There have been 23 school shootings this year that resulted in injuries or deaths, according to a recent Education Week analysis. There have been 167 such shootings since 2018.
It’s very alarming that such incidents are becoming increasingly prevalent. How are we to understand violence in society and, more importantly, to correct this disturbing trend?
Certainly, an approach must be immediate and include responses by those tasked with public safety — law enforcement, legislators, nonprofit civic action groups, and those in the judicial branch.
But tackling social problems through those venues will not result in the longer term and more comprehensive solutions we need. Such a strategy could be likened to EMTs, paramedics, and emergency room staff treating superficial wounds while ignoring underlying organ or other bodily system damage.
Surely efforts must be made to identify underlying factors that contribute to this troubling social trend weakening our societies. Those factors include, but are not limited to, the perpetration of violence upon the innocent and vulnerable, the venting of frustration and anger through violence, and the inability of people to curb their destructive impulses. Even more deadly are the bullying and dominance of individuals, groups, and larger levels of society based on a perceived division between them and us that is rampant within society.
This article has been informed by the works of scholars I encountered as part of my current graduate degree pursuit at UTS. I present my own views at the conclusion.
One scholar, Wolfhart Pannenberg (1996), notes that currently the religious and spiritual dimension of human beings has been marginalized in the public sphere. He traces this to the thinking behind and actions of the French Revolution, which, among other revolutionary initiatives, included the beheading of those in the monarchy and aristocracy who could not flee the wrath poured upon them, pitted reason against faith, and scapegoated religious institutions (generally the Catholic Church) as sources of repression and injustice, enacting a strict separation of church and state.
In this scenario, the church and religion were seen as the source of problems, not solutions. The separation of church and state in the United States is not as contentious as in many European nations, since the U.S. doesn’t have the antagonistic backstory found in Europe. In the U.S., while religion and government are separated by the Constitution, religion is still considered a potential source of social help and beneficial public service.
While the U.S. is at its core a religious (essentially a Christian) nation (see Himmelfarb, 2004), religion’s presence in the public sphere is noticeably missing. Pannenberg claims that in societies where religion has been reduced in prominence, a profound and debilitating loss of meaning can be found, which he ties to the presence of personal and social violence.
In the last two or three decades, however, it has become evident that secularization (or, as some prefer, progressive modernization) faces severe problems. The thoroughly secularized social order gives rise to feelings of meaninglessness: there is a vacuum in the public square of political and cultural life, and this invites violent outbreaks of dissatisfaction.
Pannenberg points out that the religious sphere holds the lion’s share of responsibility for this situation, at least in the Western world, due to rampant social instability caused by the wars of religion waged in Europe during the 16th, 17th and early 18th centuries. He has wise counsel for the Christian religious world and other faiths regarding their need to indemnify such historically based flaws, practices and attitudes in hopes that such chastisement will compel them to make amends and refrain from repeating such shameful histories. Here are some of his key points:
. . . The lack of tolerance among Christians in the post-Reformation period was directly responsible for the rise of a secularist culture. What Christians should learn from this is the urgency of overcoming their inherited controversies and of restoring some form of unity among themselves.
Those of the religious sphere have significant work to do if they wish to add their narrative to those currently prevalent in the public sphere. That work will certainly be required if the religious sphere hopes to regain the trust of those living in our modern society and must include the demonstration and manifestation of tolerance, love and a marked maturity of spirit.
Another key insight by Pannenberg addresses the current understanding of freedom which has become dominant and widely accepted in Western culture. This is the idea that freedom is divorced from the religious concepts of ethics, morality, responsibility, and the idea of the good, including the need to control the baser instincts of humanity derived from the presence of sin. This divorce of freedom from the good seems to have generated a type of mindset which implies that being free is akin to allowing citizens to do whatever they want, including behaving in a way that religious people refer to as license.
The prevailing idea of freedom in our societies today, of course, is the idea that each person has the right to do as he pleases. Freedom is not connected to any notion of the good as constitutive of freedom itself.
Hans Joas (2014) sees the baser tendency of humanity to grab dominance through power as a root source of violence, what I consider bullying behavior. This behavior can be found at the individual level but is also present in organizations, nations and in the religious, political, economic, and entertainment and media spheres as well.
