CONCLUSION
As this chapter is discussed, unique qualities of ethno-religious conflicts distinguish them from other forms of conflicts and present a major challenge to the field of conflict resolution.
One of the central characteristics of these conflicts is the use of religious beliefs, myths, symbols and images to justify violence and dehumanization of the opponent. Yet as this chapter argued, religious traditions, with their unique empowering and transforming power, can also be employed to legitimize peace and positive images of the other especially where religion is a critical aspect of conflict dynamics. This chapter also argued that to effectively resolve these conflicts, scholars and practitioners should study the sources of legitimacy, contextual, textual and institutional contexts of each community, in order to understand how they contribute to the perpetuation of violence and construction of negative images of the other. They should also develop tools and methods to understand the meaning making processes of religiously motivated groups and individuals. More specifically, they should address the critical events that are interpreted to justify violence and analyze how these catastrophic events are perceived, remembered or interpreted by the population as well as perceptions of injustice that lead people to invoke texts that promote violence or nonviolence. Additionally, they should identify negative myths that have provided the basis for violence, and how these myths have been manipulated should be analyzed thoroughly (see Gopin 2002). This should be accompanied by the identification of those myths that call for justice and promote nonviolence. These “positive” myths can be woven into the fabric of narratives of peace to mobilize people towards reconciliation and coexistence through the active involvement of religious actors (Kadayifci- Orellana forthcoming: 313). These myths should also be supported with religious texts and images.Also, scholars and practitioners should identify those religious and cultural values that promote peace and coexistence and include them in conflict resolution models in order to facilitate reconciliation between communities. These values should be put into practice by engaging religious leaders that are committed to peace and the nonviolent pursuit of justice and must be supported by religious texts and myths. Likewise, since institutions play a major role in the legitimization of the conflict and mobilization of society, those institutions that uphold nonviolent values and are committed to justice should be identified and empowered. In that line, scholars and practitioners should first identify institutional sites that could contribute to peace building and reconciliation; following that, they should develop strategies to empower these institutions financially, technically and also by providing the necessary training (see Kadayifci-Orellana forthcoming). One way to do that would be to open channels through which these institutions could connect to a wider network of peace-building initiatives across the social, political and economic spectrum. In addition to training and working with these actors and institutions towards preparing them for dialogue with the other, they should also encourage them to reach out to their communities to change the attitudes, mind frames and negative enemy images through lectures, sermons and rituals. Only through such holistic and inclusive approaches can the sources and dynamics of these conflicts be understood and appropriate strategies be developed to effectively resolve them.