This is a paper that I wrote, sadly I had to trash it because it was way too long, but I am quite proud of it and I feel like sharing the entirety of it because it makes an interesting statement to me. I also, do not think it is plagiarism since the citations also come attached to this and it is my own original work…
This was originally supposed to be a post on a discussion board, so that is why the reference to other discussion posts.
All of the students who have posted seem to have hit upon important points of discussion and explanations of why people kill in the name of religion. I feel that they have missed some points though and will attempt to expand this discussion a bit further than has heretofore gone. I am going to do this through arguing that religion creates a sense of community and identity which can then be infringed upon or dishonored helping to cause a justification for killing. Afterwards I will try to briefly argue that religions attempt to go to war with each other to prove which tribe and religion is more powerful (sort of a Hobbesian sense of state of nature). Finally, in an interesting thought experiment, I will attempt to argue that our society is intensely religious with what I will call a cult of rationality and that this religion has been in one of the most large-scale wars for domination over other religions.
In the slides online and in the book the idea of communitas from Victor Turner is mentioned (Jourdan 2014, Slide 11 and Miller 2010, 335). This communitas, according to Turner, is a sense unity with a group of people (Miller 2010, 335). Religions are one place where this sense of unity can be created through all of the different rituals and having similar beliefs. I think that this is an important factor in religions which can help to cause a justification for killing. If one feels like they are part of a tight-knit community one that is so closely tied that the phrase “if you hurt one of us, you hurt all of us” stands and then one of their own people is hurt the others will feel justified in getting revenge. Take this into religions where there is also the idea of spirits, Gods, gods and other divine or supernatural powers which can also be offended. Now there is a group of people who have a group of individuals and a belief system to protect from outrages and that can lead to very easy justification for fighting and killing.
Take the story of the Trojan War as a more secular example. A Greek King’s wife was taken by a Trojan Prince. The Greek Kings, all being part of a loose identity of “Greek” went to war with the other Greek Kings to get this wife back. The Greeks have a sense of community with each other and one member had been offended so they went to war to fix the offense. Even if the story is mythological the basic idea still holds I think. A more religious example can be seen in the 30 year’s war which had a lot to do with the reformation (Morrison, 6). The entirety of Catholic Christianity had to deal with this new sect of Protestants within itself and multiple tactics were used on either side.
Another aspect of this killing is to show which religion is more powerful. The myth of emperor Constantine receiving a sign that he should have his soldiers put the Christian Cross on their shields to win a battle I think is an example of this. By winning a huge battle under the name of one religion it is a sort of symbol of the ability of that religion’s God(s) to protect its believers, thus showing it is more powerful and more right or true. This certainly makes the crusades a bit awkward for Catholic Europe at the time since they ended up losing. So religious communities are groups of people who are closely knit, can be offended and want to establish themselves as the most powerful and most truthful group in religious conflicts. I am not attempting to say that this is the only justification for religious killing but it certainly seems like this could be an important aspect. Now this last justification for killing is the one that the cult of rationality has used for the most part.
The first thing I have to do is define this cult of rationality. This cult believes in the absolute power of reason/logic. A definition of religion we are given in the slides is:
A religion is 1) a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by 2) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and 3) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that 4) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic (Jourdan 2014, slide 2).
The system of symbols that this cult uses seems to stem from geometry and math in general. Statistics being one of the main sources of these symbols, this system of symbols is used in scientific journal articles to prove certain things such as whether or not a medicine works. Or calculus, another system of these symbols is used to argue for gravity and these things establish the motivations of whether or not to take a medicine for a cure or how to explain the world and why things fall as they do. Gravity then also does step two, by helping along with the rest of physics, to explain how the universe works. The aura of factuality can be seen by the fact that we call these facts and these explanations and motivations for things are assumed to be real. I also think one can argue that this cult of rationality is a religion from another list we are given in the slides.
This second list is the four reasons why people would need and have religions. They are (1) an explanation (2) validation (3) security and (4) defining the world (Jourdan 2014, Slide 2). This cult of rationality explains how the world came to be (the big bang theory), validates and comforts by arguing that the apparent chaos in the world is controlled by rationality and logically explainable ideas and an idea of gravity certainly validates that we see things fall. Finally these logical rules also explain the world as it really is. Now to explain how this religion has been at war with others.
I think this war with other religions can be seen in European ethnocentrism also. First Nations people in North America being forced off of their own lands, enslaved, destroyed and forced to change their habits and beliefs to fit into the world system of a combination of Christianity and rationality. Colonialism is another historical example of this war, Europeans thought that they had the better religion rationality and Christianity and went exploring, to get trade yes, but also they went proselytizing and enslaving. The cult of rationality in having these mathematical symbols for an economy led the way to expansion and then used these symbols to improve weaponry and navigation so that the colonializing rationalists could attack with fancier and more damaging weapons (gun powder instead of bows), move more people and goods around with navigation and higher quality ships among other technological advances that rationality made. In due time, this cult of rationality has managed to spread across the globe so that the entire world is part of the economy, statistics of the world are taken and everything is put to the rationalist explanations and tests.
This is a somewhat crazy interpretation of the modern world and I am not saying that this is the right way to interpret the world. I do think that it is important to be aware of how religions can be viewed, interpreted, understood and explained though and performing a thought experiment such as this can show that and help to prevent the ethnocentrism that asilvestri mentioned in an earlier post. It can also help to show how there can be multiple reasons for religious killing.
Jourdan, Christine. 2014. “Introduction to Culture (ANTH 202).” eConcordia. http://www.econcordia.com/courses/introduction_culture/lesson5/
Miller, Barbara, Penny Van Esterik and John Van Esterik. Cultural Anthropology. 4th ed. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada, 2010.
Schiller, Friedrich. The History of the Thirty Year’s War. Translated by Rev. A. J. Morrison, M.A. University of Pennsylvania. http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/schiller/30yrswar.pdf