The practice of self-benefiting dominance seems to be found when any specific characteristic such as race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, possessing a mental or physical disability, political affiliation, eye color, etc., can be used to pit one group or social entity against another — leading to an us vs. them mentality coupled with a sense of superiority being attributed to the us group. The following speaks to this:
American religious economists have sought, interestingly and I believe persuasively, to demonstrate that religiously charged violent conflicts in societies do not come about through the encounter of different religions such as (as the “clash of civilizations” thesis would lead us to expect) but through the particularist state regulation of religious life, regulation that seeks to aid one particular religious community while keeping another under control.
A broader take on bullying behavior has been elucidated by David Martin (2017), which he ties to self-firstness, selfishness, and the tendency towards bullying as an expression of the baser aspect of human nature manifested in multiple social systems.
I want to disrupt a narrative that lays the primary blame for violence on religion and my thesis is astonishingly simple. Violence is written so deeply into human relationships and into the unremitting struggle for power, wealth, honour and dominance, generated by the difference between Us and Them, that we can take it for granted. Religion will be complicit in this struggle because it provides a major and powerful marker of the difference between Us and Them. But so does every form of social solidarity. In recent centuries other forms of solidarity, for example nationalism and secular political ideology, have been as complicit as religion in the struggle for dominance.
J.V. Langmead Casserly (1955) ties the issue of violence to humankind’s baser nature, which he further ties to humanity’s spiritual sickness, an underlying sinfulness:
Original sin certainly does not mean a new kind of sin that has never been sinned before. On the contrary, it refers to the spiritual sickness, the underlying sinfulness, which afflicts man from the very point of his origin, so that man is a sinner even when he is not sinning in any overt or particular fashion. . . . Man is not a sinner because he sins; he sins because he is a sinner.
Pannenberg traces individual violence to the loss of meaning due to the marginalization of the religious and spiritual dimension of human beings. He also linked it to the separation of free will and action from the idea of the good. Joas, Martin and Casserley extended the issue far beyond to the presence of violence perpetrated by individuals, to violence found in a broad swatch of social spheres, levels, and factors, including individuals, organizations, religions, nations, political ideologies, and economic factors.
One doesn’t have to look far to find extremely troubling examples of this broader presence. There are examples of violence perpetrated by religions including the Crusades from 1096-1270, the Inquisitions in France, Portugal and Spain from the 12th to the 18th centuries; the religious wars in Europe of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries; and the Salem Witch trials, to name just a few.
However, the violence perpetrated by those belonging to the realms of politics, ideology, and even on the interpersonal level are extremely chilling as well. These include the violence inflicted on humankind through the Nazi regime, Stalin, and Mao; the killing fields in Cambodia; the geocide in Rwanda; and the current invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Then there are the shameful practices, both historical and present day, of slavery, human trafficking, the promotion of bigotry and hate of one human being or group over another, drug, sexual, and other bodily abuses, prevalence of gun violence, addictions of all kinds, and pornography.
The issue of violence at all levels and in all social spheres is found in all human societies, is extremely troubling, and must be delt with if humanity is to achieve social peace at any level and in all spheres.
The foundational and underlying contributor to the problem of violence in the public and private sectors is spiritual. By spiritual I refer specifically to the internal dimension of human mind and heart that grapples with and endeavors to understand the supernatural dimension of God and those eternal question of life’s meaning and purpose as well as dealing with the baser natures of human beings grounded in sinfulness. This arena of human life typically comes under the purview of religion, whose professionals apply themselves to counsel discipline, sacrifice, humility, service of others beyond the self, and self-control of humanity’s base natures as well as making available to humanity the great work of salvation for the purpose of eliminating the reality of sin and evil in human life.
If we look to the influence of humanism for a solution to the issue of violence, we will be greatly disappointed as that sphere is too limited in its resources to be very effective against violence. For example, related to the issues of freedom, those who represent the humanistic perspective with its emphasis on human rights can be at a disadvantage in the campaign against violence when the discussion strays into the issues of social responsibility and the public good, the comprehension of consequences, universal morality, ethics and the good. Those who would look to the ideology of Marxism will also be greatly disappointed since it ignores the importance of human rights as well as denying the religiosity and spiritual nature of human beings.
The religious sphere must be embraced and welcomed as a pivotal influence and voice if we are to ever achieve a peaceful world.
The richness of human society is lessened when there is a dearth of opportunities for those belonging to the religious sphere to contribute their hard-won wisdom garnered through the work and service resulting from their labors on behalf of God and for the benefit of humanity. There is a prevalent tendency for society to exclude religion and religiosity from the public cultural sphere, and yet I contend that the optimum platform for the religious to contribute their wisdoms and counsel is within that sphere.
