Why We Condone Secular, State-Mandated Violence

Throughout the semester, one of the reoccurring themes in the discussions was the distinction between secular and religious violence. Oftentimes the question of state-mandated violence was brought into the equation. Or it should have been.

Generally speaking, I think it would be safe to say that Americans as a whole are able to condone many actions of their government, if not now, then in times past. This is not particularly unique to Americans, but rather I believe it’s the general pattern among stable regimes with popular support, around the world. Most Americans are probably able to justify, say, the American-led invasion in Afghanistan in 2001, or various other interventions throughout the past century.

Obviously, there has to be some reasoning behind the violence to gain the support of the general populace. The specific reasoning varies widely, and isn’t the focus of this topic.

But another key area in deciding whether such and such violence is justified, is whether it is state-mandated. After all, one of the main goals of the state is to monopolize violence. We are socialized to condemn private violence – murder, assault, etcetera. Yet we are told to respect the men who go to another country, who assault and murder there in the name of our state.

This is however simply out of necessity. A state which didn’t socialize in this manner, would likely find itself with a violent population unwilling to support the state in times of conflict.

So state-sanctioned violence as a whole, is more acceptable than any other. Indeed, it’s the only acceptable form, if we were trained appropriately. So this line of thinking rules out religious violence, by its’ very nature of not being state-sanctioned.

We still have to keep in mind, however, that not all so-called “secular violence” is permission able. The main ingredient is the approval of the state.

So as far as today’s so-called terrorist organizations go, I don’t know if their religion, or their attempts to justify their actions through religion, ultimately matters. Although the focus today is certainly on the Middle East, and so-called Muslim extremists, the US had been willing to label non-religious terrorists such, in the past.

The current “war on terrorism” is, as far as anyone can tell, a war on the Middle East. A very easy way to sell the war, was to do it under the veil of terrorism, and especially – as a fight against some fundamentalist backwards religion. It seems that even if we can’t use religion to justify violence, we can certainly perpetrate violence against religion. It was extremely helpful that it seems that this image of Islam was already imprinted on American society, even before the coup de grace that was September 11th, 2001.

It was labeled an act of religious violence, and as such, did not need to be examined or questioned. After all, there is middle ground when dealing with “religious fanatics.”

How much does religion really play into this situation though? Is the War on Terrorism a response to America’s abhorrence of religious violence? On the surface it could appear as such. Taking a brief glance at the television, it would seem that the entire Middle East is a hotbed of fervent fundamentalism: turban-wearing suicide bombers, playing on a jungle gym in archival footage from twenty years ago.

However I’ve never been out of the country – Canada notwithstanding. If the mainstream media is portraying the Middle East accurately, then I would be inclined to believe that there really is some fundamental flaw with Islam. But fortunately, I have my doubts about the mainstream media in general.

Even if religious violence isn’t the main reason for America’s latest interventions, it has been sold as such. Because regardless of the actual reasoning, the violence of a foreign, demonized religion is probably, shall we say, problematic, to the general American populace. Thus it becomes much easier to fight wars on the pretense of fighting foreign religious extremism.

But is this indicative that religious violence is less acceptable than secular violence, regardless of the state? Or is it such only when it’s convenient? We continued to use the language of terrorism, with the sublime understanding that we’re talking about Muslim extremists, when dealing with the rather secular Hussein.

Perhaps religious violence on the whole is seen as worse than secular violence. Secular violence can be explained, to a certain extent. But religious violence? What possible explanation can there be? What explanation would make sense to the rational western secularist?

Furthermore, what about state-sanctioned violence with the basis or justification rooted in religion? Would this be easily justified in mainstream America?

I would assume that it would not. The reasons are varied. Perhaps it’s because, as suggested in class, religion is seen by some as illogical in the face of secularism. Particularly when it comes to government.

But then, this raises the question of legitimate and illegitimate states. An illegitimate state’s violence will naturally not be seen as legitimate.

What determines whether a state is legitimate or not in this context? Many things, obviously, but chief among them, for this discussion – whether or not it is a secular state. The secular state is the future – it’s forward looking, modern, and ultimately – western. Religious states lose credibility right off the bat, for sinking to the level of religiosity – fundamentalism, illogical and rigid belief structures, etcetera. The typical American will support the secular state over the religious. Separation between church and state is seemingly important.

Also important in determining what is and is not legitimate, is how democratic the state is. Although a different topic altogether, a religious state would have a hard time maintaining its’ democratic nature in some sense, since by favoring one religion it necessarily restricts others. Thus, as far as the American public is concerned, the religious state loses its’ legitimacy, and by extension – it’s ability to use violence. Ultimately with this fact in mind, all religious violence is ruled unjust, according to the viewpoint of the American.

It is then quite understandable why many conflicts today, are colored with religious rhetoric. If we are fighting religious extremists, then we are naturally in the right, because according to our logic, there is no such thing as just religious violence. We also have the state on our side, which is ultimately the final judge in these matters.

Thus, just violence must be state-mandated. Americans generally don’t find either secular or religious ‘private’ violence to be just. However, violence which is sanctioned by a religious state, is also not justifiable, because the religious state is not generally acknowledged to be a legitimate authority.

Religion also serves an important role in creating distinctions between ‘us’ and ‘them’ – which is very useful in justifying the violence we perpetrate on them. By this logic – the logic which is running our society – if we are fighting religious extremists, and they fight back, it simply further enforces our righteousness.

Whether or not they are truly religious extremists, it doesn’t matter. The representation is what ultimately matters.

:huh: