The Charlie Kirk killing has spawned a good deal of controversy, some about the underlying ideology he espoused and some about the reaction that has come forth on the event of his death. His death seems to have reawakened lots of opinions about things he has said and those thoughts have shifted from the debate stage he so enjoyed to today’s most popular forum, social media. The result has been a lashing out by the right and even the “afraid of the right” sectors and we are seeing everyone from educators to pilots at risk of losing their jobs over their posts. It seems these “little” people are being forced to a higher standard than politicians or media pundits. I would never suggest that educators (at all levels) don’t have an obligation to be careful about what they say publicly, but so do politicians and media people (especially those that purport to report the news). Hiding behind the guise of entertainment or persona is not a form of dismissal for educators, so it should not be for politicians and media people as well. What opinions are these influencers allowed to have and share publicly? Hard to say, but the old adage about pornography might apply. That famous phrase “I know it when I see it” was said by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in his concurring opinion in the 1964 case Jacobellis v. Ohio. Stewart was attempting to explain his threshold for determining what constitutes “hard-core pornography” that would not be protected under the First Amendment. His full quote was: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [‘hard-core pornography’], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it.” The phrase has since become widely quoted beyond legal contexts as a way to describe something that’s difficult to define precisely but recognizable when encountered. And recognizable has deep elements of current social mores, which seem very much to be in flux in the world at the moment.
In addition to that First Amendment slippery slope, the other topic which has come to the surface, at least between me and my friend Steve (who has strongly-held views on religion), is the difference and impact (not to mention causation) in the world of political violence and religious violence. Religious and political violence have both profoundly shaped human history, often intertwining in complex ways that make clean distinctions difficult. Political violence has generally produced larger death tolls in modern history. The 20th century’s deadliest conflicts – World Wars I and II, communist purges, genocides – were primarily driven by political ideologies, nationalism, and territorial ambitions, resulting in over 100 million deaths. Religious violence, while devastating in specific contexts, typically operated on smaller scales until it merged with political power. The Crusades, religious wars in Europe, and sectarian conflicts were significant but generally more localized. Religious and political authority were often inseparable. I’m sure this had lots to do with Jefferson, Madison and Roger Williams pushing for the clause in the Constitution, enshrined in the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”) and Free Exercise Clause, creating both protection from government-imposed religion and protection for religious practice. Violence has a way of serving both religious and political ends simultaneously – from the expansion of Islamic caliphates to Christian crusading states.
In the Early Modern Period (1500s-1700s), Europe’s religious wars following the Reformation were catastrophic, with conflicts like the Thirty Years’ War killing significant percentages of regional populations. However, these wars increasingly became about political control using religious justification. In the Modern Era (1800s-present), Secular political ideologies became dominant drivers of large-scale violence. Nationalism, fascism, and communism produced unprecedented destruction. Religious violence continued but was often subordinated to or manipulated by political movements. Political violence has been more transformative in creating modern state systems, international law, and governance structures. The devastation of political wars led to innovations like the Westphalian system, Geneva Conventions, and international institutions. Religious violence contributed to concepts of religious tolerance, separation of church and state, and human rights, but often as reactions against religious persecution rather than positive developments from religious teaching. Political violence has been more globally distributed and systematic, while religious violence has often been more concentrated in regions of religious diversity or conquest.
Today’s conflicts rarely fit neatly into either category. Most involve complex mixtures where religion, politics, ethnicity, and economics, and intersect with different regions simultaneously like from the Middle East to Myanmar to parts of Africa. The global diaspora effect is evident more and more. The historical record suggests that while both political and religious violence have caused immense suffering, political violence has generally had broader transformative effects on human civilization, though religious violence has often provided the ideological framework that makes political violence possible or acceptable to populations. So who is to say…are politics and religion cut from the same cloth of human consciousness?
The fundamental difference between politics and religion lies in their core purposes and methods of authority. Politics is primarily concerned with the organization and governance of human societies in the temporal world. It deals with power, laws, resource allocation, and collective decision-making for communities. Political authority derives from sources like consent of the governed, constitutional frameworks, or force, and its legitimacy is typically debated and contested through human institutions. Religion is fundamentally concerned with questions of ultimate meaning, the sacred, and humanity’s relationship to the divine or transcendent. It addresses spiritual and moral questions about existence, purpose, and proper living (watch it…that’s getting into the temporal world…). Religious authority typically claims to derive from divine revelation, sacred texts, spiritual insight, or tradition, and is often viewed by adherents as having absolute or eternal validity. The key distinctions between the two include scope, authority (human v. divine), methods (debate v. faith) and goals (social order and collective welfare v. spiritual truth and salvation). However, these domains often intersect in practice, as religious beliefs inform political values, and political systems affect religious freedom. The tension between keeping them separate versus allowing their natural overlap remains a central challenge in many societies and is certainly on the rise in the United States today.
Looking at the period from WWII to the present, political violence has had far greater impact than religious violence in terms of scale, global transformation, and historical significance. On the political side, there have been the Chinese Communist policies with 40-80 million deaths, Soviet purges and policies: 6-20 million deaths (post-WWII), Cambodian genocide 1.5-2 million deaths, Korean War 2.5-3.5 million deaths, Vietnam War: 1-3 million deaths and various African civil wars and genocides…Millions more. By contrast, religious violence, as brutal as it has been has produced the India-Pakistan partition 200,000-2 million deaths, Lebanese Civil War 120,000-150,000 deaths, Yugoslav wars 130,000-140,000 deaths and various sectarian conflicts in Iraq, Syria with a resultant hundreds of thousands dead. In some regions like the Middle East and South Asia, religious and political violence are deeply intertwined, making separation difficult. However, even there, struggles over territory, resources, and governance typically drive the underlying conflicts. While religious violence has caused tremendous suffering and shaped specific regions profoundly, political violence has been the primary driver of global historical change since WWII, fundamentally restructuring international relations, economic systems, and the basic organization of human society.
I did just note an Economist article on the delineation between political and religious violence where they used a chart generated by CSIS 2025 Global Terrorism Threat Assessment. It was a simple chart that spanned U.S. terrorist attacks over the past 30 years and had “terrorist attacks and plots against government targets”. Those were shown in red while other such violence was in white. Of note was that almost all the red appears since 2016, with a marked uptick from 2021 until now. Hmmm…I wonder what that tells us?
I recently learned that my Persian friend, Faraj, grew up in a family that followed the Baháʼí Faith, which has its historical origins in 19th-century Persia within a predominantly Islamic context, but which draws also from Christianity and Judaism. It is monotheistic, believes in regular prayer, has an emphasis on social justice and community, emphasizes love, unity, and service to others, has a strong ethical framework and an emphasis on education and learning along with gender equality, harmony between science and religion, world unity and global governance ideals…and perhaps the best part…has no clergy, but rather an administrative system instead. Its emphasis on the unity of all religions actually makes it quite distinct from traditional approaches of any single religion. Many scholars classify it as the newest of the major world religions. The catchphrase from its founder is something like…“The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens”. Maybe its a better way and it can help reduce BOTH religious and political violence.