The exclusion of the voice of the religious narrative from that sphere has resulted in a vacuum which humanism, secularism, and Marxism cannot even remotely fill, and society is the poorer because of it. Currently, society is dealing with a volatile and dangerous cocktail of influences that have the potential to ignite uninhibited violence against those perceived to be enemies and persecutors, the them vs. us. This scenario can also be a source for vehement venting of resentment, hatred and anger, just because a person, organization, religion, or nation wants to and can, as though it is a justified behavior, no matter how immoral or base those actions and attitudes may be.
The scholarly quotes I have shared reinforce the connection between violence, the lack of meaning, as well as the flagrant lack of inhibition of humankind’s baser nature and selfishness because our world has pushed aside the voice of those whose job it is to advocate for God, conscience and godliness. Of course, there are those who will seek religion and God despite the roadblocks set up by popular culture, but many more will be diverted by the anti-religion narrative; it’s hard to go against public opinion and what is considered normative at a societal level.
Considering existing anti- or demeaning attitudes towards religion or at least a lack of public appreciation of that sphere, those searching for meaning in their life may attempt to assuage their spiritual uneasiness and hunger through a variety of options and venues, but many will probably give up or avoid such endeavors altogether.
If Pannenberg, Joas, Martin, and Casserley are correct, this social reality can result in a buildup of frustration, distrust, resentment, arrogance, and despair leading to emotional and mental stage agitation in immature or troubled individuals and groups who become obsessed and focused upon their internal state of frustrations, perceived injustices, resulting in their arrogantly asserting what they perceive as rightness at the expense of others.
If this is not dealt with or defused, it is probable that such a mind/heart-set can easily boil over and compel those individuals and larger social groupings to burst through humanistic mental and social constraints (i.e., human rights, including respect of others) and express their agitation, resentment, self-firstness, arrogance, and anger through violent negative and destructive outburst and actions.
What solution is there to the above scenarios? Any solution must also include the reintroduction of the religious narrative into the secularized public sphere. There are, however, many contingencies related to such a recommendation.
I am not against the separation of church and state, which is healthy and necessary to diminish the possibility of the emergence of a state-sponsored religion or church, a scenario the U.S. is fortunate to have avoided. Though the church should be separate from the state, moral, ethical, and God- and religiosity-honoring men and women should be involved in politics, the sphere of government, and all venues of human society.
We need a religious landscape that embodies cultural and religious diversity and pluralism, which is healthy and valuable. As well, any religiously-motivated individual or grouping of individuals that wants to contribute their narrative to the cultural and public sphere, would need to demonstrate spiritual maturity, tolerance, and respect toward other faiths and accept the normalcy of a social environment which encompasses a comprehensive spectrum of spiritual diversity.
In addition, members of religions and organizations must absolutely refrain from a self-glorifying mind and/or heart-set, and from any tendencies to bully or dominate other faiths and believers, even if they believe in the superiority of their message. They would need to refrain from promoting any sense of entitlement and elitism. No bigots are allowed in the sphere of religion or any other social sphere for that matter. The name of the dynamic must be respect for the other’s right to follow their conscience carried out with the heart of love and compassion (refraining from using violence to do so, of course).
If any faith or human being, including the level of groups and social systems, refuses to be ruled by such guidelines, then they should not be a welcomed contributor of their narrative until such time as they can do so (though how this would be accomplished is another matter altogether), or at least clearly called out and exposed for their anti-social attitudes and practices.
Additionally, participants and contributors to the public narrative should not be limited to those belonging to the sphere of religion, but that sphere would open to any who encourage, nourish, uphold, and nurture humanity’s moral and spiritual values and responsibilities. From that perspective, I believe mental health professionals need to be included due to their expertise in dealing with the tendency of human beings towards practicing social violence.
I set a high bar and standard for this yet unattained, reformed, and revitalized public sphere. I do so, however, to facilitate an envisioned response to the current social illness and danger. It is also my hope that quality control measures could be put in place to avoid unintended consequences and/or additional problems cropping up (whatever those may be) and, if they do emerge, they need to be immediately mitigated and dealt with. I think it is better to aim high while we’re at the level of hopes and dreams.
