Towards a More Nuanced Involvement of Religion in Peace

I am currently reading Michael Howard’s “War and the Liberal Conscience” (Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, 2004 [1^st pub. 1986], ISBN 978-0-8135-1197-9; on Amazon here), which traces developments in attitudes towards war and peace since around 1500. It’s a fascinating read, and one I intend to spend some time contemplating the political, military, economic, and social implications of; there is, however, one aspect I wish to write about now.

This book, as with Rawls and most other political writing I’ve come across thus far, is very focused on what is happening in the physical world. As a result of that focus, problems which could otherwise have been prevented or managed have occurred.

As one example, the development of political parties flummoxed the writers of the US Constitution (and many others since then – and it is still not properly addressed in many other constitutions [for instance, I consider that all replacements of politicians – e.g., in the event of death - should be from same party). Had those writers (or “Founders”, as the USA likes to call them) been more aware of the psychology of people (let alone what we now know and access via sociology), the rise of political parties may have been predictable. (The “may” is because there are also social aspects to consider, such as the lack of equality and education.)

Today, the psychology-in-politics pendulum has swung from the Barry Goldwater end to the arguments about the USA’s current (45^th) President, which usefully illustrates that there can be shortfalls associated with too much reliance of psychology (or sociology), and raises hopes (to optimists) that there might be a dynamic point of equilibrium somewhere between the two.

With that caution at the forefront of my mind, I want to consider the issue of religion and world peace.

The dangers of religion to world peace are readily recognisable:

• both sides in wars have claimed the support of a Deity – sometimes the same Deity (and they’re unlikely to be correct, of course – unless, perhaps, the Deity is one of death or endings / destruction, such as Kali, Skuld, or the Morríghan [see also here], to Whom the nominal aims of the conflict are trivial irrelevancies);
• religions which believe in proselytising may directly cause war (e.g., the Crusades);
• divisions over dogma can lead to war – e.g., the Catholic-Protestant wars, continuing right up into the Troubles in Northern Ireland until the turn of the Millennium, or the at times violent Sunni-Shia divide in Islam (see also here);
• a change of dogma can lead to violence – and the phrase I will top use to illustrate that is from Howard’s book: “The Society of Friends, or ‘Quakers, … was one of the few Christian sects to adhere unswervingly o the absolute pacifism of the pre-Augustinian Church.” (p. 39).

That phrase struck home quite deeply. My adoptive parents raised me as an Anglican (yes, we used that word, not “Church of England”), but I soon found myself exploring other paths, as I’ve written about elsewhere (e.g., here, here, and here). In my particular case, that journeying has led me to Paganism. I’m aware of other people on such spiritual quests who have been led to Islam, Christianity (note that I make a distinction between Christianity and neochristianity), and Spiritualism, so the fact that I came to Paganism should be taken neither as a given, nor as an advocacy of the same outcome for others. Going back to the phrase I quoted in the previous paragraph, however, that brought into sharp focus for me the issue of religion and peace, and I want to explore that a little further.

There are dangers in trying to connect religions with peace – those that I’ve listed above, and also the dangers that can come from a particular religions’ dogma.

As an example of the latter, neochristianity is tainted with authoritarianism, misogyny, sexism, child abuse, homophobia and transphobia – to the extent that, following the vicious lies being spread by some during the current “postal survey” on Equal Marriage, I am no longer seeking to be part of the (already biased) interfaith movement in this nation. On the other hand, Christianity has been beneficial for some people, and Paganism – particularly historical paganism – has its problems as well.

Nevertheless, there is potential for religion to exert a beneficial influence on peace movements – yes, all religions/spiritual paths have patches of good and bad – but don’t throw baby out with bathwater. I don’t shy away from making judgements about these paths (including my own), but I exercise some nuance in all this.

Which religions/spiritual paths are beneficial, and which are harmful?

Obviously, I consider those which are misogynistic (sexist, abusive, homophobic/transphobic, etc) to be harmful – at least in the context and to the extent of those misogynistic aspects.

However, those religions which support:

• pluralism;
• a “true and lasting” peace (which, depending on methods used, possibly rules out evangelistic or proselytising religions);
• social progressiveness (e.g., liberation theology in South America);
• and helping people to be all that they can be are (e.g., there are religions - including Christian - supporting Equal Marriage [who are being denied a voice by the media – and possibly, as a lack of nuanced thinking or personal experience of misogyny, may not be being courted by the “Yes” campaign]);

are, in my opinion, likely to be beneficial influences on the cause of peace today – just as the Quakers were in the 17^th Century that Michael Howard was writing about, and probably still do today.

Paganism meets those criteria for me, and helps drive and constructively direct my political and environmental activism.

Perhaps religion, more broadly, when assessed with a degree of nuance, can return to being a beneficial influence in achieving a peaceful, more progressive world.

In fact, possibly we are heading towards a new world religion: if so, let’s make sure it is genuinely beneficial, and then utilise it.