4. April 2024
Would the world be more peaceful without religion?
Islamist Hamas indiscriminately massacres people, Patriarch Cyril I declares the Russian invasion of Ukraine a holy war, Hindu nationalists burn down Christian and Muslim villages and Buddhist nationalists carry out pogroms against the Rohingya. War and terror, murder and manslaughter around the globe, and all too often in the name of a god, a religion. No wonder many people believe that the world would be more peaceful without religions of any kind. But would it really be? Would we then really have, as the British bestselling author Ian McEwan says, “a world of humility before the sanctity of life”?
Religion in conflict (of values)
There is no doubt that religious actors contribute to the intensification and prolongation of violent conflicts. However, religious beliefs or differences are rarely the cause of conflicts. Peace research largely agrees on this. But in order to understand the role of religions in conflicts, it is important to first understand the mechanisms of conflicts.
Rather, religion is used to ideologically charge conflicts of interest and transform them into conflicts of values. Conflicts of interest revolve around land, natural resources or power, for example. Conflicts of values, on the other hand, are about a “higher idea” that goes beyond personal interests and one’s own physical survival. Value conflicts revolve around what is “valuable” for me – as an individual or group – such as beliefs, world views and cultural identities. In such conflicts of values, people are much more likely to be mobilised to fight violently; their willingness to commit themselves, their readiness to use violence and, not least, their willingness to make sacrifices increases almost without limit.
There is usually a “red line” in conflicts of interest. If this is achieved, the parties to the conflict, leaders and followers alike, begin to weigh things up: What can I gain and what can I lose? What are the opportunities and risks? If these risks appear too great or incalculable, people tend to refrain from violent conflict. In conflicts of values, however, this “red line” has disappeared or at least shifted very far upwards. Because this is about something “higher”, something bigger, about all or nothing, without compromise. And in the fight for this greater goal, every effort and every sacrifice is considered appropriate, even required – and all violence is permitted.
The power of ideologies
Maximum commitment, a willingness to use violence and a readiness to make sacrifices – rulers and powerful people recognised these effects in conflicts of values thousands of years ago. And that is why they have always endeavoured to transform conflicts of interest into conflicts of values. This transformation usually takes place by charging various secular ideologies: First and foremost nationalism, but also separatism, ethnicism, communism and others. Violence can also be justified and legitimised in the name of democracy, freedom and human rights.
Yet the “ideologies” of religions also lend themselves to being charged and transformed, and religiously charged conflicts are particularly dangerous. Because then it’s no longer just about my values or beliefs, but about good and evil, about a battle of the good (us!) against the bad (the others), for “the good” and against “the bad”. In such a struggle, violence is then not only considered legitimate, but even becomes a duty, and non-violence is now seen as cowardice, as treason, as sin.
NON-VIOLENCE AS SIN
Conflicts can be religiously charged, as the central scriptures of all major religions contain traditions in which violence is positively connoted, presented as divine will or even demanded by God himself. Political and religious authorities can still draw on these texts today to legitimise their violence. Of course, only a few (those with the necessary religious education and scepticism) care that their theological, cultural or political context has to be ignored. Because what an eternal God said or did back then can it be wrong today?
Although religions can be used to justify and escalate conflicts, they are by no means necessary. If there were no religions, there would still be enough secular ideologies and justifications to fuel conflicts and legitimise violence or war. This is shown, for example, by Putin’s motif of a “Russki Mir” (Russian world). And let us not forget that the overwhelming majority of victims of war and violence in the 20th and 21st centuries were victims of secular conflicts: from the First and Second World Wars to the violent regimes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot to conflicts in Vietnam, Rwanda, Congo and, last but not least, Ukraine.
Religions as peacemakers
So the world would by no means be more peaceful without religion – on the contrary! In addition to the potential for conflict and violence, religions also harbour an enormous, often overlooked potential for peace. They have skills, experience, specific opportunities and successes in de-escalating conflicts and overcoming war and violence! The examples are many and varied:
- In 1992, the Catholic lay movement Sant’Egidio brokered a comprehensive peace agreement during the Mozambican civil war, which claimed millions of victims.
- The outbreak of a war of incalculable proportions between Argentina and Chile was averted in 1978 by a last-minute intervention by the Vatican and a “peace and friendship treaty” was negotiated.
