Good and bad religion

Cavanaugh points out that until the middle of the 20th century, American law regarded religion as a social glue rather than a provocation to civil war.  The “social glue” view is of course widespread in sociology (from Durkheim) and anthropology.

So, why is Western religion considered divisive and disruptive, while non-Western primitive and tribal religion considered socially unitive?  My guess is that the issue is the form that religion takes.  Anthropologists tell us that traditional tribal relations are ritualistic and practice-oriented, not doctrinally oriented.  So, it’s not religion per se that tends toward violence, but dogmatic religion.

In short: The myth of religious violence seems to be rooted, like much of modern social theory, in in liberal protestantism.  Doctrine divides, ritual unites.