The strong presence of responsible spirituality will not solve all humanities’ problems and curb all violence; that will not happen until the baseness in human nature is conquered and totally eliminated. However, if stronger norms abound in the cultural sphere that favor self-control and moral/ethical considerations and responsibility; that tie the understanding of freedom with the good; that strongly promote a heightened respect and love for the rights and safety of others beyond personal resentment, anger, and hate; the tendency towards selfishly motivated violence will at least be hampered and tempered.
Since we are witnessing an increasingly volatile climate of social violence, I encourage others to contribute creative options and participate in helping responsible citizens develop insightful ways and practices to diminish this escalating social trend.♦
Alice E. H. Fleisher joined the Unification Movement in 1968, is an 1800 couple, and lives with her husband, Gary, in his hometown, where they are part of a three-generation tribe. She received her BA in 1970 in Interdisciplinary Creative Arts from San Francisco State College, a Religious Education Certificate from UTS in 1977 (MRE upgrade in 2017), and an MA in sociology in 2015 from the University of Colorado at Denver. She is currently a Doctor of Ministry candidate at UTS.
References:
Casserley, J.V. Langmead. 1955. The Bent World. New York: Greenwood Press.
Himmelfarb, Gertrude. 2004. The Roads to Modernity: The British, French, and American Enlightenments. New York: Vintage Books.
Joas, Hans. 2014. Faith as an Option: Possible Futures for Christianity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Martin, David. 2017. Secularisation, Pentecostalism and Violence: Receptions, Rediscoveries and Rebuttals in the Sociology of Religion. New York: Routledge.
Pannenberg, Wolfhart. 1996. “How to Think about Secularism,” First Things.
Applied Unificationism 
Alice, thanks for your observations.
After the Parkland school shooting in Florida I wrote an essay for the AU Blog suggesting that the causes for so much violence was a definite and severe break with religious-based moral precepts.
As we examine the causes of school shootings and other crime, we see that many of the perpetrators are from broken homes, had mental health problems, spent copious time on social media, had misanthropic tendencies, and were addicted to video games. I made the point (and still do), that of all these these contributing factors, a case can be made that family breakdown has the most deleterious effects on the hearts and minds of young people.
A prevailing opinion in contemporary culture is that exercising any kind of judgment is somehow illiberal and mean-spirited. Subsequently, the morality of our culture declines and we continue to be lost in the abyss of moral relativism, situational ethics or worse — a “post-truth” culture. Coming to the realization that there are moral truths, and not merely interpretations of truth, is crucial. By accepting such, responsibility and accountability become significant aspects of our psychological maturation. Not to accept this reality is being irresponsible and immature and society becomes inured to the criminal behavior that is having such deleterious consequences.
In my essay, I cited George Washington’s Farewell Address to the nation upon leaving office in 1796 in which he posited:
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.”
Washington’s citing a religious-based morality is salient. Lack of love, jealousy, resentment, and the resultant immoral behavior triggered by these emotional impulses can only be assuaged by properly understanding the causal dimension of the Human Fall. For the non-believer this will not be viewed as a credible assertion. However, to those who hold to religious convictions, the understanding of the root causes of all human failing is an essential aspect of a life of faith, as well as a way to arrive at solutions to many of humankind’s seemingly intractable problems.
As I mentioned previously, guns, fire, music, religion, and sexuality can have beneficial aspects as well as deleterious ones. Motivation and intent determine a great deal.
Alice,
Well-researched essay. You make several salient points in your argument.
Do you know of the author Robert Greene’s work? He’s written several books on Power, Seduction, Strategies of War, Self-Mastery, and his latest work (2018) The Laws of Human Nature. It points to the specifics of what DP broadly refers to as “fallen nature.”
Our irrationality, narcissism, compulsive behavior, short-sightedness, defensiveness, self-sabotage, repression, envy, grandiosity, gender rigidity, aimlessness, tendency to conform, fickleness, aggression, generational myopia, and death denial, have always been a part of our “humanness.” To be a master of our human nature, it behooves us to gain intimate knowledge and understanding on how these factors are operating in others and ourselves, either to our benefit or detriment.
I highly recommend this book to you and others on this blog site.
Thanks for your article, Alice.
It was well-presented and made a number of good points. One thing the article made me think about is the different ways in which people think about and define religion. It can mean “to bind back” to God, it can refer to cultural behavior and norms, and it can mean dogmatic belief systems.
