Post No.: 0837
Furrywisepuppy says:
Although religions often promote the highest ethical ideals, they’re also frequently implicated in violence. Even Buddhist monks have sometimes supported violence. Being religiously literate involves taking into consideration the fact that within any religious tradition, there are usually always diverse views about violence. The internal diversity within religions was the subject of Post No.: 0815.
In Christianity, the Inquisition and the Crusades were declared as ‘holy’ interventions/wars. The term ‘jihad’ is often taken to mean fighting for Islam in a ‘holy war’ – although it actually means ‘striving’, ‘struggle’ or ‘effort’, which has both an external (e.g. writing, preaching, fighting in self-defence) and internal (e.g. spirituality, patience, resisting selfish desires) aspect. The so-called Sword Verse (9:5) in the Qur’an regarding violence against idolators or non-Muslims has been subject to differing interpretations. Jihad is also sometimes used nowadays to refer to a struggle for social justice.
Religious extremism or fundamentalism doesn’t always mean in the direction of violence though – extremism can sometimes mean in the direction of pacifism (e.g. Quakers, Mennonites, Jehovah’s Witnesses). So it’s vital to understand that religion promotes peace and reconciliation, as well as conflict and tension. The idea of ahimsa, or non-harming to all living beings, is one that has been prominent in many South Asian religious traditions, especially Jainism.
But what typically happens is that those who are anti-religious will pick up on any religious labels in a conflict as a confirmation that religions are the cause of many conflicts; whilst those who are religious will tend to downplay the role of religion, dissociate themselves from those who claim a religious justification for their violent acts, and will instead claim that true religion encourages peace. The actual truth lies somewhere between these poles, although where depends on the individual conflict. We must consider the complex interplay of other environmental, or political, cultural and socio-economic, factors that typically contribute towards violence too.
There are cases of coercive prejudice against the religious too, like Islamophobia and hostility towards those who wear face veils, and anti-Semitism and the supposed aspiration of Jews to take over the world.
Religious locals sometimes join armed conflicts not because of any ideological extremism but as mercenaries – it’s just their circumstances, like poverty, rather than their beliefs. (It’s like shoplifting increases when the cost of living rises i.e. it’s not just someone’s personality but their circumstances that lead to criminality, and why governments need to tackle poverty rather than malign those who turn to stealing under hard times.) This adds to the moral and legal justification to not commit war crimes like executing detained enemy combatants. War crimes are fuel that can radicalise individuals into siding with the enemy too, hence they do the opposite of heroically serving the soldier’s nation’s interests.
Many of the most salient and memorable terrorist attacks in recent times have been associated with religious extremism. But it hasn’t just been Islamic terrorists but Christian, Sikh and others too. Rightwing, white-supremacist terrorists have attacked Muslims, as well as Jews and Sikhs, too.
Someone might indeed be drawn into terrorism as a result of ‘radicalisation’, after coming into contact with a ‘radical’ scholar or by studying in a religious seminary. An over-simple story is they then learn a conservative interpretation of their religion, and then move onto activism or acts of terror. Those who follow this gradual path to violence are in a minority however.
Terrorists come from different backgrounds, journeys and motivations. There’s no single route and no simple answer to the question of why some people get involved in it. Some are decently educated with great professional career prospects. Some are well-connected. Some others are poorly qualified and trapped in unfulfilling, low-paid work. Some are isolated. Some may be motivated by the feelings of persecution or disillusionment they’ve experienced firsthand. These socio-economic vulnerabilities create an opening for someone to fill these voids and gain the vulnerable person’s trust i.e. grooming. And then some may feel they can only instigate social change via employing violence.
Some are petty criminals who are exposed to violent extremist ideas and gangs in prison. Some Muslim terrorists are ideologically motivated by the idea of avenging the suffering inflicted on many Muslim communities around the world. Some of these also believe that by becoming martyrs for their faith, they can make up for the sinful lives they’ve hitherto led and go straight to paradise, and perhaps intercede for their family members so that they’ll reach paradise too. There’s sometimes a generational component, with younger terrorists rejecting what they perceive as the ‘conformist Islam’ of their parents.
The Internet can make it much easier to access the simplistic and violent messages of militant preachers. Some youths may think it’s cool to pose with weapons or to upload violent videos on social media. It can inspire copycat acts, like fatal public knife attacks.
This doesn’t mean that all fundamentalist Muslims are attracted to extremism or terrorism – a subset of Salafis are apolitical. (Note that a key that distinguishes a regular act of violence with terrorism is that terrorism involves a political component – the promulgation of a message to the wider public than the immediate victims.)
In the UK at least, acts linked to terror that one could be convicted for range from the possession of terror-related documents, disseminating terrorist media, providing funding for terror-related acts, to engaging in the preparation or conduct of terrorism.
As a grownup, you probably expect to have a certain amount of freedom in deciding your own beliefs and behaviours. However, sometimes religiously justified practices can cause harm and should be challenged.
