The Myth of Religious Violence
Cavanaugh hypothesizes that the myth of religious violence is not a baseless assertion but rather a powerful means by which Western secularism justifies its promotion of governance as synonymous with peacemaking. Thus, it becomes reasonable, if not necessary, to advocate for modern secular forms of governance to religious or non-Western others.
Too often, we have been presented with the narrative that the cool and rational collective mentality of the modern liberal state heroically put an end to religious wars. This narrative can be found in books by Francis Fukuyama, George Will, and others. The newfound accumulation of wealth through capitalism made liberal states reconsider engaging in war. After all, why would they sacrifice their pursuit of modern luxuries for hollow ideological quarrels?
Instead, the author raises the question of whether the nation-state may not have been a solution to ideological wars but rather a contributing cause of the violence during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. As the transfer of power from the church to the state played a role in these wars, can we solely blame the church? The author argues that the act of absorbing the church into the state's apparatus, which marked the creation of the modern nation-state, significantly contributed to this upheaval. Bossy refers to this transfer and sacralization of the state as the "migration of the holy" from the church to the state.
This book allows us to zoom out and contemplate the logical approach we take to conclude that religion is prone to violence. If we approach this empirically, such as by asking what religion really is, we are led in circles with meaningless statements akin to a Condorcet cycle. If we approach it substantively, by defining religion based on its operational characteristics, we encounter the same problem, as other variables like political affiliation, shared myths, and state allegiance come into question. Even the atheist regime of Kim Jong-il cannot escape blame.
Thus, religion is difficult to define by its nature but is somewhat understood colloquially. By singling out certain religions, like Islam, as more prone to violence, it becomes easy to imagine that this is exclusively the case for "religion."
By the end of the book, your preconceived assumptions will be challenged, but you will still arrive at the disheartening conclusion that this won't significantly alter entrenched beliefs.
Ultimately, the author calls for the dismissal of the arbitrary distinction between the religious and secular. Instead, our discourse should be guided by the question: "Under what circumstances do ideologies and practices of all kinds promote violence?"
Book rating:
5/5