Religion is the Cause of War - Essay Example

? Religion is the Cause of War Teacher               Religion is the Cause of War The from whose ideas the thesis was derived are actually all professionals in their fields and are experts on the political role and influence of religion. Their credentials follow right after they are named. The audience for this presentation is a group of university students who may not be very much familiar with the psychology and sociology of the topic. They may have heard the news about religious wars and conflicts, and they themselves may have come to believe that religion is the reason behind civil war conflicts and even internationally known incidents like the 911 terror attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001. Nevertheless, they may not exactly know why this is so or what exactly is going on in the minds of religious terrorists or those people who wage war and conflict in the name of religion or God. The paper is therefore intended for them in order to enlighten them and strengthen their belief in the idea that religion is indeed a significant and primary cause of war. The reasons in order to establish this thesis are to be presented as ideas of individual experts on the topic. The expected response is a greater awareness of the idea and development of a mind which is independent of religious influence. The less religion can get into one’s psyche, the less chances it will encourage one towards conflict. The point that the presentation is aiming at is that sociologically and psychologically, religion is a major cause of war. According to Jonathan Fox (2004), who is a lecturer of political studies in Bar-Ilan University in Maryland, and who was Ph.D. in Government and Politics, which he received from the University of Maryland, religion causes war because it is modernity that has triggered its role. Although many theorists thought that religion would disappear or would somehow dissolve into something insignificant because of the advent of modernization, religion has somehow even attained a stronger role in society more than ever. There are various reasons and evidence presented by Fox in order to establish his point. First, efforts at modernization have actually failed in many countries of the Third World where modernization was introduced. The western secular ideologies introduced by modernization have actually caused a backlash in these areas of the world. The reason for this is the strong religious culture of the Third World, which is mostly tribal in nature and mostly highly specific among natives, which means that they may not include an extremely large community of believers like Christians. Actually, tribal groups like those of African tribes and even some cults have members who are more loyal to their groups than those belonging to large religions like Christianity and Islam. This is something that proponents of modernization failed to see. Modernization has actually therefore failed to anticipate the role of traditional lifestyles, morals and community values. These things actually strengthen the community and religious spirit of the people who are members of these religious tribal groups. That is why the more these groups are threatened by modernization, the more religious they will tend to be and the more violent or defensive they may become in order to defend their identity. This means that anything that condemns or threatens the stability of these small religions is actually conflict. The more these religions are threatened, the more violent the members become and the more they tend to cause conflict and war. One last point that Fox (2004) emphasizes is that the newfound freedom that democracy has afforded the common individual when it comes to choosing his religion has actually made people increase in their religiosity. This means that people who have freely chosen their systems of faith actually have a greater reason for defending their religion for defending it means defending their choice, as choice often reflects one’s identity. When this identity is threatened, the author of the choice is therefore ready to wage war on whoever threatens the basis of his identity. According to Mael and Ashforth (2001), the former a renowned organizational consultant and founder of Mael Consulting & Coaching while the latter an expert in management and identities in institutions in Arizona State University, one factor that makes the individual defend his religion is what is known as organizational identification, or the development of a sense of unity or oneness with the organization to which one belongs. Organizational identification is actually not enough. What actually makes the individual wage war in the name of religion is the fact that organizational identification often comes with reward and benefits. One benefit is the individual’s sense of ownership of his religion. It is therefore natural to defend whatever one owns against those who want to take it away from him or those who seek its destruction. Another benefit of identification to the individual is the sense of worth that one develops as a part of something great and powerful. This sense of worth actually comes with pride and power. It is therefore natural for one to fight at all costs anyone or anything that tries to undermine the source of this very beautiful sense of self-worth. Another benefit that one can get from organizational identification is that it incorporates into one a status of high social identity, with or without interaction from fellow members. In short, identification gives one numerous non-material benefits that appeal to one’s emotions and beliefs. Moreover, once one’s emotions and beliefs are triggered and threatened, it is synonymous to threatening one’s sense of identity. Therefore, anything that seeks the destruction of one’s religion also seeks the destruction of the source of all these non-material benefits on which one’s emotions, beliefs and identity are based, and when one defends one’s identity, one will do so at any cost even if it means war. Moreover, according to Mael and Ashforth (2001), one more thing that identification with one’s religion brings to an individual is meaning and purpose in life. It also brings about a sense of belongingness and, most of all, it brings about the belief that this religion can cause the maximization of one’s potential. In short, religion gives an individual just about everything he needs in order to be happy and to live a fulfilling life. If therefore this source of life is threatened in any way, the individual whose life depends on it will certainly use any means necessary in order to defend it, even if it is war. However, the psychological effects of religion are not this natural. According to 2006 analysis of David Clark of Michael Burleigh’s book Sacred Causes: Religion and Politics from the European Dictators to Al Qaeda, in order to further their