One example is when it comes to the faith-based abuse of children. Some Christians use the Bible phrase ‘spare the rod and spoil the child’ (Proverbs 13:24) to justify the physical disciplining of children. Other Christians albeit take a different interpretation of this passage and believe that it does not condone giving a physical beating. These interpretative differences illustrate how religiously-inspired behaviours can change, all while still maintaining a connection to scripture. (Well like how religious people argue about what really happened in religiously significant events – non-religious people often argue, quite heatedly, about what’s canon in fictional story worlds too!)
Some religious parents might send their children to private, religious schools, or decide to home-school them, in order to limit their exposure to ‘mainstream society’ that doesn’t share the same desired values. Female genital mutilation is a practice that’s increasingly being challenged. Children, women, and occasionally men, can also be harmed due to accusations of witchcraft or possession; albeit not all ‘deliverance’ practices or ‘exorcisms’ are violent in nature.
Members of some religious organisations can feel under pressure to spend ever more time and money on their faith. But it’s tricky to simultaneously challenge the religiously-motivated beliefs of an individual at the same time as showing respect for their right to choose their own beliefs. That’s why it’s vital to explore with an open mind what’s going on with someone whom we fundamentally religiously disagree with.
This means, when something is ambiguous – don’t automatically assume ill intent. Give the benefit of the doubt. Interpret ambiguous words and body language positively.
Begin your approach with an attitude of enquiry – so ask questions and do research. This signals that you’re willing to listen, which will in most cases be reciprocated. Rather than focus on what you (think you) know, paws for thought about what you don’t know about the religious or cultural group you’re encountering. People usually respond to the attitude you bring to a situation, so if you enter with a closed mind, you’ll likely meet a defensive response; whereas if you enter with curiosity, you’ll often be greeted with a degree of openness and a willingness to engage in dialogue in return. After you’ve left the initial encounter, follow up with reflections and further research to find out more. Who or what is inspiring this person? Do they attend a particular place of worship?
Stay calm – do everything possible to de-escalate rather than escalate tensions. This could be via the use of (non-belittling) humour, changing the subject for a moment, or pausing the interaction until the heat dissipates then returning later. (That’s one advantage with non-real-time communication – you can take a whole day to compose yourself before replying.)
State your arguments, evidence and/or logic rather than presume they’re ‘obvious to all’ – make the case for change. A generalised disquietude about a religion being ‘evil’ isn’t productive, so be specific if you think they have problematic beliefs or behaviours, and explain how you think they are problematic in this time and place? Then try to collaborate to find ways to resolve them.
Ultimately treat everyone as human beings, with love and respect instead of scorn or disdain.
Do their beliefs and behaviours threaten those whom you cherish? If so, how you respond to potentially harmful behaviours that are based on religious worldviews will depend highly upon your role and relationships. Professional roles might entail specific legal duties to act, especially if one has safeguarding responsibilities towards others. The local cultural context may matter, like if the situation is about your neighbourhood or a family member. Even outside of a professional role, you might feel a moral imperative to intervene when there’s a perceived danger to others or yourself. But do consider how will a particular person react? How safe are you? In your country, there might be requirements to report any suspicions related to abuse (which are sometimes associated with religious contexts) or ‘radicalisation’ – particularly if you work with children or adults who might in some way be considered vulnerable.
Kidnapping someone to take them out of a destructive cult would likely be counterproductive (and illegal) because the person will likely return to the cult as a more fanatical believer than before because it would confirm the distrust of those outside of the movement.
It can be better to leave the door for positive change open as much as possible. It’d be preferable to empower individuals to come to their own independent decisions. This could potentially be achieved by helping an individual recognise that their own ethics and values are incongruent to those of the specific problematic beliefs or behaviours of the religious group. Don’t attempt to shame them – instead highlight some choices they could take that would especially allow them to save face and not have to admit they were wrong. This is against the instincts of many people who erroneously assume that people are beaten down into changing their minds!
Similar to how others find it insulting to have assumptions made about them that are very different to their own self-concepts – it can be uncomfortable and insulting when others make assumptions about us that are very different to our own self-concept. Teachers, parents and leaders in all kinds of contexts will also find more success if they’re collaborative rather than enter with a ‘my rules’, ‘you’re wrong’ or ‘you’re unintelligent’ attitude. We all respond better to persuasion than coercion or offence.
So it’d be better for you to meet the person and listen to them. Then reassure them that they are still loved and trusted, and that it’s good to see that they’re happy and well. But, additionally, mention that you are concerned because you’ve heard some things about the movement that are worrying, and ask them whether they had found any truth to these concerns. They’d likely say they haven’t. But you should then ask, “What would you do if you were to find out that they were true after all?” To which they’d likely say that they’d not wish to remain in that group.
Then leave them be, with the option that, just in case, there’s a ticket home that you’ve arranged for them should they wish to come home at any time. If they then return under their own volition, your trust and close relationship with them will be maintained.
Woof.
Comment on this post by replying to this tweet:
