Book Analysis Essay on The Myth of Religious Violence

Introduction

William Cavanough in his book of The Myth of Religious Violence points out that if religion does not cause violence, it has contributed to conflicts in human history. Therefore in other terms religion has been believed in maintaining social structures of violence. In his attempt to explain this scenario, William used three main arguments to bring out the link between religion and violence and show how these arguments fail. Generally, in his discussions, no one sees religions as a source of violence, but to some point, these arguments relate belief to violence. In explaining this, he used nine different scholars in trying to explain his approach for convenience purpose.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

In his first argument, scholars argue that religion is entirely absolutist. The first scholar John Hick claims about the uniqueness and ultimacy of the Christian belief. He is more concerned about how Christians treat non-Christians. Therefore the argument adds to the point that there is the existence of moral absolute validity and superiority. Therefore the continuation of religious absolutism has more significant impacts on other traditions. Hick finally appeals that one must, therefore, understand both trans-historical and trans-cultural concept of religion. He further went ahead to find a way of addressing this problem by using Ludwig Wittgenstein's metaphor of family resemblance. He says that different religious movements share some common characteristics; for example, Christianity and Muslim share familiar scriptures. He further points out there are an excellent distinction between religions and secular that secular may be excluded entirely from religion.

Second author Charles Kimball mentions out the evidence that is done in the name of faith. Therefore in his attempt to explain religion violence he also points out absolutism. He points out that religion is a feature of human life, but this definition is unclear. He also points out the distinction between religious and the secular. Richard Wentz tries to find out a resolution to the different interpretation of religion. He, therefore, emphasizes the absolutism of religion as a cause of conflict. The absolutism makes an individual demonic and sometimes doing so bad things as a testimony. Therefore absolutism makes an individual react violently to others when they do not accept them. Thus many people tend to do bad things in the name of religion. The absolutist religion, therefore, tends towards being violent. He further ascertains that violence is not as a result of people being religious but as a result of the misunderstanding of religion.

The second argument is about the religion being divisible. William also used three authors in trying to explain the religious violence. To begin with, Martin Marty urges that those called to be spiritual form separate groups. He uses Ronald Reagan's Soviet who professed that united states as a state were uniquely blessed. The argument, therefore, brings out some violation tendencies of religion as its divisive argument. He describes different features of religion and relates each function to politics. He, therefore, tries to explain the relationship between politics and religion in his case.

The second scholar under divisible discussion is Mark Juergensmeyer argues that religion may entirely be connected with violence everywhere. He majorly focuses on how religion divides people as a result of globalization. He studies the different cases including religious groups like protestants, Catholics, and Muslims and finds that all come under scrutiny. He also distinguishes between the violence done for practical and as symbolic in an attempt to separate religious from secular political violence. He, therefore, brings in the concept of religion and politics and how they cause conflicts among people and states.

The third scholar under divisible argument is David Rapoport urges that nationalism is one of a class world that produces loyalties including Christianity and Islam that lend the world to violent behavior under some conditions. He concludes further that patriotism is just a civic religion and considered as a secular phenomenon. His other argument is that religious language is characterized by violence and is a cause of more bloodshed. That arises more from different groups that are the religion that is more secular and pure religion. He also urges that religion is characterized by sacrifice onto a ritual object. He finally concludes by saying that religious religion return to their states and this results to violence and religious groups activities most of them are prone to violence.

The third argument is that religion is not rational. The first scholar William used is Bhikhu Parekh urges that despite belief bringing a positive contribution to political life, it's sometimes arrogant. Here faith is considered irrational as it threatens the rational order of the society at large. These silly goods can, therefore, be favorable or unfavorable to the organization. Thus most of the non-rational characteristics are more of religious than secular.

The second author under this argument is R. Scott Appleby he urges that religion mainly has two faces and its a powerful medicine that can drive passion used in the service of peace and sometimes violence. Therefore faith can sustain violence beyond the point of rational calculation. Religious commitment cannot lead to destruction. Applebby considers religion as human sacred believes and nature to which religion responds to this may result in violence. He further widens his study to different other scholars to bring out a more irrational argument of faith. He talks about the ethnicity of one's group belonging especially Christians and Muslims. He concludes that different ethnic groups of religion results in conflicts.

The third scholar under this argument is Charles Selengut where he advocates a holistic approach to religious violence. He majorly focuses on the non-rational nature of religion. He, therefore, concludes a unique relationship between religion and violence which is faith that what one believes in that some believes tend to be beyond rational control. Selengut further to explain more about secularization where he accepts the difference between religion and secular. There is concern about the modernization of religion. That Christianity religion views Islamic as primitive and conflicts arise when Islam does not to what Christians see is right. Selengut further believes that there is a difference between religion and non-religious people in giving their difference in violence. He also relates religious violence as a civilization in nature as a disorder may arise to maintain integrity.

Conclusion

William concludes that in a real sense there is no precise way to control religious ideologies that tend to cause violence as some people do their things from depending on the reasoning they have. Therefore a proper way to approach this should be adequately evaluated into the beliefs that a community has toward doing something. That is to say, a times the difference between religious beliefs and secular may be misleading.