Religion as the Foundation of Instituting Theocratic Regimes: the Connection Between Religion and Violence - Research Paper Example

Introduction The pairing of religion with various institutions did occur in the past and is persistently continuing until today, despite of the unending progression of structural separation in Christian societies. This generally reinforces the despotism of the state and hampers the freedom and liberty of civil society, which sums up the structured religious sector (Haar & Busuttil, 2005). The objective of this paper is to emphasize the possibility of various changes and permutations in structural relationship between religion and other components, thus indicating the extent of the dilemma of finding out the roots of violence. Structural Link between Religion and Violence In the past, religion has been the foundation of instituting theocratic regimes. A theocratic regime is an institution which sanctions violence specifically because it benefits adherents of state religion and disenfranchised those followers of other faith organizations. Likewise, in a religiously diverse state if a particular religion is announced as the state religion then it has a considerable promise of becoming a source of violence, since it has a tendency to recognize itself with state policies. Moreover, if one particular religion in a religiously diverse state, specifically the mainstream religion, has a tendency to view the state as its own then there is a significant likelihood of the mainstream religion developing to be a driving force of violence (Bromley & Melton, 2002). Ultimately, the tendency of a state to disallow adherents of some marginalized religious organizations from obtaining their citizenship entitlements is also present. The classification of state citizens into occupants on the basis of their religious affiliation is the worst structural violence (Ooman, 1997). When followers of a religious organization are marginalized, specifically, viewed and treated as outcasts, violence is already involved in that process, the typical example is that of European Jews, primarily in Germany. As stated by Frederick Hertz: “Jews have been living in Germany for a very long time… and most of them were completely assimilated. Nevertheless… the Nazi regime branded them as alien… (Ooman, 1997, 14)” When a religious organization is the mainstream in at least one of a state’s province it has a tendency to identify itself as a nation-state and seeks to acquire its own autonomous state. The aim is commonly expressed through secessionist movements, which consequently be viewed as ‘against the establishment’ by the general majority religious organization resulting in violence (Bromley & Melton, 2002). Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs in the Indian subcontinent all asserted that they are sovereign nations, resulting in the division of India. As the Sikhs did not understand their aim to form an independent sovereign state, in due course they were granted a local state within the Indian federal polity. In accomplishing this, a great deal of violence has been let loose. Even though the Muslims did establish their own state, that is Pakistan, the division did not resolve the problem of the Muslims and Hindus as the adherents of both the societies are scattered all over the subcontinent of India. Hence the division only marginalized Muslims in India, and Hindus in Bangladesh and Pakistan, and this incident remains a basis of persistent violence (Haar & Busuttil, 2005). Two current instances of state creation on the basis of religious affiliation are Eritrea and Timor. The Muslim province of Eritrea is formed from Ethiopia, a Christian society; while Timor, a Christian region, is carved out of a Muslim society, India. The continuing resistance for an independent Tamil state in Sri Lanka is provoked by the religious affiliations of the factions in struggle, namely, Tamil Hindus and Sinhalese Buddhists. Even as Hindu separatists in India view Buddhism as a branch of Hinduism, and eagerly integrate Buddhists into the Hindu Rashtra design, the two faiths are in aggressive competition for Sri Lanka. Likewise, even though Muslims and Hindus are implicated in continuous clashes in the Indian subcontinent, these two faiths are pacified in Indonesia (Haar & Busuttil, 2005). The argument herein is that nothing intrinsic in religious organizations which generate violence, but once they identify themselves as independent nations and aim to establish a sovereign state, they consistently become roots of violence. The concept of the nation and the state are affixed to territory, even though the connotation of ‘territories’ differs greatly in the two concepts: for the nation the territory is a moral unit, whereas for the state it is a legal body; though the national and the citizen are anticipated to show their nationalism for the nation and their patriotism for the state, both sentiments summing up their connection to the territory (Dillon, 2003, 59). Connection to the territory through religious organization is unsustainable in the modern world due to the devolution of religion through invasion, imperialism and colonization. Some may claim that religious organizations such as Jews and Hindus have not pampered in invasion and colonialism, and normally do not enforce religious conversion, and thus they may be perceived as