RELIGION AS A SOURCE OF VIOLENCE

As Weber noted in his Sociology of Religion (1963), religion is a concept hard to define. Still, one definition suggests that religion is a system of beliefs and practices relating to the sacred (Kadayifci-Orellana 2006).

Many political and religious leaders have not vacillated to use this inimitable power of religion to mobilize the population towards their set goals. Especially, at times of violent conflict, which involves sacrificing human and financial resources, continuation of the conflict requires deep commitment and a belief in the righteousness of the cause. To provide support for their policies, leaders often employ sacred texts, religious myths and images to invoke emotions such as heroism, chivalry or vengence, perpetuating a culture of violence. Defined by Johan Galtung as those religious, ideological or linguistic symbols that legitimize direct or structural violence (Galtung 1990: 291), cultural violence con­tributes to the continuation of the conflict by teaching, preaching or condoning those acts that dehumanize the opponent.

Various reasons for employing religious rhetoric, myths and symbolism to legitimize policies and to mobilize the population towards certain political ends, including war, have been identified (Gopin 2002; Kadayifci- Orellana 2006). As spiritual beings, human beings struggle with questions regarding existence, life and death, suffering, injustice and the meaning thereof. Rodney Stark and William Bainbridge (1985: 366) observe that people generally have a coherent, over­reaching, and articulated “Weltanschauung” worldview, perspective, a frame of reference, value orientation, or meaning system that is often based on a religion. Religion addresses some of the most profound existential issues of human life, such as “freedom/inevitability, fear/security, right/wrong, sacred /profane” among others, because it is “a powerful constituent of cultural norms and values” and “embodies and elaborates upon its highest morals, ethical principles and ideals of social harmony” (Said and Funk 2002: 37-38). Religious traditions construct a cosmic uni­verse that is bigger than both the community and the individual, offer a language and symbolism through which human beings interpret reality as well as get comfort for trauma and injuries (Kadayifci-Orellana 2002: 88). Religious ideology conceives of the world in coherent manageable ways, and offers explanations for worldly events. This view is supported by Clifford Geertz (1973) who argues that people find religion necessary to interpret the world around them, especially when bad things happen.

Religious traditions also hold reservoirs of meaning that shape identities, incorporate powerful myths, rituals and symbols that give expression to collective needs and desires. Myths and rituals play an important role in the symbolic dimension of conflicts.

Myths, on the other hand, provide con­tents to religious tradition and identity. For example, myths of origin explain the beginnings of the group in cosmological terms and locate the group in the origin of the universe. Robert Luyster (1966) states that religious significance of an event is revealed only in its associated symbols and myths, for it is only through these that the mind apprehends what it has seen and attempts to express its meaning. Myths translate complex problems into manageable cognitive structures and make them comprehensible to the human mind. During times of conflict, myths become tools to make sense of human atrocities, to ‘explain’ the reasons and sources of the conflict to the people in a ‘clear’ way. They provide a deeper meaning to what is happening to the community. These myths may also be utilized to draw the borderlines of what is considered legitimate and what is considered illegitimate. Based on these limits, they render various acts (which would otherwise be considered illegitimate) legitimate.

Religious discourse is powerful because it claims to be the Truth. Theologically, Truth is defined in terms of the absolute, the complete and the changeless, whereas modern/scientific conception of truth is one that is logically or empirically verifiable (Dicenso 1990: xiii). Although it is not possible to prove the truth of religious claims scientifically and that religion seems to be beyond the realm of reason and rationality, religious discourse makes perfect sense to the community of the faithful as it explains why things are the way they are.

Religion addresses the need for a sense of social, geographical, cosmological, temporal or metaphysical locatedness (Seul 1999: 558) and religious norms and values are often at the core of one’s identity. “Religious meaning systems define the contours of the broadest possible range of relationships - to self, to others near and distant, to friendly and unfriendly, to the nonhuman world, to the universe, to God or that which one considers ultimately real or true” (Seul 1999: 558). For instance, religious beliefs such as the doctrine of chosenness may define borders of relationships and cultivate a sense of belonging, brotherly love and affirmation, often leading to sacralization of group identities (e.g. Ummah, sangha, ecclesia, etc.). As a result, religious traditions may serve to stabilize individual or group identity, provide predictability and continuity and safeguard order through objectification of religious order (Mol 1976). They may also become a force of control that is internalized in individual consciousness, a tool for social control (Cristi 2001: 77, 79).

For these reasons, religious ideology plays a profound role in the molding of social structures and provides the authority that gives social and political order its justifica­tion (Kadayifci-Orellana forthcoming: 251). Therefore, religion may act as a legitimizing force both for governments and those who oppose them (Kokosolakis 1985:371; see also Cristi 2001 and Kadayifci-Orellana 2002). It also defines what is proper individual behavior by providing believers with a moral framework that guides their actions, thus affecting the behavior and actions of individuals (Juergensmeyer 1993: 30-31).

Violent conflicts entail significant human suffering as they involve destruction of lives, and the social, economic, political and cultural fabric of the society. Because of the high risks involved, continuation of these conflicts requires the conviction of the individuals in the legitimacy of the narrative that justifies the conflict. Understanding how religious beliefs and convictions influence attitudes and behavior, especially at times of violent conflict, is critical for the conflict resolution field to comprehend the dynamics of mass mobilization towards war or peace and to understand why people take up arms to kill and be killed. More specifically, conflict resolution scholars need to understand how the process of interpretation impacts on the human decision-making process to act in particular ways, as well as its impact on social mobilization and legitimation of discourses of war or peace.