This week we looked at the way religious beliefs and actions can be seen to make a legitimate claim upon life in law, martyrdom and war. Compare the ways different religious traditions/communities do that EITHER in law (making references to Cover and/or Girard) OR in war (referencing Juergensmeyer's piece). How are lives put on the line? What is 'religious' about it? What does it tell us about identity and community? About free will and the need for voluntary action? Why is it perceived as necessary? (While no set number of traditions need to be discussed, you should address similarities and differences in at least 2.)
According to Rene Girard, law is the only way to stop violence. Violence is a heavy cycle, when one violent act is committed, it is usually followed by another violent act in vengeance. Punishment, one final vengeance, by a figure of authority who represents the community and takes command but isn't directly involved in the situation, would work to stop the cycle of violence, and prevent any further violence from occurring.
Punishment by law serves to end violence, either by putting someone away for many years, so they cannot commit any further violent acts or in some cases, violence is stopped by putting the perpetrator to death.
One example of this can be seen in the Buddhist Liberation Rite. After a person commits an impure and irredeemable act against Buddhist tradition and teachings, they are subject to the liberation rite, where they are quickly beheaded by a ritual master. This is a compassionate tradition that allows the victim to achieve enlightenment despite their prior wrongdoings.
On the other hand, some religions choose to exert their vengeance for the greater good of the community on a figure that is part of the community, but not exactly wanted, otherwise known as a scapegoat. The idea of the scapegoat began in Ancient Jewish tradition, where the sins of the community would be put into an animal, who was not directly killed, but is banished from the community and left to die. The death of the animal is crucial because it carries with it all of the sin and violence of the year, and its return would also mean the return of past sins.
Similarly the Greeks and the Aztecs practiced sacrifice of a scapegoat for the greater good of the community. Yearly the Greeks would choose the pharmakos, who were often criminals or undesirable people, to be stoned by the community, banished, and often killed in order to release any anger or violence the community might hold within. The Aztecs chose their scapegoats among their prisoner of war. They would brutally sacrifice their prisoners, tearing them apart, to their gods, who required blood offerings.
Girard notes how our laws and were derived from religious ideas, and that violence is legitimated by religion as well. Our system of laws and punishment replaces these religious ideas of a scapegoat and of sacrifice to stop the ongoing cycle of violence for the greater good of the community.
Nice post! I like your example of the Buddhist Liberation Rite. It is a great example of how law serves to end violence by putting the perpetrator to death, and it is good because it also illustrates how Buddhism is a more peaceful religion. Like you said, the tradition is "a compassionate [one] that allows the victim to achieve enlightenment despite [his or her] wrongdoings." Overall, Buddhism is not as harsh in its punishments as some of the other religions that we have studied. For instance, you mentioned the Greeks and Aztecs, who sacrificed "scapegoats" to better the community. Although such actions were "the norm" for that specific society and culture, it was more harsh than Buddhism. Overall, I agree with you (and Girard) on how some of our laws were derived from religious ideas, and that violence is legitimated by numerous religions.
ReplyDelete