Religious Justification of Violence

Religion is applied so as to validate violence contrary to the other party. In most cases, religious leaders are actively coming up with the use of violence on the basis of religion or quite limitedly they are associated to the actions and violent acts undertaken in the religious realm. This change is quite old, however one has to take into consideration in the past few years and take more consideration for the future (Juergensmeyer and Kitts, 2011). This area has to be looked into and that these leaders have to confront on moral aspects of what they do. They have to be assessed based on the duty of what takes place in their presence and it is through this that the aspect of violence in exploration of religion is explored.

Any effort in dialogue is highly influenced by the change of the political case. A good example is the situation that took place in Gaza in 2008 to 2009. In not many cases, religion has been applied as a justification for the attack and the application of religious address, religious products and the involvement of religious people in the military process has been and still is an area of focus in the several countries. According to Yitzahak Shapira who is a religious leader with the Israelites wrote and published a book that justified the killing of babies; it is stated as valid if they would grow to harm the society (Shapira, Nasser, and Assaf, 2010).

According to Dr. Scheuer, he stated in Newsweek, Western policies toward Muslim- several countries have the citizens politically and economically curbed. Close to this, terrorism expert acquire terror group resonance with the Muslim religion as being brought about by three things; the first one is effective core message: groups like the al-Qaida focus on foreign desecration of Islam holy grounds and the nations plundering the natural resources more so oil.

This is tested with a look if Osama Bin Laden raises policy issues to a greater extent that religion to justify his belligerency. In 2008, a study was compiled of several of Bin Laden’s statements on the web from the September attacks (Beutel and Ahmad, 2009; Wajibu, n.d). The results acquired stated that Osama Bin Laden relayed a greater part of words (45%) of the sample relaying issues of the past and current on policies and limited time (9%) in religious justifications for the military steps taken.

The statements made by Bin Laden were a as Muslim militant leader. Muslim leaders consider him as a charismatic leader with regard to his style of life as well as eloquence. Additionally, the function he took in the 1998 embassy bombings and the 9/11 attacks makes his recognized and influential.

A social psychologist Brad Bushman from the University of Michigan took part in a research that sought to seek answers to the issue if religion is used as a justification for violence (Khattar, 2003). In his 20 years research on aggression and violence, more so on human tendencies in the media, disturbing outcome stated that yes violence is indeed used for the sake of religion.

According to Bushman’s outcome, God is used as a justification for violence like in Iraq where Bush stated that God was on his side while Bin Laden claimed Allah was for him. History goes on to state that the wars involved in the name of God went against all religions on earth.

In another research to look deeper into this issue, students that believed in the God and Bible and were left exposed to the biblical teachings of violence were highly bound to lead to violence when compared to a secular focus of the violence (Collins, 2004). Moreover, aggression was bound to be effective if it was sanctioned by God than if it was not.

Christianity on the other hand comes up with several statements on peace and love. In the New Testament there are several scriptures about peace and love and not war and violence and less on Jesus rooting for violence (Collins, 2004). Hence there is a basis for people being peaceful, though not completely peaceful.

However, considering that Christianity issues a number of statements about peace, love and non-aggression does not say that they are supposed to be peaceful and that being violent is un-Godly. Religions issue statements on a number of issues making it possible for people to acquire a basis for any religious complexity.

Religious beliefs are similar to complicated philosophies, meaning that they do not impose conclusions on people. It is left to the people to choose for them to acquire meaning from the scriptures and take action to defend it. It is hence consequential that Islam and Christianity base their actions on the scriptures as a source of justification for what they do.

References

Beutel, A. and Ahmad, I. (2009). Religious or Policy Justi?cation for Violence?: A Quantitative      Content Analysis of Bin Ladin’s Statements. Acquired from:    https://www.csidonline.org/documents/pdf/Alejandro_Beutel_Religious_Policy_CSID_P  aper.pdf

Collins, J. (2004). Does the Bible Justify Violence? Acquired from:     http://religiousstudies.yale.edu/does-bible-justify-violence Juergensmeyer, M. and Kitts, M. (2011). Princeton Readings in Religion and Violence. Sabon:         Princeton University. Khattar, A. (2003). Religion and Terrorism: An Interfaith Perspective. Westport: Greenwood          Publishing Group. Murphy, A. (2011). The Blackwell Companion to Religion and Violence. Chichester: John Wiley      & Sons.

Shapira, A., Nasser, Y. and Assaf, S. (2010). Religion and the justification of violence. Acquired     from: http://www.ccrr-pal.org/upload/Violence%20%26%20Religion_cycle%203.pdf

Wajibu (n.d.). Religion and violence. A journal of Social and Religious Concern. Acquired from:    http://africa.peacelink.org/wajibu/articles/art_2117.html