Why religious violence rarely has anything to do with religion
Religious studies scholar Lucien van Liere researches religion and violence
War, terrorist attacks, violence against women and marginalised groups: perpetrators frequently claim religious motives. Some people argue that without religion there would be no war. But is that true? And if religion is not the cause of violence, why do holy wars exist and why do fundamentalist believers carry out terrorist attacks? Religious studies scholar Lucien van Liere has been researching these questions for decades.
Religious conflicts are about communities
“What strikes me, is that the vast majority of religious conflicts are not about faith at all, but about protecting religious communities,” says Van Liere. He studies, amongst other things, how jihadists in the Middle East and Christian evangelicals in the United States view violence. “Time and again the image of the suffering community keeps coming back.”
The justification of violence frequently goes hand in hand with a sharp distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them’, Van Liere explains. “‘The other’ is portrayed as malicious and merciless. Their violence, whether that of America, the West, Iran, Israel, Hamas, or anyone else, is made to appear arbitrary. One’s ‘own’ violence, by contrast, feels justified and reasonable. This is how a cycle emerges that is very difficult to break.”
From religious fanaticism to far-right extremist violence, Van Liere recognises this pattern. “Whether it concerns the personal motives people use to commit or justify violence, or the way in which certain leaders exploit religion to legitimise conflicts and violence: it is the same mechanism.”
Religion is used for political gain
“Perpetrators of violence strongly identify with the image of their group as victims,” says Van Liere. “They frequently invoke past violence against their community to justify new violence. This is highly effective at mobilising and radicalising people, as we saw for example with the Islamic foreign fighters travelling to Syria.” These individuals felt responsible to defend their fellow believers against the violence of the Assad regime.
‘The other’ is portrayed as malicious and merciless. Their violence is made to appear arbitrary.
The problem with violence is that it usually rests on a moral foundation, Van Liere explains. “It is not indifference that underlies acts or justification of violence, but rather a sense of solidarity. Our humane tendency to feel connected to others makes sympathy and compassion possible. But this can also be dangerous: it is precisely out of that same sense of solidarity that we want to ‘right the wrongs’ done to those we sympathise with.”
When examining how evangelical Christians in the United States justify violence, Van Liere notices something further. “Many of them believe we are living in the ‘end times’. They expect Jesus to return soon and believe that America will play a crucial role in those events. This shapes how they view, for instance, Israeli violence in Gaza, and explains their support for the war the United States is waging against Iran. For them, it is clearly less about defending their own community, more about nationalist religious considerations.”
Images of victimhood as a weapon
To legitimise their own violence, perpetrators frequently place women and children at the centre of their narrative as victims of the other side’s aggression, Van Liere explains. “In the way conflicts are framed, you instantly see a competition emerge, a battle of words and images. Photographs and videos of injured and dead children come to define the media narrative. Embedded within this is an unspoken moral judgement about the violence being perpetrated.”
“Moreover, images of suffering and violence, especially when children are the victims, stir deep compassion in us. Yet these very same images can also radicalise our interpretation of conflicts, leading us to regard violence against alleged wrongdoers as sometimes justified. And that pattern repeats itself.”
It is not indifference that underlies acts or justification of violence, but rather a sense of solidarity.
Why religion so often appears to be the culprit
According to Van Liere, pure religion is almost never the actual cause of violence, though he understands why people think otherwise. “Anyone who initiates a violent conflict must express themselves to their constituency, in a language and with symbols that are meaningful to the community or nation. And that very quickly brings you close to religion.”
In secular societies, religion is furthermore often associated with authority and the abuse of power. “It is very human to want to identify a single cause for all evil,” says Van Liere. “Such a simplification can help people make sense of what is happening. I entirely understand why people reach for the classic list of ‘the Crusades, witch trials, and the Inquisition’ when they want to prove that religion is the root of all evil, but that really is far too simplistic.”