religions that are territorially attached (Dillon, 2003). It is enlightening to examine the Jewish context as well. In an extremely influential piece of writing Steven Grosby (2002) claims that ancient Israel was indeed an independent nation, a collective native soil of the twelve tribes with definite territorial frontiers, thus challenging the well-known notion that nationality is a limited contemporary trend. Grosby (2002) demonstrates that the Israel’s trans-tribal national attitude was that of a larger affiliation which typifies even present nations. Nevertheless, the problem emerges when he tries to define the particularity of the nation, and thus Israel, as one made up of the alleged progenies Abraham, who venerated only one God. The ancient Israelites at some point during their history became a nation when they believed that the territory of Israel in its entirety belonged to them… and only to them because Yahweh their God and the only God to be worshipped in the land (and thus, whose law was the only law to be obeyed in that land) had promised it to them (Grosby, 2002, 26). As a common portrayal of ancient Israel this statement is perhaps acceptable, but the dilemma crops up when it is employed as a context to define and depict other nations, and the present-day Israel state. Primarily, there are numerous ancient and modern nations whose whole territory is not a component of any specific religious community; also, to the degree that populations of a territory have a variety of religions they have a variety of Gods; then, if there are a variety of religions as well as Gods they could have a variety of legal structures; and lastly, if each of these Gods guarantees the whole territory to his followers and commands them to conform only to his laws, in that case human existence is destined to become vicious, violent and short; certainly, the nation will be swiftly taken to pieces (Haar & Busuttil, 2005). It is relevant at this point to allude to the establishment of the state of Israel. The Balfour Declaration in 1917 assured a homeland for the Jews, and not Israel’s state. The King-Crane Commission launched in 1919 by former US President Wilson discovered that a significant portion of the population in the land recognized for the Jewish native soil was non-Jewish, specifically Arab; subsequent to the formation of Israel the Arab inhabitants was trimmed down to a small percentage. Unavoidably, tremendous violence was drawn in this incident (Bromley & Melton, 2002). Both the Jews and the Arabs had a rightful decent claim to the land of Israel. But when religion was summoned to identify nation, and the aspiration to form a state on the basis of a distinct religious society was instigated, outbursts of violence, at times widespread and relentless, were let loose. It is evident from the discussion that the general source of, or collective ideological ancestry between, institutions of faith does not diminished violence among religions. The clashes between Semitic religions, specifically Christianity, Islam and Judaism, have been present since their foundation and are continuing. Likewise, the disagreements between Indic religions, namely Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism are olden and hard-wearing. On the contrary, there are cases of religious communities from very distinct ideological contexts serenely co-existing as demonstrated in the instances of Hinduism and Islam in Indonesia as well as Hinduism, Zoroastrianism and Judaism in India (Bromley & Melton, 2002). From the discussion and arguments above it is evident that when religion is attached to the notion of nationality or nations and citizenship or states it consistently develops to be an origin of violence among religions. However, dissimilarities in dogmas and faiths also frequently fuel intra-religious violence (Haar & Busuttil, 2005). The violence which they carry out is well-known in the instances of Catholics and Protestants, Mahayana and Hinayana Buddhists, Sunnis and Shias, even though the gravity of violence differs among these religious denominations. In a number of instances the new subsidiaries are not even acknowledged by the majority organization as part of their religion. Conclusion The historicity evidence of the connection between religion and violence evidently shows that, in various parts of the globe at various historical eras all religions were or are roots of violence. Furthermore, attaching religion with the concept of nation, state and minority group is a guaranteed incitement to generate and discharge violence. Also, religious identities can be a source of violence in fusion with the notions of nation and state, with independence and capitalism, and with modernity. But ultimately, and most significantly, religion itself does not have an inherent component that could generate violence. References Bromley, D. G. & Melton, J.G. (2002). Cults, Religion and Violence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Dillon, M. (2003). A Handbook of the Sociology of Religion. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Grosby, S. E. (2002). Biblical Ideas of Nationality: Ancient and Modern. Haar, G. T. & Busuttil, J.J. (2005). Bridge or Barrier: Religion, Violence and Visions of Peace. Boston: Brill. Ooman, T. (1997). Citizenship, Nationality and Ethnicity: Reconciling Competing Identities. Polity.     Read More