Religion and Civil War: Is Religious Difference a Cause?

Introduction: Religion, War, and the Question of Causation

A recurring question in the study of conflict is whether a meaningful relationship exists between religious difference and the occurrence of civil wars within societies. The relationship between religious groups and society can be defined against the backdrop of war. Powerful emotions surround both civilian conflict and military conflict (Yinger, 1946). A direct relationship between religion and violence has been recognized for several years. Students of organized religion "have frequently pointed out the ease with which most church leaders shift, at the outbreak of war, from an explicit antiwar position to a vigorous pro-war policy" (Yinger, p. 176). However, despite the seemingly strong tie between religion and war, it is critical to acknowledge that while religion appears as a backdrop for many wars, many other factors have contributed as well. Political aspirations and agendas have had as much to do with war as religion. The complex intermingling of these many different factors is explored in greater detail below.

Recent research suggests that, consistent with the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, in the "absence of tranquillitas ordinis, war may sometimes be a moral duty in order to overturn injustice and protect the innocent" (Neuhaus, 2003). The Pew Research Center recently conducted a national survey examining how statements by religious leaders affect views of war. Studies suggest that those statements do incite and impact people's beliefs about the just cause of war. For example, during the Crusades the Pope encouraged the West to defend the states of Europe against the common enemies of God. Religious differences and idealisms in this instance may be considered a contributor or motivator of people to continue war, but perhaps not the fundamental cause of wars between nations.

Religion is often associated with violence and civil war. Perhaps the most prevalent example is the case of Islam and the violence of jihad; yet Muslims themselves are seeking peace within Islam. Holy wars have been incited in the name of God, with one people fighting to secure their views over another. Islam is an example of a religion frequently associated with violence — but is religion necessarily the cause of civil war in such instances? The idea that religious differences are the sole cause of civil war may owe more to popular imagery than to fact. Violence has not always been directly associated with religion. Violence should be understood as a social phenomenon. Religious texts and scripture acknowledge that violence has existed throughout time; however, no formal integral link has been firmly established between religion and violence. The link that has been established, rather, is that religious problems are often highlighted during civilian conflict in times of war. Religion may be considered a common bond between people, causing them to support one side over another.

There is evidence to suggest that religious differences do precipitate warlike conditions. The religious cause of nations is often believed to be just. In the case of Iraq in modern times, for example, the cause of freeing the Iraqi people was "consistently affirmed by the Pope, also in his messages both to Saddam Hussein and President Bush" (Neuhaus, 2003). Many would argue that a just cause justifies violence and war. Consider, however, that Osama bin Laden led Al-Qaeda, whose mission was to spread violence and war between Muslim and non-Muslim groups — and Al-Qaeda's followers likewise believed their cause to be just. The people under any charismatic or influential leader might be led to believe that their cause is just. Whether one cause is more just than another is open to interpretation. Hitler, for instance, was a charismatic leader who believed his cause — the extermination and genocide of the Jewish people — to be just, though common sense and morality dictate that it was not.

The Pew Research Center found in a national survey that only ten percent of statements made by religious leaders had a determinative effect on the opinions of family members, friends, political commentators, and elected leaders involved in political matters (Neuhaus, 2003). Most religiously fervent supporters historically have spoken out against war (Neuhaus, 2003). This does not, however, suggest that war cannot result from religious doctrine and differences.

Historical Evidence: Religious Wars Across Centuries

There are many instances that suggest religion directly influences the probability of war. This evidence begins with the earliest documentation of history. The French Wars of Religion, for example, occurred during the mid to late 1500s. During this time the French Protestants, known as Huguenots, were politically important and concentrated in certain areas of France. The wars that ensued were in part the result of direct religious influences.

The war in Iraq has often been identified as a religious endeavor — a conflict fought more closely on the basis of religious belief than political causes. Wars resulting from Islamic expansion have been noted from as early as the 7th century. One might therefore argue that religious differences certainly contribute to war. Osama bin Laden is an example of an individual who waged his campaign of terror as a perceived religious duty.

Religion has been intertwined with war for centuries. The Crusaders, fighting in the name of Christ, worked to reclaim land that had previously belonged to Christendom. During the 16th and 17th centuries in Europe, bloodshed resulted as Protestant and Catholic leaders fought. In this instance, civil strife arose as people embraced religious zeal and came to believe it was their moral duty to protect their lands and people from opposing influences.

In contemporary times, Irish Catholics and Protestants have remained in conflict. In other countries, Hindus and Muslims clash with one another. The Ayatollah Khomeini called for the extermination of Salman Rushdie on the grounds that he had employed satanic verses (Copan, 2003). In Sri Lanka in 1959, the prime minister was assassinated by a Buddhist monk. It seems that at every turn, religion plays some role in warfare and conflict (Copan, 2003). The prevalence of these examples may be precisely how the dominant belief that war results from religious differences has prevailed in contemporary society.

Regina Schwartz argued that monotheism has produced a violent legacy in Western societies (Schwartz, 1997). She suggests that religious fervor and belief systems have contributed to, and caused, much of the strife that currently exists in Western societies. Many support this premise. Others, however, have reviewed both current affairs and historical evidence, and have suggested that religion itself is not the culprit; rather, the ideology behind a certain set of beliefs often results in conflict (Copan, 2003). Notably, religious wars occur frequently within the same religion and among the same people.

On first observation, much civilian strife worldwide might be blamed on religious differences or the desire of one party to dominate another. During World War II, the Nazi Party inflicted enormous civil strife in the name of religion and just cause — or at least on the premise that the extermination of one faith group was justified. The Reich bombed London, and the English forces responded in kind. During any such war, many innocent civilians are killed and suppressed. Many German citizens, despite the dictates of the Reich, helped Jews and others escape — and were themselves exterminated, even though they were not Jewish. Perhaps this suggests that religious intolerance, rather than religious difference per se, should be labeled as the cause of civilian wars between states. Germany faced many problems arising from World War II, including massive loss of civilian life and the destruction of native lands — problems that grew from many factors beyond religion.

War has been fought since the beginning of recorded history; civil strife between states often arises between members of even the same religion. Can war then be justified as a product of religion in these instances? War was considered by St. Thomas Aquinas a moral duty undertaken to overturn injustices (Neuhaus, 2003), and also a means to protect the innocent. The disarmament of Iraq was claimed as just such a "just cause," affirmed by religious leaders including the Pope and by UN Security Council Resolutions (Neuhaus, 2003). Just cause should not necessarily, however, result in military force or violence — yet history has repeatedly proven otherwise.