In the course of
history, individuals have often used religion to justify violent action in
order to accomplish their goals and interests. In other cases, individuals have used religion to justify
non-violent methods for pursuing their goals and interests. I believe that it is important to
examine the effects of these two conflicting means of achieving goals in order
to understand whether violent or non-violent action is more effective in
accomplishing a goal. In the larger scheme of things, which of the two
philosophies is a more effective way for religiously-motivated people to
achieve their purposes.
For thousands of
years, leaders and powerful individuals have called on interpretations of
religious teachings to provide an excuse for violence. One example of this kind
of leader was Pope Urban. In 1095, Pope Urban declared that it was every
Christian’s responsibility to participate in the Crusades against Islam for the
good of the religion and its followers.
Urban “made it mandatory for all Christians to
fight for this as if their lives’ depended upon it.” He used his
religion to justify violent action against the people that he believed to be
the enemy of Christianity and to justify sending thousands of people to a war
that many would die in. He waged war on Islam, promising that the crusaders
would be rewarded for all eternity (based on his claim to know how god would
reward).
Though the
Christian zeal to conquer Muslims thrived during Pope Urban’s lifetime, the
fury that Christians had had towards Islam eventually abated. Crusaders realized that their attempts
to conquer the Holy Land would not be successful. By around the 13th century, there was no longer a
desire to fight in these wars. Pope Urban’s hope of conquering the Muslim
religion and strengthening Christianity ultimately failed and all of the
violent wars had accomplished almost nothing. Jerusalem remained in Muslim control and thousands of
Christian Crusaders had died.
In contrast,
leaders and activists throughout history have also utilized religion to motivate
their non-violent methods of achieving goals. In other words, religion has
served as a guideline for how leaders should go about pursuing their
objectives. In particular, members
of society who have experienced exclusion or injustice have called upon
religiously-based non-violent methods of achieving social equality and
political representation. For
example, in the 1930’s, Mahatma Gandhi promoted non-violent protests and
opposition to leadership, first in South Africa and later in India, because he
felt that the poor were not treated fairly in society and were not represented
well by the governing body. His philosophy of non-violence derived from his
interpretation of Hinduism. He
understood that social-activism was his responsibility as a Hindu and as a
member of Indian society. Gandhi led hunger strikes and peaceful protests,
which resulted in multiple arrests.
However, his efforts to bring the poor and unrepresented Indians a more
equal society succeeded in the end.
One of Gandhi’s most significant accomplishments was his role in freeing
India from British colonization.
Gandhi was able to use non-violence to bring social equality to the
powerless in India.
So, I pose the
question, can non-violent action can be as revolutionary as violent action? In
other words, can people accomplish the same or more for their cause by using
non-violent action as they can by using violence?
Clearly, the
answer is not black or white. Neither violent action nor non-violent action can
guarantee that an individual will achieve his or her goal. Non-violent methods of accomplishing
goals may have worked for some leaders during a certain era, but did not work
for other leaders in a different time period. Even after Mahatma Gandhi used peaceful protests against the
British and demonstrated the need for peaceful coexistence between Muslims and
Hindus, there was and is still violence in the Indian subcontinent. Even after
Martin Luther King Jr. peacefully worked to help African Americans overcome
racism and inequality that they had faced for centuries, there was and is still
racism in America. But the track
record for leaders who used violent methods of accomplishing their goals is not
perfect either. Pope Urban sent
out armies of Christians to capture Jerusalem and to destroy the Muslim
religion, but after thousands of deaths, neither of these objectives was
reached. Perhaps what is most
interesting is that religion can be called in to justify either method of
action. When people want to change
the world, religion can be used as a justification for both violent and
non-violent methods of action.
No comments:
Post a Comment