Religion, Peace and Conflict: Peacemaking and Modern Conflict

Religion has been cited as a cause of conflict throughout history and in the contemporary world. Students need to analyse why, and whether this judgement is fair.

Ways in which religion and belief have contributed to conflict:

• Competing truth claims: when different religious groups each believe they alone possess the truth, this can create intolerance and hostility. Historical examples include the Wars of Religion in 16th–17th century Europe between Catholics and Protestants.
• Land and identity: many conflicts involve land that is considered sacred by more than one tradition — the Israeli-Palestinian conflict involves competing religious, ethnic, and national claims over Jerusalem and the West Bank.
• Extremism: small groups within larger traditions adopt violent interpretations of scripture. The September 11 attacks (2001) were carried out by individuals claiming Islamic justification, though mainstream Islam condemns them.
• Religious nationalism: when national identity is fused with religious identity, opposing the nation becomes opposing God — this has motivated conflict in Northern Ireland (Catholic/Protestant), the Balkans, and elsewhere.

Counter-argument — religion as a force for peace: Many religious leaders and organisations actively work against violence. Religious communities have provided the moral frameworks for peace movements, civil rights campaigns, and reconciliation processes. The claim that religion causes war often reflects the actions of political leaders who exploit religion, rather than the teachings of the traditions themselves.

Key point for the exam: Religion is rarely the sole cause of conflict. Political, economic, and ethnic factors are almost always intertwined with religious ones. Good exam answers acknowledge this complexity.

Nuclear weapons are weapons that derive their destructive force from nuclear reactions — either fission (atomic bombs) or fusion (hydrogen bombs). They cause massive, indiscriminate destruction through blast, heat, and radiation.

Nuclear deterrence is the policy of maintaining nuclear weapons not to use them, but to prevent attack by the threat of retaliation. The doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) holds that if both sides would be destroyed in a nuclear exchange, neither will start one.

Arguments for nuclear deterrence:

• It has prevented a direct war between major nuclear powers since 1945
• Stability through credible deterrence — the fear of retaliation prevents aggression
• Some Christian ethicists argue deterrence is an unfortunate necessity in a dangerous world

Arguments against nuclear weapons and deterrence:

Argument	Detail
Indiscriminate killing	Nuclear weapons cannot distinguish between combatants and civilians — violating just war's non-combatant immunity principle
Disproportionate harm	The scale of nuclear destruction far exceeds any military objective — violating proportionality
Environmental catastrophe	Nuclear war would cause long-term environmental damage affecting generations and non-human creation
Reliance on threat	Deterrence depends on willingness to commit mass murder — most religious traditions regard this intention as sinful
Accident risk	Deterrence requires no technical failure, miscalculation, or rogue actor — a permanent risk

The Catholic Church declared in the Second Vatican Council (1965) that nuclear weapons used indiscriminately are "a crime against God and humanity." Most mainstream Christian churches support nuclear disarmament. The Quakers are absolutely opposed. Islam's prohibition on killing civilians makes nuclear weapons deeply problematic under Islamic law.

The three spec issues: weapons of mass destruction is one of the three issues requiring contrasting Christian and one other religion's views.

Weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) include nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons — all capable of killing large numbers of people indiscriminately.

Biological weapons — diseases or toxins deployed against populations. Chemical weapons — toxic chemicals (nerve agents, mustard gas) used against combatants or civilians.

Religious and ethical arguments against WMDs:

• Sanctity of life: all three Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) teach that human life is sacred and may not be taken arbitrarily. WMDs kill civilians wholesale — a direct violation.
• Non-combatant immunity: the principle (central to just war and Islamic rules of war) that civilians must not be deliberately targeted. WMDs cannot be targeted; they kill indiscriminately.
• Stewardship of creation: Christianity teaches that God gave humans responsibility for the created world (Genesis 2:15). Using WMDs to poison land, water, and air violates this duty. Islam similarly values the earth as a trust (amanah) from God.
• Proportionality: the harm caused by WMDs in almost any conceivable scenario would vastly outweigh any military benefit.

Islamic perspective: The Prophet Muhammad's rules for warfare prohibited the destruction of crops, trees, and the environment, and the killing of women, children, and the elderly. Chemical and biological weapons, which are inherently indiscriminate, violate these principles comprehensively.

Humanist/non-religious perspective: Humanists oppose WMDs on the grounds that human life has intrinsic value and mass killing cannot be justified by any political or military goal. The principle of minimising suffering makes WMDs indefensible.

