mao a Secular Humanist is a bit of a stretch. So far as I know, he did not believe in any of the moral values expressed by that particular group.
Most people in the U.S. believe in in the existence of a Supreme Being or God, though definitions of this force vary. The current TIME MAGAZINE has an interesting article on how these beliefs vary and is worth checking out.
Warfare and strife are as old as humanity and most religions' philosophies have discouraged such activity but in the modern world, most religions have little ability to control the violent action in the name of that religion.
Should international agencies act to quell religious violence? How should such actions be directed?
Why put the word "religious" in front of the word "violence" (or conflict)? Are you concerned about violence or just religious violence? Can violence ONLY happen with religions? Do see what I'm doing here? You began with a piori. You assume ALL religious violence is bad ...I guess. Is violence somehow contaminated when it's religious? When is violence pure? If viloence is not pure, in any circumstance, then why the seeming haste your ilk likes to attach religion to violence? Is violence (or conflict) worse when it has religious foundations? You supposedidly don't like violence. Seems you wouldn't need to add "religious" to the mix to make violence worse. Thus I conclude you must be hostile toward religion that you don't believe in, and I venture to guess it's those nasty evangelical/fundamentalist Christians? Or, is it just Baptist? Or, is it the one in a Zillion types that say "God Hates Fags"?
You see I have no problem with violence and religion or religious conflict. The original question in and of itself means nothing. One can only judge (theres that evil "judge" word) religious violence within the context of the surrounding events. WHY??? was there violence in the first place?
It's like saying "Controling traffic conflict?" ...well did somebody run a red light? Was there an accident? Or, "Contorling domestic violence?" ...well did the hubby cheat on the wife? Is that why she blew his brains out?
As I see the Institution of Religion as one which has as its purview moral teaching, and as most religions condemn violent acts such as murder, rape, and torture; I think such acts in the name of religion are immoral and actually anti-religious.
I know most of the world apparently disagrees with me - at least judging by the world-wide violence in the name of religion.
I'm not hostile toward religious sects and religions I don't believe in, in fact I find them fascinating and some of their teachings admirable. I try not to be judgmental, but I do not shrink from pointing out what I perceive to be logical or rational inconsistencies in their teachings and behavior. I cannot conceive of Jesus approving some of the actions committed and wars fought in his name.
Unquestionably consider that that you stated. Your favorite justification seemed to be on the internet the easiest thing to be aware of. I say to you, I certainly get irked while people think about issues that they plainly don’t recognize about. You controlled to hit the nail upon the top and defined out the whole thing without having side-effects , folks could take a signal. Will probably be back to get more. Thank you!