The Protestant Reformation and the religious wars that followed in Europe were about “what is true,” “what is right,” and “what is good.” The printing press offered individuals a greater opportunity to search for those answers and not just accept the dictates of Church or tribal leaders. It also allowed new charismatic leaders to establish their tribal groups or cults, with doctrines as diverse as Calvin’s double predestination and Marxism-Leninism’s brand of industrial feudalism, where the state owns everything.
Thus, it seems wars arise when people “bind back” (are loyal to) the truth promoted by a leader or institution and not to a God that transcends all leaders and institutions. Today we see these same dynamics playing out in narratives promoted by secular institutions — the media, governments, corporations — and religious institutions. Cancel culture is an internet version of information suppression that parallels book burning.
To avoid these wars between people loyal to charismatic individuals and dogmatic truths, we should stress that a transcendent truth has to be above all our relative truths. I see this as a contemporary explanation of the First Commandment. Paul Tillich spoke of glimpses of transparency to that transcendent truth, and Reinhold Niebuhr spoke of finding it “beyond history.” Kant explained that humans are “finite,” limited by words that label things, and are not the “things in themselves.”
Thus to allow people to find God, we must allow the freedom to search for truth, and that search is never finished. When any group, social institution, or leader seeks to block the desire of a person to find absolute truth, absolute beauty, or absolute goodness, they are blocking our original nature to communicate with God. This has the same effect as inhibiting other natural desires — for food, shelter, and human relationships. So “freedom,” while related to “responsibility,” enables the ability to pursue truth, beauty and goodness so long as we do not interfere with others’ ability to do so.
I agree with you, Dr. Anderson. We should uphold a transcendant God, above the existing denominations;
When Ernest Renan gave his famous speech in Sorbonne University, “What Is a Nation?” (1882), he came up with this definition: “A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle”.
Renan did not mean that the nation should have any particular religion. It is a soul, a spiritual principle, inasmuch as any Individual Truth Body is an incarnated soul, or spiritual principle.
It is some kind of natural law at work in the social law. It is a living soul, a spiritual principle, as much as the rose, the carnation, the tulip and the orchid are souls and spiritual principles, but they don’t need a religion, they just observe natural law.
Again, as I expressed to the author of the essay, it is hard to establish any correlation between the degree of spirituality and the absence of violence. Most Scandinavian nations have moved from a culture of violence and war long ago and are resolutely peaceful and safe countries, not because they are more spiritual. Many other factors have enabled them to move the scourge of violence quite far away; criminality is extremely low in Iceland, Norway, Denmark. But those people are not church-goers.
Gordon,
Thank you for your comment. I believe it provides good insight related to the level of maturation that all religious people and leaders need embody and achieve, if they are to fulfill the purpose of religion as intended by God and elucidated by our True Parents.
David,
I totally agree with your comment! I believe this has everything to do with tying the concept of free will, free thought, and free action to the Good.
Jack,
Thank you for your comment. I will certainly check out that book!
Thank you for this stimulating, relevant and well-researched essay. It contains much content needed in our confused world, including our Unification Movement.
When reading the essay I thought that this type of analysis should be read by many people, and thus I wondered whether for example the Washington Times or other newspapers and news outlets would be interested in publishing your essay if it were offered to them.
A final comment: I believe we as humankind have to go back to the very beginning — the education of what it means and entails to be parents. No institution in any society can do for a child what parents can do. But since the first human parents cut their relationship to the ultimate Parent and Creator, we cannot avoid learning to become “true parents” from scratch.
Johann,
Thank you for your comment. I wouldn’t have a clue on how to give this article greater readership! If you want to attempt to get a wider readership for this article, I certainly give you permission to try!
It surely is addressing a relevant and angst-filled issue which, I believe, many in our society are desperately searching for answers, insights, and understandings. My answers (and those of cutting edge scholars working in the periphery of the arena of the sociology of religion, some of whom I quoted), will probably not be popular but I think they will resonate with many in our society. Your comment about the family is absolutely spot-on. Thank you for responding.
Thank you, Alice, for your reflections on violence and how to bring an end to it.
One would like to observe a correlation between the degree of religiosity of a country and its being peaceful.
But let’s look at facts.
Is Canada more secure and peaceful than the United States because it has a more healthy spiritual record? If not, why has it always been more peaceful?
It is observed that Latin America enjoys the highest degree of international peace, but suffers a lot from civil violence everywhere. Urban criminality is so strong, and yet, churches are everywhere in those cities.
