A Noble Cause For Religion

It was another talk in the lecture series God bless America, Religion, society, and policy in the USA, organized jointly by the Carl-Schurz-Haus Freiburg and the Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Baden Württemberg (State central to foster political education).

Carl-Schurz-Haus' charming Director Friederike Schulte introduces the speaker.

When Professor Thomas Matyók started talking about Religion as a Feature of Peace and Stability Operations spontaneously, the blog title came to my mind: A noble cause for religion. Let's face it: How many wars were fought and are still fought, and how many crimes were committed and are presently committed in the name of religion? So eventually, religion would help as a peacemaker?

There was one first argument that convinced me. In the case of a conflict zone, when governing authorities are absent, religious institutions keep working. Yes, I remember 1945 as a boy. When US troops overran my village in East Westphalia, the Catholic Church was present, proving that religion steps in when and where governments lack capacity and legitimacy. 

As one of its grassroots activities, as Professor Matyók called it, the local Church continued to offer mass and religious education and engaged in assistance to incoming refugees. In the end, there was a collaboration between the occupying forces and the operating Church, so that in 1946 less than a year after the total defeat of Nazi Germany, my fellow classmates and I celebrated the First Holy Communion on Sunday after Easter (Weißer Sonntag) with all the pomp possible in those difficult times.

Apropos Westphalia. Several times Professor Matyók mentioned the Westphalian Peace Treaty of 1648 that ended 30 years of atrocities between the warring parties, always pretending they were fighting religious issues. At the beginning of the peace talks, the war-weary parties still insisted on two places to negotiate separately (Münster for the Catholics and Osnabrück for the Protestants). Still, at the end, when they signed the treaty, politics overcame religious issues. 

In fact, the Protestants in Brandenburg and Saxony had already sold their souls to their princes, who not only governed but were their fidei defensor (defender of their faith). Only the Catholic Church objected to the disregard of religion in the treaty, with the papal nuncio Fabio Chigi issuing a solemn protesting brevis. The other negotiators not only couldn't care less but answered in agreement with most of the Catholics with an anti-protest note. Historically the pope rejected the treaty only in 1650; the bull: Zelo domus Dei ab is backdated November 16, 1648.

Professor Matyók in full action

Back to Professor Matyók's talk: According to him, 5,8 billion adults and children, or 84% of the world population, have some religious affiliation. However, when worldwide, 6 out of 10 people are religious, and the figure is 8 out of 10 for the Middle East and Africa; this figure must be much lower for Europe and the US. The speaker was convinced: Nevertheless, religion will continue. It establishes normative values and ethics, and since people approach religion emotionally and not intellectually, they will act out of their feelings. Professor Matyók said that the global poor have more trust in religious organizations than in any others.

He also stated that people younger than 34 tend to be more religious than older respondents. He quoted Jean-Marc Leger, President of the Worldwide Independent Network/Gallup International Association (WIN/GIA), who concluded: With the trend of an increasingly religious youth globally, we can assume that the numbers of people who consider themselves religious will only continue to increase. 

Let him assume; I would instead call the movement spirituality and not a religion, for the "classical" churches in western countries continue to lose members.

Professor Matyók is categorical: The US government apparently has difficulties engaging with religious installations due to the First Amendment to the Constitution that introduced the separation of state and religion in the States. US foreign policy does not strategically engage religious organizations and actors as peace-building partners. It simply ignores faith, religion, and God.

The US seeks and has always sought to advance democracy. Democracy, however, does not work without religious freedom. About 70% of the world's population lives where religious freedom is severely restricted. So religion becomes an important factor in many conflict scenarios, mainly when religious groups engage in violence for rational, earthly reasons. It is the bad old story: Extremists use religion to escalate tensions with other religious communities.

The observed sacralization in the Middle East can be a response to European secularization. However, fear not: Christianity is rising in the Global South with Timbuktu and not Rome becoming the religious center. So we can expect that the future of Christianity will be conservative and fundamental and in conflict with the enlightened western society.

Syrian peace talks started last weekend in Geneva. The representatives of the Assad regime and the rebels meet in separate rooms with messengers, assuring communication between the delegations. This is perturbing when thinking back to the Westphalian peace talks. Are those separate rooms a good sign? Mind you, the peace talks that ended the Thirty Years' War lasted more than three years, from June 1645 to October 1648. Since in Geneva, the discussing parties are both Muslims, will religion help make peace?

*