Cause of Armed Conflict
In the aftermath of 911 and as an effect of the 'War on Terror', religion can be clearly seen as major cause of armed conflict. Such views, however, have fallen on fertile ground, following the massive debates about Samuel P. Huntington's clash of civilizations thesis, and the increased analytical attention to the interface between religion and conflict throughout most of the 1990s. Although few analysts will argue that religion is a more prominent factor in conflict now than before, the alteration of awareness is in itself a significant change. This reflects, as Oliver McTernan points out, the "opinion of a number of academics that have recognized in the midst of social, historical, political, cultural and economic factors the salience of religion also" (McTernan 2003: 87-88).
Religion may feed conflict when its normative system is considered to legitimize the use of violence. As Elise Boulding has pointed out, however, there is a duality in religious cultures as they entail notions of the "holy war" as well as the "peaceable kingdom" (Boulding 1986). We could add that in most religions there is a real tension between the two (see: Appleby 1996: 823). Hence, any attempt to explain the outbreak of violence exclusively with reference to the normative foundations of religion is deemed to failure, simply because the interpretation of these foundations is essentially contested. Nonetheless, the scriptures, narratives and rituals of a religion are often drawn upon to find legitimacy for warfare and the use of violence within a system of meaning of a higher order. The application of these resources may at times be dogmatic, and while dogmatism can in part serve as a vaccine against manipulation and misuse, it also feeds uncompromising attitudes once religion is drawn into the conflict.
To illustrate, the major differences between Protestants and Catholics in Northern
Ireland when it comes to their interpretations...
Fronts are hardened by the fact that in Protestant circles there is a strong conviction that republican violence has at least the tacit blessing of the Catholic Church (McTernan 2003: 88-89).
Religion may also lead to conflict because it defines unambiguous identities, hence marking fault lines between various groups of people. The credibility of this view is reinforced by the extent to which conflicts in the post-Cold War era have seemed to follow identity boundaries that are ethnic or religious, or a combination of both. Exclusive religious identity is expressed in an absence of intermarriages, such as between Muslim Serbs and Christian Croats, between Shiite and Sunni Iraqis, or between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. Reinforced by a logic of war, a cessation of intermarriages reflects increased segregation, hostility and skepticism between conflicting groups. It is when religiously defined boundaries for inclusion and exclusion coincide with other identity markers, that the dividing line between 'Us' and 'Them' becomes most clear-cut. This is what the Norwegian theologians Sturla Stalset and Oddbjorn Leirvik touch upon when discussing the relationship between religion and politics:
That adherents of all religion have always differed among themselves in political matters, is a truism. But in times when religious identity politics increasingly asserts itself around the globe, we need to remind ourselves that the dividing lines in ethics and politics do in fact not coincide with religious differences (Stalsett, Leirvik and Beyer 2004: 10-11 ).
If we focus on the dividing lines between world religions, it may be true that those rarely coincide with political fault lines. However, the assertion by Stalsett and associates becomes more problematic if we move our focus to the level of denominations, sects and cults. In these cases, the fault…
