"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.

Demonization and How Americans Relate It

Juergensmeyer has done it again.  Yet another chapter in his book that develops great ideas (not all of which I agree with) that turn quickly into discussion.  One of the many topics was the demonization or satanization of the enemy.  What is the first thing that comes to mind when you think of demonizing someone or some group?  Was it religion?  In class, we discussed that many countries first think of religion and how the enemy is dehumanized and/or demonized in some way or another.

"Some enemies have to be manufactured...The demonization of an opponent is easy enough when people feel oppressed or have suffered injuries at the hands of a dominant, unforgiving, and savage power." (174-175)  As religious violence turns into religious war, a certain amount of demonizing is necessary in order to complete the task.  Killing is a sin outside of war, but defending against a "sub-human" or demon collective who, in your frame of mind, has initiated the conflict is a different story.  You do not think of the demon group as individuals.  Rather, you think of them as an Enemy of God as they do not agree with your beliefs.  It is all about point of view and creativity to justify your actions.  The result is a reason for your emotion, a cause for your hatred.  It places all the blame on the "other" as the problem and you come out of the process without fault.  Religious fervor is fueled by competition and camaraderie.  Sound familiar?

Back to my initial question.  You may not have answered "religion" but may have responded "sports."  The first thing I thought of was my experience with sports and the fierce competition against other athletes who desired to win just as much as I did.  The best rivalries in sports are between teams that have a long history of close competition that are wrought with hatred and desire by the athletes and the fans.  One such rivalry is the Yankees, Red Sox in baseball.  Both teams despise the other and would rather lose 10 games to the Cardinals (My team still hanging on in the playoffs) than lose 1 game to the bitter rival.  The demonizing works in exactly the same way.  Hate the other as a collective demon group and place the blame of all the problems on them as the competition ensues.  The funny thing is that many players have played for both the Yankees and the Red Sox (one example is Johnny Damon) and the individual receives some taunts but the overall focus of the emotion is still upon the collective team.
Sports can be a religion for many Americans.  In class, Professor Staub suggested that the human condition needs the competition and rivalry that religion and sports provide.  It is interesting how different parts of the world put their focus in different areas of life to assuage this need.  What does this say about the U.S.?