Terror in the Mind of God: Mark Juergensmeyer
What causes religious groups to act out in violent ways? Since 9/11, that’s been a topic front and center in American media. Mark Juergensmeyer wrote about it back in 2000, surveying Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Buddhist acts of terror. My philosophy of religion professor assigned us the text to accompany our investigation of claims for God’s existence. I read the book in two days on the Chicago L–it was engrossing.
The book is split into two parts: Cultures of Violence and The Logic of Religious Violence. In the first 150 pages, Juergensmeyer surveys modern acts of violence perpetrated by every major religion. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, and Buddhism (Aum Shinrikyo). Then he breaks out why he thinks religious violence occurs.
For one thing, he doesn’t think that reducing the explanation to politics, economics or psychology will cut it. But he also doesn’t want to make the leap to malign all of religion by these events. After all, the Christian Identity movement is a minority and even most Reconstructionists don’t advocate violence. So what are the reasons?
Acts of dramatic violence are supposed to draw attention to drama on a cosmic scale. Religions thrive on symbolism, even violent symbolism. What these groups have in common is a sense that there is a dualistic battle already going on, between good and evil. Not only that, but they feel that their identity is being threatened by these encroaching forces. Take Christian Identity as an example again; these white men feel emasculated by the growing empowerment of women and minorities. There is no way to "win" the struggle through normal means, so symbolic violence is the only recourse.
Often these groups believe that the act will incite others to rise up and follow their lead. Finally, it is not an accident that primarily young men, who are "between" societal groups, are recruited by terrorists. Not yet married with families, but not children, often socially awkward, the terrorist men (Juergensmeyer calls them "guys" after Guy Fawkes) are vulnerable to taking up a larger identity within these movements. Further, there is an element of sexual frustration and homophobia involved. Young Muslim men, for example, cannot marry unless they are economically well-situated, and they cannot have sexual intercourse unless married. America becomes an easy target for their hatred. (Juergensmeyer admits that economics plays some role in these groups.)
If this analysis is correct, then what implications are there for stopping religious violence? First, something needs to be said about why this is a particularly pressing problem now, rather than a thousand years ago. Christopher Hitchens et. al. like to remind us that religion is violent, has been the impetus for numerous wars, etc. Fair enough. But starting a war on ideological reasons, where your ideology is based, in part, on transcendent beings and revelation, is different than blowing up a building solely to make a religious point.
I think the crucial thing to recognize is that there is an increasing sense of marginalization among religious groups in liberal societies. Not only are you not assured of your neighbor believing in the same god as you, the laws of the land aren’t grounded in your scriptures or god. For many religious believers, that’s not a problem. But, like I’ve said in earlier posts, a liberal government cannot privilege one religion over another, even if it seems like it would mitigate some of these problems.
So Juergensmeyer sees five potential responses to the continuing onslaught of religious violence:
1. Destroying violence - a forceful response, which he thinks is unlikely to solve the problem on a global basis, although it can have limited success (for example Sikh groups)
2. Terrifying terrorists - law enforcement penalties might scare groups away from action, but this is also unlikely given that they already perceive themselves in the midst of a cosmic war.
3. Violence wins - for example, Palestine might overcome Israel’s resistance to their demands and control the land. This, however, just turns the tables temporarily. Compromises with terrorist groups are also a no-win situation, since neither side is usually satisfied with the result.
4. Separating religion from politics - this response would allow religion a "significant albeit non-controlling role" in public life, basically deflating the cosmic warfare scenario. Juergensmeyer cites Tony Blair’s attempts to befriend leaders in Sinn Fein as an example.
5. Healing politics with religion - the most successful option, in the author’s view: "when secular authorities embrace moral values, including those associated with religion." This would be to allow religion to challenge the consumerist culture of capitalism and encourage a quality of life that is more fulfilling, thus alleviating some of the pressures that cause people to join up with terrorist groups.
In my opinion, Juergensmeyer is at his best in the analysis of the problem, not the solution. Number five ignores the conflict between religious groups when it comes to "moral values." Any kind of compromise would likely be unsatisfying to the extremists. Too, when the state begins to make judgments about what the good life consists in, I am skeptical that we can avoid a slippery slope to oppression for some group within society.
Still, I recommend the book for its analysis of religious imagination and cosmic warfare.
September 19th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
I read an article the other day that stated that, regarding religion and morality, the Left has ignored it and the Right has abused it.
We on the left have long seen religion as a force in a constant process of revision and transition. Some of us have even proposed that religion in today’s society is obsolete and that we ought to evolve past it. I think there’s a danger in doing so because 1) it further emboldens those who adhere to reactionary conceptions of religion 2) humanity, at least in today’s society, is still uncomfortable in replacing God with itself. I would further argue that we all need something to believe in and I personally don’t feel as though I have complete control over my own affairs.
Religion is itself a conservative concept. Instead of relegating it to the scrapheap of history we need to acknowledge that there’s a very human desire within each of us to seek deeper meaning beyond ourselves. The more we move away from it, the less we are capable of relating to others for whom orthodox religion is a powerful force.