Urban violence is even stronger than average in Brazil, a nation which is so vibrant spiritually; Costa Rica is the most peaceful nation of Central America, yet it is also more secularized.
Religiosity is everywhere in Africa, but violence too. The Philippines are by far the most Christian nation of Asia. Why is it the most violent, then?
Personally, I don’t think that we need to include the religious factor so much.
The Global Peace Index informs us that the top ten peaceful nations today are:
1. Iceland
2. Norway
3. Ireland
4. Denmark
5. Austria
6. Portugal
7. Czech Republic
8. Singapore
9. Japan
10. Switzerland
These nations are really secure. It might be shocking for an American citizen to observe how and why they are so safe. It is just another lifestyle, from womb to tomb.
Having said this, I must confess that the United States had no choice, historically speaking, but to become the leading nation of the world, and in a sense, the sheriff of a turbulent world. I deeply love this country, which is more optimistic and responsible than any other nation, but has also a sense of the tragic, to speak like Miguel de Unamuno.
Most people in the USA know that we still live in a dangerous world, and we have to watch out. How to convert this noble sense of the tragic, this “Lone Ranger” culture into a more friendly attitude? Americans have to discover partnership, open discussion, a capacity to learn from others. It is there, in a sense, but maybe not enough.
Laurent,
Thank you for your comment; I’ve been pondering it for a few days.
It seems to me your comment implies at least inadvertently that in countries where there is high religiosity there is high violence and countries where there is high secularity there is low violence and that the religious factor is irrelevant. Such a position seems neither sensible or defensible, certainly not proven by the facts and assertions that you included.
Far more relevant and profitable related to the issue of violence, I think, would be an investigation of the factors (I suspect there are multiple of these — including religion and religiosity), causes, and dynamics related to violence in each of the countries you mentioned to see if any pattern can be discerned, for surely even the peaceful ones have violence since they are populated by human beings.
However, such a study and its results would not be able to be showcased on this Blog due to the end of its current sponsorship on June 30.
Thank you for taking time to reflect.
I have tried to suggest that more religiosity or spirituality in a nation does not automatically entail less violence. Conversely, secularization does not always mean that a nation is more unsafe.
We may defend religion for very good reasons and also advocate peace for very good reasons, and I try to do both. Do empirical facts suggest a strong correlation between the two? I raised doubts about that, not because I am a skeptical person, but because I try to understand things.
The Global Peace Index may indeed be criticized. But the rates of criminality and violence are really low in the top 10. And I understand that it may not satisfy everyone.
In the case of Scandinavian countries, it is far from being a recent pattern.
I would say that nations which foster equality among men and women, a fair distribution of income and a strong investment in well-being, health, education — in human security — are less likely to be violent. Amazingly, Norway, Denmark and Iceland were Viking nations in the past.
Does it mean that “they study war no more”, and “turn their swords into ploughshares” without reading the good book? I don’t know. Maybe.
There is also the case of Japan. In her bestseller The Chrysanthemum and the Sword (1946), Ruth Benedict noticed that Japan has two faces: it is a country of extreme refinement and politeness (Chrysanthemum) but can also be a nation of cruelty (sword).
Japanese sometimes speak of Omote Nihon and Ura Nihon, the front and public Japan and the rear Japan, which is more obscure and hidden. Geographically speaking, Omote Nihon is the East Coast, looking toward the West, and extremely populated and prosperous (Tokyo, Yokohama, Nagoya, Kansai metropolitan era). Ura Nihon is the West Coast (Niigata, Fukuoka), looking to China and Korea, and much less developed. Japan was extremely torn internally during its modernization and this explosion of violence within gave rise to Japanese imperialism (violence without).
General MacArthur prophetically announced in 1945: “The energy of the Japanese race, if properly directed, will enable expansion vertically rather than horizontally. If the talents of the race are turned into constructive channels, the county can lift itself from its present deplorable state into a position of dignity. To the Pacific basin has come the vista of a new emancipated world.” (Radio Broadcast to the Nation Following the USS Missouri Surrender Ceremony, delivered 2 September 1945, USS Missouri, Tokyo Bay, Japan).
You may say, and I would agree, that the rate of suicide remains high in Japan, and it would be a good point regarding the type of violence not considered in the Global Peace Index.
That’s a paradox. People can live very long in Japan, their life expectancy is much higher than in the USA, but they have not graduated from a culture of suicide.
Having said all this, how would you compare for instance the USA and Canada? What would you observe?
