Print

xviii Introduction: The Legacy of Religion and Violence Rarely is religion a cause of violence. More often than not, politics, econom- ics, and the psychologies of fear and humiliation serve as the underlining condi- tions for violence. But just as throwing oil on a fire changes the ways in which it can be put out, adding a religious justification to violence usually alters the feroc- ity and tenacity of the conflict. People will sacrifice themselves only so much for money or fame. But if it is about defending good against evil, many have sacrificed their lives. The study of religion and violence is a glimpse into the darker sides of religion and of humanity. While it may not be a pleasurable subject, it is an important one. For the lack of knowledge in this area allows people to underestimate the power of religion and the conditions that lead to religiously motivated violence. RELIGION AND VIOLENCE Religion One of the challenges in documenting the relationship between religion and vio- lence is identifying what “religion” is and what “violence” is. The process of defin- ing terms such as these is also a means of limiting the scope of what is universally undefined. If religion is defined as having X, Y, and Z components, then communi- ties with only Y and Z are not religions. The problem with this is that, as of yet, there are no agreed-upon components for what constitutes a religion. One eminent historian of religion, Jonathan Z. Smith, explains this impasse with his famous declaration, “There is no data for religion” (Smith 1988, xi). The challenge is furthered by the tendency for people to see the world and reli- gions through their own religious lenses. Through exposures to the normative reli- gion and/or our own, we typically assume characteristics and categories that belong to what is familiar to us. For instance, Christians, Jews, and Muslims may see religion as a set of beliefs, rituals, and behavior that pertain to a god or gods. They may also consider the foundation of a religion and its authority vested in scriptures. While these assumptions may hold true for many of the contemporary Abraha- mic traditions, they are far from universal. Some religions, such as Buddhism, do not hold a god or gods central to their beliefs. Jains recognize that there are gods, but they see them as irrelevant to their ultimate goals of salvation from rebirth (­moksha). Sometimes scholars classify Jainism as an “atheist” religion because divinity is not central to its doctrine. Too often, we use the word atheism as a syn- onym for the absence of religion, when atheism really means the absence of divini- ties (theism), which is a quite different stance entirely.