Judy Carter and Gordon Smith wrote a chapter to explain the role that religion has in peacebuilding. They argue that all religions differences, but more importantly the core similarity between religions about the dignity of every person, need to be considered when making conflict resolutions. They also focus on the idea that interreligious dialogue can create a “culture of prevention” and that should be the overall goal of religion in conflict.[1] On the other hand, Peter Penfold approaches the question of the role of religious in conflict from another perspective. He considers the conflict in Sierra Leone as a case study to analyze the contribution of religious communities in resolution. [2]
While both works look at similar topics and agree that religion has an important and beneficial role in peacebuilding, they differ in their overall schools of thought. For example, Carter and Smith believe that understanding the differences in every religious practice will allow for prevention, the most desired outcome, or at least a lessen in and eventual resolution to conflict. From these differences, there is the core main value of peace for humanity.[3] Penfold focuses more on the relationship between the religious and secular within a specific conflict and the commonality between religious groups being suffering.[4] Carter and Smith expand upon theories of religion and peacebuilding, analyze the similarities and differences in major world religions, and create recommendations, especially for leaders in politics, religious positions, and nongovernmental organizations.[5] Penfold uses Sierra Leone as a case study to specifically understand the dynamic of religion in modern day conflict.
Within my own research, these research examples lay out different methods to approaching a similar question, which yield different conclusions. While one work considered the macro-level, theoretical level, the other study considered a specific period and event. They also help me further my knowledge about the conversation surrounding conflict resolution and religion. I think this is an interesting perspective to consider because, oftentimes, religion in conflict is solely considered the spark or cause of conflicts rather than a piece of the solution.
[1] Harold Coward and Gordon S. Smith. “Religious Peacebuilding: From Potential to Action,” in Religion and Peacebuilding (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004), 280.
[2] Peter Penfold. “Faith in Resolving Sierra Leone’s Bloody Conflict,” in The Round Table (Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group, 2005), 549.
[3] Coward, 299.
[4] Penfold, 551.
[5] Coward, 291-299.
Bibliography
Coward, Harold, and Smith, Gordon S. “Religious Peacebuilding: From Potential to Action,” in Religion and Peacebuilding, 279-301. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004.
Penfold, Peter. “Faith in Resolving Sierra Leone’s Bloody Conflict,” in The Round Table, 549-557. Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group, 2005.
Hi Savannah! I like how the pieces you chose are
interacting with each other. I think it’s interesting that one is looking at a
more proactive use of religion, whereas the other focuses on religion as a
reaction to conflict. When we had talked in class about our puzzles I had asked
if you were looking at religion as a catalyst for conflict or as part of the
solution, so emphasizing that you are looking at it as the latter by analyzing
these two articles is a great next step for your research. You mention that for
Carter and Smith, prevention is the “most desired outcome.” I’d be interested
in seeing if you find any real-life examples of this approach, especially
amongst different religious groups. I think it would also be interesting to
look at the concept of “dignity” not only through a religious lens but also
through a cultural one to better understand its role in conflict and
peacebuilding. One of the ways that violence is incited against a particular
group of people is by dehumanizing them and convincing others that they are
worthless. An example that comes to mind right away is how Hutus described
their Tutsi neighbors as “cockroaches”[1] (even if they initially
labeled themselves that) before and during the Rwandan genocide to promote the
idea that killing them was acceptable because they lacked “dignity.”
How might peacebuilders use religion to reintroduce a group of people to the idea that everyone has dignity and basic rights after such devastating
and divisive conflicts? Are there drawbacks to using religion for this?
[1] Kennedy Ndahiro, “Dehumanisation: How Tutsis Were Reduced
to Cockroaches, Snakes to Be Killed,” The New Times, last modified March 13, 2014, accessed September 23, 2019, https://www.newtimes.co.rw/section/read/73836.
Hey hey Savannah! Seeing that you have one of the most influential people in my life as a mentor, I am beyond excited to see what your final research project discusses.
In regard to your first articles claim of universal application of dignity, I push back slightly. Do you believe all beliefs are to be dignified or respected? I personally agree with understanding – it’s necessary for substantive conversation – but I wonder if there are certain beliefs, maybe stoning on account of being gay, that we should consider, universally, wrong. Or is the argument rather that we may fundamentally disagree with different beliefs but they must be brought to the table in order to facilitate the most effective and peace-sustaining conversations. Let me know what you think!
Savannah — you discuss two articles here that are clearly relevant to your research. You’ve done a good job in identifying the main claims in each. However, the post would be a bit stronger if you were to engage some more of the specific methodological elements in each article. What key variables or hypotheses are tested, for instance? Overall, though, a good job here–this will provide a good foundation for your continuing research.