Religion, Violence, and the State

Two Contrasts

The highly successful television series 24, which aired from 2001 to 2010, follows the exploits of Counter Terrorist Unit agent Jack Bauer, as he repeatedly races against the clock to prevent major terrorist attacks against the United States of America that will occur within the next 24 hours.  In addition to killing hundreds of terrorists and (illegally) torturing dozens of others over the course of the series, Jack resorts to tactics such as murdering an unarmed prisoner in cold blood^[1]Season 2, Episode 1 and torturing^[2]Season 5, Episode 11 and threatening to kill^[3]Season 3, Episode 23 innocent family members of terrorists.  While the series did receive some criticism for its repeated depiction of the use of torture by the protagonist, and later seasons did to some extent discuss the illegal nature of some of Bauer’s actions, the widespread popularity of the series serves to show just how comfortable most Americans are with the idea of a protagonist using even illegal violence in order to defend America.  Apparently, when it comes to defending America, the ends justify the means.

Now let us imagine a different television series.  Imagine a series set in the time of the Inquisition in which we follow the exploits of an Inquisitor as he tortures and kills heretics for the sake of the Church.  While the protagonist recognizes that many of his actions are not consistent with the teachings of Jesus and His apostles as recorded in the New Testament, he believes that he has no choice; too much is at stake.  Heresies, he believes, threaten to turn people away from the path that leads to eternal life to the path that leads to eternal death, and so he must resort to these extreme measures in order to root out heresy, even if it means acting in a way that is, according to the New Testament, disobedient to the Lord Jesus Christ.  When it comes to defending the Church, the ends justify the means. What would be the response to such a series? It is, of course, unthinkable that such a series would actually be put on the air, but, if it were, it would be met with near-universal horror and denunciation by both Christians and non-Christians alike. It seems that, to most Americans, violence is acceptable if it is carried out for the sake of a nation-state, but the use of violence for a religious cause, even if someone believes that the stakes are eternal life or death, is unthinkable.

Another contrast.  On September 11, 2001, Muslim terrorists affiliated with the terrorist organization al-Quaeda launched a massive coordinated terrorist attack on the United States of American, killing over 2,000 civilians.  The response of Americans to this was a widespread denunciation of religious extremism and religious violence, with some denouncing Islam itself, or even “religion” in general, as inherently dangerous and violent.  Few and far between were the voices suggesting that these Muslims may have been acting in response to violence previously inflicted on innocent Muslims, both directly and indirectly, by the political and military interference of the United States in the Middle East.^[4]As William Cavanaugh put it, “The myth of religious violence allows its users to ignore or dismiss American actions as a significant cause of hatred of the United States because the true cause is … Continue reading  The widespread assumption was that these Muslim terrorists were motivated by pure “evil,” and that to use voilence for a “religious” reason is tantamount to madness.

Now let us consider another case of mass violence. During World War II, the United States of America, with a combination of conventional and nuclear bombs, killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians. Not only has no one ever stood trial for these mass murders, the United States has never so much as apologized to Japan for these unspeakable moral crimes.  The scale of this slaughter of civilians was hundreds of times greater than what Muslim terrorists carried out on 9/11, and yet, because this violence was carried out by a nation-state during a time when war had been officially declared, most Americans approve of the bombings.^[5]A 2015 Pew Research Center survey found that 56% of Americans believe the use of nuclear weapons against Japanese civilians during World War II was justified. … Continue reading  Even among those Americans who disapprove of the United States’s bombing of Japanese civilians, few regard this as a reason to denounce American violence in general, much less to denounce America as inherently “evil” and illegitimate; instead, they regard it as an unfortunate moral error that Americans should try to avoid repeating in the future.

Religious Violence is Not Unreasonable

As the above two contrasts reveal, the widespread assumption that “religiously” motivated violence is inherently illegitimate, while state-sponsored violence should be regarded as legitimate, or even praiseworthy, is quite simply arbitrary and incoherent.  Most Americans believe it is perfectly reasonable for American soldiers to use violence in retaliation for harm that has been inflicted on their fellow Americans, but they react with horror and bewilderment to the idea that a Muslim terrorist would use violence in retaliation for harm that has been inflicted on their fellow Muslims who live in other parts of the world.  Why? What is the difference? The United States of America is a nation that has existed for less than three centuries in one part of the world; Islam is a global, international community that has existed for nearly a millenium and a half. Why should a Muslim regard their identity as part of the Muslim community as less important than their identity as part of a nation-state?  What reason per se is there that they should not use violence for the sake of this community?

One can argue that violence in the name of Islam is wrong because Islam is not true.  One can argue that violence in the name of Islam is wrong because it is based on an incorrect interpretation of the Qur’an. ^[6]The commonly heard slogan that Islam is a “religion of peace” is somewhat puzzling, given that the Qur’an contains teachings such as: “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them” (9:1-5), … Continue reading But one cannot reasonably argue that violence in the name of Islam is wrong because “religiously” motivated violence is inherently wrong. If there really is a God who has revealed Himself through the prophet Mohammad, and that God really has commanded Muslims to use violence for the sake of Islam, then that is the morally right thing for them to do.  To argue a priori that violence in the name of God must always be wrong is to claim to know that, whatever God exists, He would never command people to use violence in His name.  How could anyone claim to know that?^[7]All Christians, whatever their views on what Christian ethics has to say about violence, must acknowledge that, during the period of the Old Testament, God not only permitted but directly commanded … Continue reading  If it is acceptable to use violence to advance the agenda of a nation-state, then why on earth should it be regarded as unacceptable to use violence to advance the agenda of God, the Creator of the whole universe?  

The widespread assumption that religiously motivated violence is inherently wrong is not only arbitrary; it is dangerous.  It is dangerous because, as the above contrasts show, it serves to obscure the horrors and evils of state-sponsored violence, even when that violence claims the lives of large numbers of innocent civilians.  When our attention is directed toward denouncing violence carried out for religious, cultural, and ideological reasons as inherently illegitimate, we are distracted from critically reflecting upon our instinctual acceptance and approval of the violence of nation-states, even when it is carried out in a far more immoral and massive scale.  Inspiring people to such critical reflection is something I hope to have accomplished through this essay.