Rogerian essay on opposing sides of a chosen topic

Religion and War

As long as religion has been part of human history, it has been the cause of several kinds of conflict. These conflicts could be minor disagreements between individuals, such as the one regarding a certain point of theology. Arguments could also arise among groups, such as different denominations of Christianity. This is much like the above-mentioned theological differences; only on a wider scale. On a less friendly footing, extreme types of conflict such as intolerance towards other religions and certain social groups is also not unusual among religions. The most extreme form of religious conflict is probably war. Here too, there are many examples, including the Christian Crusades spawned by Constantine and one of his visions. In ancient Old Testament times, the Israelites were constantly battling other nations in the name of their God. A victory would then mean that God has favored them, while a defeat would mean that they have sinned in some way. Even today, religion is at the heart of many a conflict, the most recent extreme example of which is the 9/11 attacks occurring in 2001. An interesting question, however, is if religion necessarily leads to war. A cursory view of society today would suggest that this is not the case. Indeed, while religious extremism tends to include violence in its repertoire of dubious talents and actions, it is unlikely that the average religious person, or even the collective religious institution, would have war as one of their primary agenda items. Hence, on the strength of the research conducted and a general observation of religion and the world, it can be concluded that religion, by itself, does not cause war. It is only in its extremist form, and when a large collective subscribes to the same extremism, that physical attack and retaliation may occur.

Unfair and biased as this may seem, one of the first concepts today that comes into a conversation about religious extremism is Islam. Following the attacks in 2001, many have assumed, incorrectly, that Islam is a religion associated with extremism, violence, prejudice, and oppression. Ushama (2014) does not deny that some Muslims are extremists, but also asserts that the general conceptions within the religion of Islam strongly condemn these. From this the assertion might follow that war is caused not by religion, but by extremism within religion.

Ushama (2014), however, also refutes this idea by examining the causes of and associations with religious extremism within Islam. According to the author, such extremism is a response or reaction to either internal or external factors, rather than something caused by the religion itself. The religion, therefore, serves only as a convenient platform for the emergence of the extremist pattern. In this way, extremism is related either to an individual psychological setup or the influence of an external occurrence or environment. Severe oppression, crisis, and disturbance in an environment can therefore be the cause of religious extremism. It is this extremism that leads to war, and not the religion that is used as its platform.

Glaser (2012) appears to be in agreement with Ushama, that war is not caused by religion itself. Indeed, the author makes some important assertions about Nazi Germany, Austria, and Quakerism. In the case of the Nazis, it was precisely the attempt to eradicate religion that led to war, rather than religion itself. Religion was seen as a tool that cultivated ideologies that went against the principles of Nazism. In this way, an atheist ideology regarding the superiority of some over others, and an attempt to use fear and brainwashing techniques to promote this ideology, is what led to war. Religion was seen as the enemy, but not the perpetrator of war.

In Glaser's paper, she examines the phenomenon of collaboration between religion and Nazism, specifically in the form of Quakers who became collaborators of the Nazi government. According to the author, the Quakers involved followed a specific thought process to manage an effective double identity created by the dichotomy of their religious identity and the atheism of the Nazi government for which they worked. The reason for this arose from the Quaker involvement in first aid work during World War I. This brought the Quaker religion back to Austria and Germany. The devastation of World War I brought home to the Quaker believers the horror of war and with it the desire to support a government capable of rebuilding the devastated world. This led some Quakers to support the Nazi government for its perceived ability to construct a world in which peaceful and gainful living would once again be possible. The religious ideology of the Quakers dictated an involvement in creating an improved world. Hence, they based their trust in and assistance of the Nazi government on this ideal, in spite of the fundamental theological differences.

Obviously, this brought deep divisions among the Nazi officials and among Quaker believers themselves. It did not, however, result in war. Indeed, many who did not support the government chose to demonstrate their faith by means of relief efforts for the victims of war and other pacifist actions. In this case too, then, religion did not lead to war. On the contrary, anti-religious ideology did. As in the case of Muslim extremism, one might also consider the participation in the World Wars by religious person as a reaction to initial attack by the enemy ideology, with the believers being in a position of defense and retaliation.

Thomas Hobbes appears to be in agreement that religion, by itself, cannot be given the blame for starting wars. Abizadeh (2011) examines the philosopher's work to reveal that war is far more complicated than just the result of religion, and even of extremism. In his interpretation of Hobbes' work, the author notes that there are three potential levels according to which war can be analyzed: The individual, the systemic-structural, and the social. The individual level concerns human psychology, the systemic-structural involves incentive, while the social level includes factors like ideology, culture, and socialization. Religion itself might therefore be said to be only a small component of the complex interaction between these levels, even when religion is the primary basis for wanting conflict.