ABSTRACT
If two subjects can lay claim to universality in the human experience across time and space, war and religion top many lists. In many times and places, the history of the two was (and perhaps is) deeply intertwined. Some scholars and popular writers have claimed that religion is inherently violent—or at least that it exacerbates violent conflict—because it arouses emotions and passions that are not subject to reason (Avalos, 2005; Hitchens, 2007; Dawkins, 2006). On the other hand, critics of this point of view (often religious apologists) claim, with equal conviction, that religion is nothing of the sort; rather, empire and politics are the key source of conflict in the world (Armstrong, 2014). They note the secular ideologies of Nazism, Stalinism, and Maoism in particular to rebut the claim that religion is a key motivator of violence. A third group argues, more dispassionately, for a more neutral relationship, arguing that religion is neither inherently violent nor pacifistic, but has been used to justify and animate a variety of positions in relation to the organized violence of war—in other words, “religion and violence are clearly compatible, but they are not identical” (Eller, 2010, 236). Charles Selengut writes that “the history and scriptures of the world’s religions tell stories of violence and war as they talk of peace and love” (2003, vii). William Cavanaugh further argues that even the attempt to separate “religious” from “secular” violence is itself analytically problematic, as what counts as “religious” or “secular” is historically specific and culturally constructed (2009).
