But First Thing's First

Is religious extremism the problem with peace?

Religion and Politics

Politics permeates every religious tradition.

A politics theorizes an ongoing exercise of power, of coercion that includes legitimized violence. ... People expect from religion not only seek private solace but also ultimate solutions to shared problems; that means they anticipate from religion acts of power, not only affirmations of conscience. (POWR)

Public vs. private spheres (some fundamental assumptions):

• Religion in the public sphere is political.
• Religion in the private sphere is personal activity and preference.

Postsecularists tend to advocate that religion is/should be a private affair.

Monotheistic religions demand public acceptance:

[A]cts of power may from the religious perspective originate in the sacred realm--in God--they very much affect the human, and social, domain. Therefore, religion integrates the private and the public. (POWR)

Does our theory help us understand why monotheism might be concerned about maintaining control or influence over the public and political realm?

In the public sphere, religion produces political consequences, shaping attitudes and ideas that make an impact on issues of public policy. (POWR)

Or should we be focusing on why religion is *private* affair?

And the same question should be posed to Neusner's observation:

A religion's intellectuals claim to explain the workings of power. That is, they try to explain why things are as they are, they commonly propound causative theory of how things began. Further, the assertion of how things began serves as justification for the religion's legitimate violence, for when we say how things originated, we implicitly claim that that is how things were when they were right, and therefore they should be be even now. (POWR)

 

Does this explain belief within extremism and fundamentalism?

The heart of any religious system is exposed through (1) the topics upon which its analytical gaze focuses, (2) the subject and composition of its message, and (3) why or how it chooses political ideas and structures for emphasis and delivery of its message.

Theories about religion should focus on what it does rather than what it is.

Is William Green correct that the United States is unique in its emphasis upon the distinction between religious belief and political behavior (cf. POWR, 258)?

We in the United States define politics in an acutely secular way as the theory of the legitimate exercise of violence, and reserve for the state the power of physical force, assigning to religion the moral force of persuasion. (POWR)

We've separated moral persuasion from legitimation of power (and its concomitant violence).

But in giving religion control over morality, have we really taken the legitimation of power outside the framework of religion?

Or by making religion an issue of morality rather than a basis of political behavior, are we sterilizing religion?

Does this help explain the type and nature of "divergent" religious traditions in the U.S. (think Heaven's Gate, Branch Davidians, KKK, etc.)?

Brian Mitchell maintains that early Christianity emphasized a distinction between political rule and social life. Why would this be true?

Did (and does) this distinction mean a laissez faire attitude?

Return to the Axial Age?

Did the emergence of empires during the first millennium BCE transmit ideas that culminated in monotheism (cf. Gnuse, pp. 79-80)?

If Axial Age theory is correct, then is our theory incorrect?

How much can we speak of a "world culture" at this time?

What level of impact would there have been upon local populations (instead of aristocracy, for example)?

[T]he elevation of one deity in religious belief is analogous to elevating one ruler on earth. The subsequent affirmation by that ruler that there is only one true god, and he or she worships that deity, will incline that ruler to forcibly convert other people. On an international level it means that a monotheistic state will absorb other peoples and nations into its own political and religious structures. (Gnuse)

Monotheism: Bringer of Equality or Repressive Terror?

Monotheism from above vs. monotheism from below:

• Above: imposed by a ruler or aristocracy
• Below: generated from "the people" (often the poor or marginal)

All three monotheistic religions proclaim rhetoric that affirms human equality, toleration, and a vision of peace. Cultures touched by those religious traditions have provided ever-evolving egalitarian expressions in theory and practice. One cannot deny monotheism its connection to theoretic egalitarianism and a vision of hope for humanity. When, ultimately, religion is no longer used to justify war, imperialism, conquest, and as the apology of one race of people for enslaving another, then monotheism will have actualized one of the most significant components of its ideological matrix. (Gnuse)

What is Regina Schwartz's argument (see Gnuse, pp. 79-82)?

But is there a sense in which to ask whether or not monotheism is repressive or egalitarian is to miss an important part of the issue?

As an activity (rather than an ideology) does monotheism seek altruistic peace?

Is it better to identify the context out of which monotheism developed and then trace out the developments in different monotheistic traditions?

(Looking for performances of monotheism rather than a set of essential qualities beyond the core fundamentals.)

This last allows us to begin not with the essential qualities of monotheism but to identify shared "pillars" among different traditions. It also allows us to see monotheism develop (as something "organic") as a tool of repression, of equality, and anything in between.

That would permit this conclusion:

Another response more sensitive to the dynamics of religious history would be to point out that there are different forms of monotheistic religious expression among believers, even within the same religious tradition in the same historical periods. (Gnuse)

But can we agree with this:

Thus, scholars of the Bible affirm that the monotheism of the Hebrew Bible lacks pretensions to political empire, but rather encourages solidarity with all of humanity. This may be especially true for the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament as well because the believers who generated these texts were often the oppressed and victims of political systems in their own age. Hence, the prophets spoke of a universal deity who would bring a state of peace and prosperity to all people some day. (Gnuse)

Gnuse draws a distinction between what monotheistic religions "should do" and how they "are used" (cf. p. 95).

What is the basis for his distinction? What essential qualities is he assuming for monotheism?