Чт. Июл 9th, 2020

Religious war: what does the terrorist attack in New Zealand mean?


The terrorist attack in Christchurch (New Zealand) mosque has become a bomb blast for a calm, religiously tolerant, and remote from the country’s terrorist centers. Taking into account the anti-Muslim, anti-migrant statements of the suspect, the terrorist attack in Christchurch is compared with a terrorist attack by Andrés Breivik (2011, Norway, Oslo and Utejya Island). But if you look from a different point of view: is it not a terror and the fight against it manifestations of religious war?

Cross or Crescent

It seems to us that religious wars, when the Catholics, the Huguenots, Uniates, Orthodox, etc., have been enemies, have gone a long way since the churches are separated from the overwhelming majority of states. But lately world religions are in crisis. Let’s say Christianity. Orthodoxy on the verge of a split, since the Russian Orthodox Church, having departed from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, makes an application for the formation of a new center, and the Jerusalem Patriarchate is also witnessing this. Catholicism has its own scandals: financial and sexual. Suffice it to recall the story of missing girls whose bones have been found in the Vatican’s Embassy for several decades. And all this comes at the accompaniment of discussions about the combination of Christians. Islam from 2001, despite numerous statements by Muslim spiritual leaders and politicians, was perceived as a «religion of terror», including through the IDLI.
On the one hand, these crises have objective reasons. On the other hand, have religious leaders stepped away from power and influence on their lives? Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew takes an active part in political processes and even signs agreements with states (in particular, with Ukraine). The Pope is actively commenting on political processes, and Catholicism is a factor in the consolidation of society, in particular, in the same Poland. In the East there are at least some theocratic Islamic states.
For example, the terrorist attack had consequences: one of the New Zealand senators had to hint at the possible partial blame for Muslims, as he got an egg on his head, and his opponent — kicking from the senatorial guard.
If compared, the processes are similar to the Crusades, when European Christian knights conquered Muslims from their shrines, since Islam and Christianity are now indirect, but contrasted, and in Israel this confrontation is open and unequivocal. But is this analogy valid?
We asked the experts.

Sacred Instrument

Sources of conflict — not religion, and those seismic processes that have swept the whole world. This was stated by Gennady Shklyarevsky (Bard College, USA) in his commentary to ZamPolita. This, in his opinion, does not mean that those who are trying to resolve conflicts do not use religions for this, but for this they need to re-think contemptuously in the modern way:

«Osama bin Laden, for example, was guided by his version of Islam. He used Islam for his own purposes, motivated suicide bombers. But Islam, like other world religions, does not allow a person to make decisions about his life and death. Terrorists make such a decision that reflects their contemporary views on their autonomy».

At the same time, the expert does not see active in the work of religions in modern conflicts, on the contrary, they «tend to be in the party.» If taken by the Russian Orthodox Church, it promotes secular authority, but this in its doctrine, as the Byzantine church took the rule of secular authority. According to Peter I, the church loses its autonomy, during the Soviet era, the domination of secular authority over the church is even tightening.

The crisis is not in religions

In fact, the crisis is not in confessions, but in the heads of people. Such an opinion is adhered by the astrologer Jouches Alexander Obraztsov. If, he thinks, in some language to write a bad word, it is unlikely that the language will be unworthy of this, or the letters with which this word is written, are fooled.
But ambiguous processes, in his opinion, still occur:

«What a person can trust can have an impact on her. Religions and various churches are no exception. Therefore, the management of churches opens the way to influence people. And, of course, there is a struggle for the opportunity to float».

When it comes to Ukraine, Alexander Obraztsov draws attention to the preconditions for a conflict, including religious ones. This is the controversial structural processes in the Orthodox churches, the chaos of the law-enforcement system, and the presidential election.

«And the main thing — people. Evil Dissatisfied people who seek the enemy are the cause of their misery. «

The astrologer advises to look at himself, because we are the reason of our troubles, and find opportunities for unity.

Gods and oil

But the analyst Denis Lykov unfolds the topic under an unexpected but interesting aspect:

«The struggle for the flock did not stop ever. But financial interests are often the first place, and religious wars are often tied up in oil-rich countries. «

In fact, if they return to the distant past, during the Crusades, they had serious economic preconditions. Knighthood, the nobility needed new lands, the wars faded away from Europe, and energy, as it is now said. informal armed groups (robbers, wandering troops, etc.) threatened the European monarchy. Yes, and gold would not be superfluous.
Now the war with Islamic terrorism coincides with the possible interest in controlling oil deposits in Muslim countries. And, it seems, if the son of bin Laden was reminded of himself, then the «third act» should be in the war.
True, in New Zealand, the victims were just Muslims. But one of the terrorists, and one of the senators hinted that they could be guilty themselves. In addition, the aggressive cultural migration of Muslims to Europe and the United States, which blurs Christianity traditionally for these regions.

Religious war does not happen and can not be

But Alla Boyko of the Institute of Journalism of the KNU considers the phrase «religious war» to be an oxymoron:

«Faith is love, and this is true for Christianity, Buddhism, Islam or Judaism. Therefore, the very concept of «religious war» does not make sense. There can not be religious wars, it is an oxymoron. But the attempt to hide with Christ, Allah or Buddha is dirty affairs and aggression, and sometimes frank insanity has been and will be, unfortunately. The use of religion as a screen for any political or economic conflicts leads to very sad consequences. The winners here were not and will not be».

Alley Boyko is opposed by an expert named Michael. In his view, religion has always been used by rulers as weapons against opponents:

«In the history of examples you can find many — from the Sumerians, Hittites, the Egyptians … to the emperor Constantine the Great and Charles Velokogo .., the princes of Vladimir and Olga … Peter the First … and to Petro Poroshenko. Probably, the original essence of the expression «all power from God …» was skillfully reinterpreted in favor of rulers to provide them with a managerial mission. Skillful manipulation of the religious views of the majority of the subordinate population at all times gave the rulers significant advantages. Often, for the sake of achieving the goal, those in power practiced the transition from one religion to another. «

However, Mr. Mykhailo emphasizes, although there are cases where they also became victims of religious strife — and, in general, the doctrine justified itself.
But nevertheless, the religious war can be and now.

To be continued.