JOURNAL 1 RELIGION AND VIOLENCE

ALAN

Is Religion Prone to Violence?

In the modern context most people agree that religion is one of the most important factors in the
cause of violence or is called religious violence. Others say religion is only a tool to legitimize violence.
But is it valid: religious violence? Then from what categories of religion encourage adherents to commit
acts of violence? This article discusses the involvement of religious elements in violence and at the same
time clarifies violence in the name of religion. On the one hand religion supports violence (Richard
Dawkins) on the other hand religion is only a political vehicle (Karen Armstrong).
Before understanding religious violence, it is important to define religion. The definition of religion
is still in long discourse. Smith proposed the concept of reification to understand religion from the context
of empirical and historical studies. Religion comes from the Latin religio meaning obedience to God.
Religion undergoes a reification from the abstrac or quality into the form of a noun or concrete. Religion
is identified as symbols and religious traditions (Smith, 1962). In the history of Europe, the process of
religious reification is seen from the unification of the Roman empire with the authority of the church.
The church is transformed into an institution. How to understand the function of religion the violence in
its relation to the established power of the authority? Then is there crusial influence of religion as the part
of violence?

The Anathomy and The Myth of Religious Violence

Cavanaugh (2009) in his book “The Myth of Religious Violence” discusses empirically and through
the historical study of the religious violence being part of the history of violence in the world. Cavanaugh
cites the opinion of John Hick who finds the Absolute character of religion. It is the reason that religion
contains violence. The ultimate final acceptance of Jesus to fight Jews and non-Christians. The
Absolutism is similar to the Priomodialist character proposed by Andreas Hasenclever and Volker
Rittberger (2000) adopted from Samuel Huntington. In the Primordialist perspective, religion plays an
important role in conflict between religious communities. Whereas the concept of the strong religion
revealed by Scott Appleby to identify easily who the friends are and who the enemies are when
understanding the script of religion. The Strong religion thought of religion is the justification of the
source of violence as a manifestation of the cosmological war in religion. The factor of religious sacred
enabled Al Qaeda and Hizbut-Tahrir struggle to legitimizes war as jihad or defending religion. But
Cavanaugh argues that absolutist and primordialist characters are not only in certain religions, The
Marksism also has an absolutist character. Then what about the types of other religions like Hinduism and
JOURNAL 1 RELIGION AND VIOLENCE

ALAN
Confucianism? The meaning of religion in this case becomes ambiguous according John Hick's analysis
in Genealogy theory. He argues that in the structure of genealogy there are close relatives and distant
relatives. The primordial character in religion is not different from what happened to the ideology of
Nazism. The primordialist character in Nazism clearly legitimizes the violence.
The next approach is Instrumentalist. The conflicts in religious communities occur because of
socio-political and economic factors. The mobilization of the people is easy with the legitimacy of
religious leaders. In the case of the blasphemy of religion by Ahok, the decree of Indonesian Ulama
Counsil (MUI) is used by fundamentalists to legitimize verbal violence toward Ahok. Jurgensmeyer in
Religious Nationalist Confront the Secular State (1993) argue that the revolutionary military movement
of Al Qaeda is a way of resistance to the secular state's political system by adopting modern ideology as
the political vehicle. Furthermore, Karen Armstrong mentioned a religious nationalism war. This
happened in Sri Lanka as the basis of the national ethnic of Buddism. The role of religion in violence
appeared blurred in the case of the modernization of the state in Turkey in 1918. Kemal Atarturk
attempted to create a secular state and proceeded to ethnic cleansing politics. Eventually Muslims and
Christians have long lived together in the Aegean.
The last perspective is the Constructivist. Hensclever insights the religion is understood as the
category and factor causing the conflict based on the ongoing socio-political context. As an example in
the case of intimidation against the Ahmadiyya group. Since the Islamic scholars have expressed the
opinion that the Ahmadiyah sect has gone out of Islam in heresy. Unlike the case if the decision was not
made, perhaps the wave of intimidation and attack was smaller.

References:

Cavanaugh, W. (2009), The Myth of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of
Modern Conflict, Oxford University Press.
Armstrong,K. (2014), The myth of religious violence,
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/25/-sp-karen-armstrong-religious-violence-
myth-secular
Hasenclever and Rittberger, “Does Religion Make a Difference? Theoretical Approaches to the
Impact of Faith on Political Conflict,” Millennium - Journal of International Studies
(2000) Vol. 29, No. 3
Appleby, Scott (2012), “Religious Violence: The Strong, the Weak, and the Pathological,”
Practical Matters, Spring, Issue 5.