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.
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