goals and sometimes to even deliberately cause war or conflicts, many of the established religions have used dirty tactics such as mass murder and lying propaganda intermixed with and strengthened by divine justification. According to Clark (2006), even the religion of Moses, who had three thousand idolaters of the golden calf slaughtered at the foot of the mountain is no different from any group of religious people who would gladly and willingly massacre the members of another religion. It is also interesting to note that the author Burleigh is renowned British author, historian and a distinguished Ph.D. from University College London. Toft (2006), who is an associate professor of Public Policy at the Kennedy School at Harvard University, says that the fact that religion is based on the mandate of a supernatural supreme being somehow confers a sense of power and invincibility among its members. When a member of a particular religion realizes how powerful his known deity is, he then somehow automatically shares in this power and allows it to feed him with courage and strength to do what he ordinarily cannot do as a mere human being. This then becomes the basis not only of many wars but also of acts of terrorism that require a huge faith to carry out. Moreover, religion encourages followers not to give priority to and even discourage them from giving attention to their physical survival. This is somehow connected to the idea of the sanctity and everlasting existence of the soul as well as its ultimate invincibility. This then takes away the fear that one often attaches to physical pain and physical death. This also now becomes the basis of self-sacrifice in the name of one’s God or religion. When the basis of self-sacrifice is established in someone, dying for one’s religion is easy and war becomes inevitable. Based on the ideas of the aforementioned experts, religion is indeed a significant and primary cause of war. It is so because of its response to modernization, the fact that democracy allows freedom of religion, the benefits of organizational identification including meaning and purpose in life, dirty and violent tactics, the belief in a supernatural supreme being, and the underestimation of physical survival and pain. All these factors actually give a very strong reason for an individual to protect and defend his religion from any threat at all costs even if it means war. On this note, one is therefore discouraged from allowing religion to dominate the mind and to manipulate it into one of fanaticism and violence. It therefore only depends on the individual himself whether or not he should allow religion to dominate his life and govern his existence, and most importantly, whether or not to let him hurt others. References Clark, D. (2006). Retrieved May 11, 2013, from Dissent Magazine: http://207.97.238.133/democratiya/article_pdfs/d8Clark.pdf Fox, J. (2004). Religion and State Failure: An Examination of the Extent and Magnitude of Religious Conflict from 1950 to 1996. International Political Science Review, 25(1), 55-76. Mael, F. A. & Ashforth, B. E. (2001). Identification in Work, War, Sports, and Religion: Contrasting the Benefits and Risks. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 31(2), 197-222. Toft, M. D. (2006). Religion, Civil War, and International Order. Retrieved May 11, 2013, from Harvard University: http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/publication/2962/religion_civil_war_and_international_order.html SELF EVALUATION ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS: 1. What is your topic? Whether or not religion is a cause of war. 2. What are the possibly different main claims/positions related to this topic? Religion is the cause of war, or religion is not a significant cause of war, or religion is not at all related to war and vice versa. 3. What is your position regarding the topic? Religion is a significant cause of war. 4. What evidence have you offered to support your claim/position? Have you included your survey results? Evidence from claims of experts in the field of psychology, management and history. 5. Put your claim/position and evidence through the “Scientific Method” and “Proving a Theory” steps. Are there any steps on which your claim/position and evidence do not measure up to the examination? If so, what can you do to make them more acceptable? Since this evidence comes from expert authors and reliable sources, they certainly measure up to the scientific method. 6. Who is your intended audience? University students who are not familiar with the psychology and sociology behind the topic. 7. What is your purpose? What do you want the audience to do, to feel, or to think? The audience is expected to become aware of how religion can influence the mind of someone who uses it as a basis of war and conflict, and to hopefully avoid the same train of thought vis-a-vis one’s own religion. 8. What words or phrases have you included to cause your audience to do, feel, or think the way that you want them to do, feel, or think? Include all of your motivational empathetic cues for your audience. Phrases like “ready to wage war on whoever threatens the basis of his identity” and “one will do so at any cost even if it means war” will definitely show the audience how serious and strong the connection is between war and religion. 9. How can your position actually better meet the needs of your audience than other possible positions? Graphs and specific examples of wars based on these psychological theories are needed. However, since this is more on the psychology aspect of war, then this will be hard to account for and so graphical data are also equally hard to obtain. 10. What more might your audience need to know before they believe that they need to do, to feel, or to think that what you are suggesting should in fact cause them to be doing, feeling, or thinking something? The audience is expected to know the basics of psychology like influence, motivation, and fanaticism in religion. The audience is also expected to know more about the various examples of religious wars and conflicts. 11. What position that is different from yours might cause your audience not to accept your position? Now that you have identified it, what do you need to add to your own argument to convince your audience that this is alternate position should be rejected in favor of your own position? The alternate position is: Religion is not a cause of war. This can be opposed through an assessment of the religious affiliation of many participants of several wars and one can see that many times, fighters of the same religion go against those of another religion. 12. Can you think of anything else that your audience might need in order to be persuaded by your argument? Some psychological analysis of the participants and victims of various wars would certainly add weight to the argument that I am driving at. Read More