Laurent,
This statement makes more sense! “I have tried to suggest that more religiosity or spirituality in a nation does not automatically entail less violence. Conversely, secularization does not always mean that a nation is more unsafe.”.
I believe it might be helpful to exam the relevance of religiosity or spiritualty on violence and social problems if we focus on if/how religion/religiosity can impact and address the sources and attitudes that fuel violence in a particular culture or society, from what domicile/or angle that impact is generated and what is the message or mean that inspires change. I am going to include a quote from David Martin’s book, Secularisation, Pentecostalism and Violence (2017) – which I highly encourage you to read:
“In personal communication, Claudio Veliz told me that, in his experience, Latin American women were fed up with their gun-toting machismo husbands and were only too happy when they put their Kalashnikovs in storage. Moreover, there were many men who, in their turn, were only too happy to embrace a religion that released them from obligatory violence. To this it is worth adding a much broader consideration. Violence was endemic in Latin America and Africa, including the violence of civil war, and Pentecostals were very frequently agents of reconciliation who bound up the psychological wounds left by internecine conflict. (p. 147).
While the above address only one instance where a religion’s ethical, moral, and behavioral mandates positively influenced a reduction of social violence, we can certainly ask why violence is still rampant in Latin America. Consider that conservative figures place the number of Pentecostals at 13% of the total population Latin America (statistics from a quick Google search, according to 2005 figures from the World Christian Database) and the typical modus operation of Pentecostal pastors and congregations is introverted – meaning the leaders are typically focused on caring for their flock rather than being active in the larger social landscape, at least politically. So, the impact will not necessarily by significant but nonetheless it is present – and growing I think.
It seems to me that one possible way a religion and religiosity can provide relevant social impact within its society of domicile is through addressing and countering prevalent and deeply embedded assumptions and tacit norms that might fuel violent behavior and that may be prevalent in a particular culture/society, i.e., machismo in Latin America, suicide in Japan, freedom being equated with license in the US – can you think of others? The above statement is why I stressed (in my article) the potential value of the presence of the voice of the religious in the public sphere as one possible way for that voice to influence public norms and opinions that might fuel violence.
Anyway, that’s all for now!
Thank you, Alice, for providing a concrete example where a faith-based approach played a positive role in offering an alternative to violence. I appreciate your sincere effort and the fact that you take my observations seriously.
Now, I want to stress once again that neighbors can have a different culture. Canada is culturally close to the United States, but…
1. Religion is far less important in Canada than it is in the USA.
2. Canada has a long record in peace-building and the culture of peace. This option for non-violence never took root in the USA, for various reasons. Indeed, the Canadian dream is certainly less flamboyant than the American dream and the two nations don’t play the same role in international affairs.
Nobody would welcome a weak America, and the doctrine of peace through strength, of deterrence against evil also has its arguments at times. Most people worldwide understand that rifles and guns matter much more in the American mythology than in any other nation of the Western Hemisphere. What is a self-evident truth from Los Angeles to New York looks strange for we Europeans.
These are things which cannot easily be discussed. By the same token, there are very strong taboos in my country of France. I admit that the French are very defensive about certain matters. For instance, there is an acceptance of political and social violence in France which is puzzling for other European nations.
Laurent,
It surely is a given that every society is unique, including its historical backstory, its cultural norms, and traditions. It would make sense that any faith-based endeavor desiring to provide an alternative to violence within any society must be sensitive to such uniqueness, including becoming aware of any cultural norms found in each indigenous society that strongly resist or alternatively, tend towards violence.
Further, those faith-based endeavors should act sensitively and respectfully – helping citizens of a given society to discover and initiate behaviors that would be in harmony with existing a culture and/or norms that will further allow those in that society to move past and resolve any tendency towards violent behavior.
Thank you for your insights on my neighbor to the north, Canada!
Alice,
I found this statement very compelling:
“Those of the religious sphere have significant work to do if they wish to add their narrative to those currently prevalent in the public sphere. That work will certainly be required if the religious sphere hopes to regain the trust of those living in our modern society and must include the demonstration and manifestation of tolerance, love and a marked maturity of spirit.”
I hope you will write another essay dealing with how those in the religious sphere can regain the trust and cooperation of the society as a whole and possible initiatives that could be taken in this area.
Thank you, Peggy! I appreciate your feedback! Let’s see what future opportunities will come my way that will allow me to respond to your suggestion.