Nathania Sekar Tiara

20/454602/SP/29320
Religion and Politics in South and Central Asia

Critical Review on Fox Chapter 9: Religion and Conflict

In recent decades, we have been more familiarized with conflict and the rise of political
events that are attributed to religion. Fox (2018) in his book entitled Introduction to Religion and
Politics makes an effort to explain how religion’s other facets can cause or significantly
influence a conflict. He laid out his hypothesis straightforwardly that conflicts which involve
religion tend to be more violent. Despite the fact that growing violence is laced with religious
nuance, Fox concedes that the study of how religion is intertwined with violence is still in its
infancy, as most research is merely on the surface– focusing on whether religion is present or
absent. Despite the fact that no systematic study has been conducted to determine how much of
the world's conflict can be traced to religion, we are sure because anecdotal evidence is abundant
and clear indicating that violence committed by religious oriented organizations. In order to
prove his hypothesis, Fox elucidates religious instruments – worldview, belief, doctrine, and
ideology can prompt religious cause violence.
First instrument is how religious ideology is perceived just like any ideologies that carry
political agenda. This agenda manifested itself in the creation of a religious state, laws that
protect or privilege particular religion, maintaining religion’s supremacy by restricting other
religions practice, or variety of other agendas. Rational political actors prefer to tandeming the
system rather than challenge it violently, however, to some actors violence appears to be the most
effective technique of achieving a political goal faster than other methods. Using that logic, it can
be said that religion serves as a modus operandi or an instrument to pursue the aforementioned
agenda. Non-democratic countries, in this sense, provide the ideal environment for violence to
flourish. Nonviolent choices for achieving social and political change are limited or unavailable.
As a result, in non-democratic societies, violence is sometimes the only feasible alternative.
Second, religious worldviews, beliefs, doctrines, and ideologies have the capacity to
establish a non-rational amount of centrality that is collectively believed by believers, which can
lead to bloodshed. When a believer or their group sense a threat to their religion or something
that contradicts their beliefs, both logic and instinct instruct them to act to protect their faith and
collective identity. What is important to emphasize is threat defined by the one who perceives it.
In this view, believers frequently moved spontaneously to interpret religious doctrine and
legislation as a mandate to defend themselves by violent means– for example, by conducting
inter-religious wars or discriminating against minorities. Fox refers to the desire to defend one's
faith as "religious walls," which might be triggered by the mere presence of another religious
group, causing "fanatics" to do whatever to protect their religious frameworks.
One question comes into my mind: how come that religion is now facilitated, in fact, it
becomes the major trigger to declare war while its teaching is supposed to bring peace for
humans? In his writing, Fox provides an acceptable logic to explain my concern; religious
legitimacy. Religion has the power to legitimize almost any government, policy, or action, and
this is true of both conflict and violence. What is important to emphasize is that religious
legitimacy is a product of human endeavor. Fox used the term "cosmic war" to characterize a
phenomenon in which believers see an existential threat to their religion, causing an
all-or-nothing battle against an enemy that is assumed to destroy them and no compromise is
considered feasible. As a result, Fox claims that conflict including religious sentiment is more
complicated. The tactic of suicide boomber is an example of cosmic warfare. Any pious Muslim
should abstain from suicide as well as attacks against people. However, this fanatic believer
translates jihad as martyrdom and justifies suicide bombing; the suicide bomber does not murder
himself for selfish motives, but rather kills himself for God to purify the souls, and so would be
rewarded in heaven. Religious legitimacy reinterprets religious theory in novel ways in order to
change legislation and create a new religious principle based on human choice.
All in all Religion has a powerful ability to affect and manipulate human emotions. As a
result, it has the potential to incite violence, which, while obviously fulfilling an instrumental
purpose, may not always be the most effective technique for achieving the desired result. The
violence is a result of emotional and illogical cognitive processes. Religious violence, in this
view, is a natural response to an incident, action, or condition that offends religious believers'
sensitivities. Violence is only a political strategy from this perspective. When religious groups,
like any other political group, are unable to achieve their aims by traditional political tactics such
as party politics, lobbying, and so on, they turn to violence.
References
Fox, J. (2018). An Introduction to Religion and Politics: Theory and Practice. Taylor & Francis
Group.