چکیده:
The main question of this article is this Does religion itself play a role in
“political violence”? After clarifying the meaning of relevant terms such as
“religion”, “religious violence”, “secular violence”, “voluntary action” and
“political violence”, I will examine two arguments that can be formulated in
religious type of political violence, concluding that both of these arguments
are subject to criticism and neither is successful in supporting that claim
Then I will suggest my own explanation of the real cause and origin of
political violence in general and its proper solution I will also conclude that
the well-known distinction between religious and secular violence is not
tenable
خلاصه ماشینی:
After clarifying the meaning of relevant terms such as “religion”, “religious violence”, “secular violence”, “voluntary action” and “political violence”, I will examine two arguments that can be formulated in favour of the claim that religion itself is the unique cause of the so-called religious type of political violence, concluding that both of these arguments are subject to criticism and neither is successful in supporting that claim.
It is quite reasonable to think of religion as providing the agent with an answer to one or both of the two following normative questions: “What is the ideal situation?” and “What is the best means of achieving it?” In other words, religious teachings are not a source for purely factual descriptions of the current situation or all the means available for altering that situation.
For example, to say that there is only one God who is unseen, which is the most basic teaching of Islam, Judaism and perhaps Christianity, has the normative connotation that humans are not God, and therefore should not play God. So, we can reformulate the main question of this discussion to ask: does religion itself provide the believer(s) with normative reason(s) for political violence?