The Myth of Religious Violence Pt 2

The Myth of Religious Violence Pt 2

Does just being religious make one more inherently violent? According to William Cavanaugh, in his excellent scholarly book The Myth of Religious Violence (Oxford University Press), this view has proved a useful tool to remove the influence of religion, especially Christianity, on public policy in western cultures, and religion, especially Islam in international affairs. Cavanaugh points out that the violence of religion is considered irrational, fanatical, and uncontrolled, while the violence of secular authorities is considered reasonable, controlled and often necessary to contain religious violence. 

The radical interpretation of the separation of church and state which claims that religious ideas must be kept out of the public square is justified by this secular assumption that only religious views are prone to violence while secular, liberal views are not. Thus, this assumption is clearly justifying discrimination by denying worldviews which contain a God access to the public square while allowing worldviews that do not contain a God complete access!

Cavanaugh concludes, “The myth of religious violence is false, and it has had a significant negative influence. The myth should be retired from respectable discourse. To do so would offer some important benefits.

“… it would free the valuable empirical work on violence … from being hobbled by the religious-secular distinction. Rather than attempt to come up with reasons that a universal and timeless feature of human society called religion has a peculiar tendency to promote violence, the question for researchers would be, ‘Under what circumstances do ideologies and practices of all kinds promote violence?’”