Julian Moolenurgh

Jesus Castillo-Coronado

Theory of Knowledge & World Religions

June take home exam 2021

Religion is heavily influential. It provides meaning to people, a path to follow. Religion is

coherently a way of living. The majority of the time religion is directly related towards salvation.

A way to cleanse and seek peace. However on the contrary religion may be the excuse to

violence, they can evoke certain actions based on the certain direction their religion justifies for

the individual to follow. There is this pure sense of strict following to holy scripture and its

contents within it that causes a motivator to drive people completely insane and mad, or at least

there are claims to an extent of this; “Is violence inherently related to religion” will be discussed

through the article analysis produced by Karen Armstrong through various points and claims she

has made.

Modernity came with its rations to exclude religion from standard living and its connection

between it as people became more and more liberal, however this “liberal” state of living was not

always present, actually it's a pretty recent idea as 300 years ago one could not live a life without

it being related to religion, everything was revolved around; religion. Religion took control as

history played its part, differences would clash with each other seeking for a solitary dominance,

for example the 30 year European war set to fight between 2 religious paths; Catholics and
Protestants. They were so infused with the idea of studying the nature of their religious belefies

with the reformation that it turned into a mass murder of 35% of Europes population. This was

just one of the examples that Karen wanted to introduce to really emphasize how religious was

the foundation of the world and its functionality to society before modernity.

However the 30 year wars weren’t only about religion or all about politics, Karen proceeds to

explain how during these times there is not a rational way to divide religious causes from social

causes. They build on each other. One can’t use a bike without wheels and Karen seems to really

emphasize this as religion and violence is not a black and white case, it’s integrity and structure

is a lot deeper as it’s roots and causes are drilled within the world. The thirty War ended with an

outcome of geographical and authority reforms. Europe was distributed into smaller states and

was governed with princes who possessed an army each. These political reforms had begun to

alter the rule of religion with politics and was plausible to force the church in a lower rank from

a power perspective. The start of secularisation.

Secularisation came with grave contradictory dilemmas and consequences. It is very profound

for humans to resist new things, it's just how the mind is wired like that, especially when

something new comes up that alters your entire perspective on life. Every region that had

implemented secularism in their government had experienced a counter/con secularist movement

set by people, attempting to restore what is defined in their opinion as; “order”. This order can be

taken in the form of the political ideology of “fundamentalism” where the only religion one can

follow is through the straight belief and following of the scripture, everything must be done as

the holy scripture says. To a point where ethical and moral values are taken out of the picture as

the action is justified due to the religion providing it. It becomes almost extremist as there is no
connection between society anymore as the religion has taken over your way of living and

decisions.

There is a clear division between the Western and Eastern traditions and their way of reforming.

Secularisation had (over time) really been incorporated within the Western standards of living

among society. The middle east had fought off secularisation, not violently but passively.

Passively because to this day fundamentalism is being used to justify people’s actions that are

followed by middle eastern traditions. Karen uses an example in Iran during 1928 when the Shah

of Iran had surpassed a law of dressing, which would (without considering the moral and ethical

implications) allow soldiers to completely strip apart women's veils because obedience is very

influential culturally. Subsequently, just like when Europe had imposed secularism, with one

altercation always comes a counter altercation no matter if it's good or bad. A peaceful

demonstration had taken place by a holy shrine in Iran. In the eyes of a Iranian governmental

high powered position this would be simply witnessed as an offensive to the country and culture

of Iran, so it was ordered to gun down and execute each unarmed civilian that was protesting

peacefully.

Iran has always heavily muted and suppressed freedom of speech. The majority of Muslim

Iranians are from the “Shi’i” branch, which is the official state religion. The Shi’i clergy had

been the most dominant power politically and socially since the revolution in 1979. Thus Iran

was heavily influenced by religion up until then as secularisation was not present whatsoever.

The constitution set by the revolution states that the judges of the Iraninian supreme court must

conclude their decisions based on the “Sharīʿah'' (britannica) which is a religious law which
evokes a system of duties muslims must follow which is seen as the expression of god’s

command. An entanglement between the very foundations of a working society and religion,

towards a point where religion takes over. It shows how fundamentalism is taken very seriously

for certain countries due to traditions engraved within their history.

However Muslims don’t suppress the idea of secularism solely due to their faith, however due to

past experiences where secularisation had been experienced in a negative toxic manner according

to Karen. Muslims interpret an incompatibility between secularisation and its relatability with

democracy and freedom because their theoretical elements deem to not make it work that way.

The past is too strong to create this “reform” which causes this premeditated induced opinion of

differences.

In conclusion violence is always inherent. There will always be a conflict that has violent

consequences established within it. Religion itself is not violent. However it's the followers that

set upon differences with others to create a violent justification through religion. Secularisation

in the West is highly valuable, however the cost towards getting there was priceless. Within

religion there are certain paths it sets which sparks the motivation for people to become violent,

however everything that has been stated in Karen's article is an act of violence different from

people's differences, their will to dominate another or reform another causes this “violence”.

However there is an aspect of differentiating moral and ethical values with religion and pure

religious followers. These extremists believe that everything is right towards what the scripture

deems to be right, thus in a world where different people with different values and opinions will

make it impossible for these extremists not to impose violence upon what their religion has
directed for them to do. Thus religion is not inherently violent, it's the people that make it violent

through their interpretation of “different”.

Bibliography

“Government and Society.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.,

www.britannica.com/place/Iran/Government-and-society.

ddd