Sociological View Of Religious Violence

Religious violence can exist in a real, tangible manner. It is able to be realised in successful ways - although it is a complex, multifaceted phenomena. It is able to be defined as the utilisation of religious thought in acts of a violent nature. The religious rhetoric should influence the act of violence in some form, consequently including religion in the legitimacy, process, or realisation of the violent act. In turn, other factors should be considered when attempting to define the concept. As religion is used to justify violent behaviour, yet simultaneously the same religious ideology is able to fuel peaceful thought. The surrounding context of religious violence is important in understanding the act itself. It is also important to reflect

Religious violence arises from the uncertain, and undefinable aspects of religious thought. In this case, the very nature of religious violence is something which is distinctly religious, as it is a direct result of interpretation and translation of religious rhetoric. Religious ‘militancy’ is a consequence of this ambivalence, in which both the peaceful and the violent are able to turn radical. Religion is neither inherently peaceful or violent - instead it is a matter of interpretation, or circumstance as to what is believed. In this vain, other ideology is able to be considered ambivalent, such as nationalism or Marxism, and can simultaneously inspire both violence and peace. Consequently, raising significant questions around why religious violence is deeply feared, when there simultaneously exist other types of ambivalent ideology that also have the potential to result in violence. Religious violence is distinctly religious through the interpretation of ideology, rhetoric and thought. This is able to be discerned through the Appleby argument, but it is not a definitive answer. Religious violence occurs through more complex terms, than only an error in interpretation or translation, as Appleby would

A relative consensus seems to be reached within these scholars, which suggests that religion has to be incorporated into violence for it to be defined as such. Ultimately, violence does transcend rhetoric, with manifestations of the violent act occurring despite ideology, or with ideology being integral to the process. In turn, it may be easy to argue that religious violence is consequently nullified if there exist countless other forms of violent acts that are justified, motivated, or inspired by ideology. But this argument would reject the perverse reality of religious violence. While religious violence occurs due to an array of differing factors, circumstances, ideals and narratives, it does remain to exist. Arguing against this would strip religion of its power and agency. It may be more complex to attempt to define the act, but it is distinct due to how religion influences the