A Rebuttal from Steve…..

I’ve never printed a rebuttal, but there is a first for everything and I think Steve’s zealousness on this topic, not to mention his well-argued stance deserves air time……

Rich, 

I couldn’t miss responding, even if you hadn’t called me out.  Where you say: 

“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.” And then go on to make your point – I think you are wrong. 

Your separating of political violence from religious violence, and weighing only the raw “body count,” neglects how fervent religious ideologies have shaped, justified, and fueled numerous political movements and deadly campaigns, often operating as motivating frameworks behind the scenes. There is considerable scholarly and empirical evidence showing that religion and politics are not separable drivers of violence since WWII. Here is why I think this is the case: 

1. Religion is often manipulated by political leaders to mobilize populations, justify conflict, and legitimize violence for political ends. Case studies like Yugoslavia (the rise of Christian Orthodox identity under Milošević during the Yugoslav Wars) and Syria (use of religion by Assad to reinforce regime power by creating division among religious sects) show how religious identity was central to the political violence that ensued—these were not “purely political” conflicts, but wars in which religious fervor, symbolism, and institutional manipulation were critical weapons of mobilization and division. This is backed up by research from Fordham University.

Religious nationalism has driven support for extreme violence in the United States and elsewhere and is happening now. Research on events such as the January 2021 Capitol attack illustrates that Christian nationalist ideology, when combined with elite political cues, significantly increases support for political violence. Right now I am reading a remarkably well-researched book on the subject: The Violent Take It By Force” by Matthew D. Taylor.  It details with extensive research and reporting how today’s religious extremists (Christian Nationalists) have infiltrated and now control a large number of Republican lawmakers. It is friggin’ scary and I am desperately trying to find the faults in his logic and warnings so I can call him just another extreme conspiracy guy.  So far I am failing more often than not, although I keep trying. But his evidence and examples are rock solid.  Read it.  Give me some help! I so want him to be wrong. 

Back to your newsletter – many armed conflicts, genocides, and mass atrocities—whether in former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Iraq/Syria, or India—result from the interweaving of religion with ethnic, nationalist, and state interests. Religion served as the mobilizing force, the ideological cover, or the rallying identity enabling such violence to spread and intensify beyond strictly political grievances. A Harvard University paper supports this. 

The effectiveness of political movements, especially ones inciting mass violence, often relies on religious symbolism, group identity, and moral authority that secular political ideology alone lacks. For instance, it is widely accepted that the anti-Communist framing of the Cold War as “Christendom versus godless communism” helped mobilize both populations and state actors into prolonged and violent global engagement.

Multiple modern leaders—including those in the Balkans, the Middle East, India, Myanmar, the United States, and elsewhere—have weaponized religion to solidify power and trigger violence. Both bottom-up (mass) and top-down (elite-driven) mechanisms convert religious fervor into political violence and vice versa, making the rigid separation you propose analytically unsound and historically inaccurate.

The attack on religious minorities, campaigns couched in terms of “holy war” or “divine destiny,” and usage of religious victimhood rhetoric (e.g., Christian, Muslim, Hindu) all show that religious passions are often the very tools political actors turn to in escalating violence, especially when material or governance goals alone are insufficient to drive large-scale mobilization. You can’t have missed this, can you? 

Your historical data to measure “impact” undercounts religiously motivated deaths because it artificially separates out the political and religious contributors when, in practice, they are interwoven.

In many of your cases, (e.g., Yugoslav Wars, Syria, India-Pakistan Partition, Iran Revolution, U.S. right-wing violence), the fusion of religion and politics was the engine of mobilization, justification, and escalation—and without religion, the scale and ferocity of violence would have been much less – or at least that is what the researchers at Fordham University say is the fact.

In short (okay, not so short) your published assertion that “political violence alone has reshaped the world since WWII” ignores the role of religion as both midwife and multiplier of violence—simultaneously motivating, legitimizing, and escalating political action toward lethal ends.  You should either modify what you’ve stated or print my rebuttal. 

Steve

One footnote from me….I do not write newsletters….I write stories, and this was my story on the subject. I kinda wish Steve and gone on to comment about my last paragraph on the Baháʼí Faith….but then again, he was probably too riled up about religious violence to notice…..so riled up that he forgot to get to point #2 in his rebuttal!