"Solutions"

As we return to Juergensmeyer, he ends his book with some options for outcomes/ responses to the problem of religious violence.  His "solutions" do not seem to completely capture the essence of the problem or use the same analytic framework that he does earlier in the book.  Regardless, his 5 possible outcomes do show some insight into the mindset of those in power and how/why some responses do not pan out.  The 5 are:  Destroy Violence with Force, Terrify Terrorists, Violence Wins, Separate Religion from Politics, and Heal Politics with religion.  The first 3 options are not good long term options and only result in further conflict with the possibility of a larger conflict.  The last 2 options are not realistic.  Ideally, using politics and religion in their purest forms is a great idea  but not practical in the real world of secular government with inter-meshing religion on the minds of everyone.

Another author attempting to verbalize solutions is one, James Jones, who wrote "Blood That Cries Out From The Earth" and uses a psychological lens.  He begins to discuss that each religion has a capacity for good and each also has the materials and resources to transcend the violence also created by the same religion.  He makes several good points about the nature and understanding of religion.  He includes a section talking about Buddhism that a "common simile in Buddhism that compares the dharma (the Buddha's teaching) to a raft:  you use the raft to cross the stream, but once you arrive on the other side (enlightenment) the raft is discarded.  So the practices and teachings of the religion are to be regarded as tools, means to an end, not as ends in themselves."  Wow.  I love this.  This, in my mind, changes a lot about the conflict.  Some of the major points of conflict in religion have to do with specific differences between religious interpretations.  If religious texts could be used as the "raft" and not the "other side of the stream," I wonder how the direction of religious conflicts would change?

Jones also says that responses to violent terrorism need to use the same language that the terrorists are using.  Instead of only economic and political/ military aspects, Jones says that some form of religious language needs to be used to create a common ground for understanding and hope for compromise.  I think there is something to be gleaned from the possible combination of the change of language used in responding to religious terrorism and finding a way to see religion as the "raft" that teaches and instructs but is not the ultimate end.  By not having an ultimate end, I think that some of the compromises that have not happened because of conflicting ideologies may be possible to bring to the table.