- During the terrible genocide in Rwanda in 1994, it was the local Muslim community that almost collectively refused to accept the violence and offered protection to thousands of refugees, hiding them, providing them with food and saving their lives.
- The Philippine dictator Marcos was brought down in 1986 by a peaceful mass movement initiated and organised primarily by church representatives.
- The Liberian Women’s Peace Movement, a coalition of Christian and Muslim women’s initiatives, exerted pressure until the civil war was contained and the despotic ruler Charles Taylor was forced out of office.
- In Cambodia, the Buddhist monk Maha Ghosananda initiated a peace and reconciliation movement in 1979 after the reign of terror of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, which developed into an important force in politics and society.
- In the Colombian peace process from 2012 to 2016, church representatives played a key role as mediators behind the scenes.
- Franco-German reconciliation after the Second World War was first and foremost initiated by the churches on both sides of the Rhine, long before politics took up the issue. And the “peaceful revolution” in the DDR would hardly have come about so (peacefully) without the diverse work of the churches.
The key to peace
Analysing these and dozens of other examples [1] reveals an astonishing fact: religious peace actors often enjoy the trust of the conflict parties – across religious, cultural and ethnic boundaries, even when conflict parties and mediators belong to different religions. An advance that opens doors, sometimes just a crack, which then needs to be widened with wisdom and perseverance. This opens up spaces and room for manoeuvre and negotiation in which decisive progress can ultimately be made in peace processes.
Of course, the trust placed in religious peace actors is not blind trust. It has to be earned. A high level of expertise and professional competence is essential. This means both precise knowledge of conflicts in their breadth and depth as well as expertise in constructive conflict management. And peace actors must be credible in their words and actions in order to be accepted as mediators at all. But the leap of faith is based on other factors that are not so easy to acquire:
- A religious motivation for peace is understandable, as the ideas of rejecting violence and reconciliation have been handed down in all religious traditions. Even if you don’t share these convictions, the motives are familiar or at least not completely alien.
- Religious actors are often seen as independent, altruistic and fair. Corruption, self-enrichment or nepotism are rarely attributed to them.
- They are often connected to the conflict parties in a way that enables them to gain a deeper, emotional understanding of the conflict. This bond is usually based on a common geographical origin, but can also be of a spiritual nature.
- Religious actors are often more competent and more capable of speaking, especially in deeper conflict dimensions such as guilt, injury, trauma, honour, grief, understanding or reconciliation.
- Religious peacemakers are considered harmless because they do not work with political, economic or even military pressure and coercion, but rely solely on their power of persuasion. And finally, they are seen as persistent and reliable actors who do not give up their commitment even in great danger and sometimes fight for peace for many years.
The leap of faith in favour of religious actors may seem surprising at first glance, but it corresponds to a rational conflict logic. Secular forces - whether politicians, supranational actors or non-governmental organisations - usually have a much harder time here. They are usually subject to great suspicion about their true motives, perhaps hidden interests, especially if they come from abroad or are financed from there.
However, religious actors must also prove themselves worthy of the trust placed in them and confirm the positive attributions in the course of peace processes. Even if this is not always successful, the successes are numerous and remarkable. They show the enormous potential for peace that is inherent in religions and which is far from being exhausted.
opportunity and responsibility
You don’t have to be religious, nor do you have to like religions to recognise their contributions and potential in terms of peace policy. Since religions have such important peace competences, however, we must be keen to use them in the interests of peace and for the good of mankind and to integrate them into politics. Because this potential is both an opportunity and a responsibility:
All religious communities are called upon to become more aware of their peace competences, to develop them professionally and to offer them proactively in peace processes. And politicians would be well advised to increasingly involve such religious peace actors in peace processes, as the different competences and possibilities of secular and religious actors can complement each other perfectly. What's more, as the former German Federal Minister for Development and Economic Cooperation, Gerd Müller, rightly recognised: "Without the contribution of religions, we will not be able to overcome the global challenges."[2]
by Dr Markus Weingardt
Sources
For further reading
[1] for more detail see Markus Weingardt: Religion Macht Frieden. Bonn 2010.
[2] Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung BMZ: „Gemeinsam mehr erreichen“. Press release from 17 February 2016.
Dr. Markus Weingardt
Peace and conflict researcher
Phone: +49 (0)7071 400 53-12
Mail: weingardt@weltethos.org