Religious traditions have produced prominent peacemakers who drew explicitly on their faith to pursue justice without violence.

Martin Luther King Jr. (1929–1968)

King was a Baptist minister who led the American civil rights movement. His approach was rooted in Christian teaching:

• Agape (unconditional love) — love even for enemies, modelled on Jesus' teaching
• Non-violence — inspired by Gandhi's satyagraha (truth-force), itself rooted in Hindu and Jain principles
• The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7) — "blessed are the peacemakers"; "love your enemies"

King's Letter from Birmingham Jail (1963) argued that unjust laws need not be obeyed — echoing Christian teaching on conscience and justice. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964. His assassination in 1968 did not end the movement he inspired.

Desmond Tutu (1931–2021) — Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town and chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in post-apartheid South Africa. Tutu argued that forgiveness and reconciliation — Christian virtues — were the only path to national healing after apartheid. He explicitly drew on the Christian concept of ubuntu (humanity through community) alongside scripture.

Other examples: The Dalai Lama's non-violent advocacy for Tibet; Malala Yousafzai's work for girls' education (influenced by Islamic values of justice and learning); peace organisations such as the Catholic peace movement Pax Christi.

Religious organisations provide humanitarian aid to those affected by war — refugees, the injured, the bereaved, and displaced communities.

Islamic Relief Worldwide — one present-day religious organisation providing substantial responses to war victims.

Founded in 1984 in Birmingham, Islamic Relief is one of the world's largest Muslim humanitarian organisations. It operates in over 40 countries and provides:

• Emergency food, water, and shelter for refugees and displaced people
• Rebuilding of homes, schools, and health facilities in conflict zones
• Orphan and widow support programmes
• Long-term development programmes to rebuild communities after conflict

Religious motivation: Islamic Relief is explicitly motivated by Islamic teachings. Zakat (one of the Five Pillars of Islam — charitable giving of 2.5% of savings) funds much of its work. The Qur'an commands care for orphans, the poor, and the displaced: "And they give food, in spite of love for it, to the poor, the orphan, and the captive." (Qur'an 76:8)

Other examples of religious organisations responding to war:

• Christian Aid — supports communities affected by conflict, providing food, clean water, and livelihoods
• CAFOD (Catholic Agency for Overseas Development) — funded by the Catholic Church, works in conflict zones
• The Red Cross — founded by Henri Dunant whose Christian faith motivated him; operates on humanitarian principles

Exam tip: When answering a question on a religious organisation's response to war, name the organisation, describe at least two specific things it does, and explain how its work is motivated by religious teaching. Vague answers ("they help people") score poorly.

The 12-mark question in Theme D may ask whether religion does more to cause conflict than to promote peace, or evaluate specific claims about war, pacifism, or WMDs. Here is a framework for such answers:

Arguments that religion promotes peace:

• Religious peacemakers (King, Tutu, Gandhi) have changed history through non-violent means rooted in faith
• Religious organisations (Islamic Relief, Christian Aid, CAFOD) provide the largest non-governmental humanitarian responses to war
• All major religious traditions teach the sanctity of life and the wrongness of killing innocents
• Just war theory has constrained how wars are fought for centuries

Arguments that religion causes conflict:

• Religious identity has been exploited to motivate war — the Crusades, sectarian violence in Northern Ireland, IS terrorism
• Absolute claims to divine authority can make compromise (the basis of peacemaking) harder
• Religious extremism has inspired numerous terrorist attacks in the 21st century

Balanced conclusion: religion is neither inherently violent nor inherently peaceful. Its impact depends on how its teachings are interpreted and by whom. The overwhelming majority of religious believers, guided by their traditions, reject violence and support peacemaking.

1. Confusing nuclear deterrence with the use of nuclear weapons

Deterrence is the threat of using weapons to prevent their use by others. Many people and religious groups who oppose the use of nuclear weapons debate whether deterrence is morally acceptable — these are different positions. Show you understand the distinction.

2. Saying "all Christians oppose war"

Christianity has pacifist traditions (Quakers) but also a long history of just war thinking. Most mainstream denominations do not take an absolute pacifist stance. Demonstrate the diversity within Christian thought.

3. Misrepresenting jihad

Jihad does not mean "holy war." It means "struggle" — primarily the internal struggle to live righteously. The lesser jihad (physical fighting) is subject to strict rules and conditions. Reducing jihad to violent warfare misrepresents Islamic teaching and will be penalised.

4. Describing a religious organisation without linking it to religious teaching

Simply naming an organisation and listing its activities scores limited marks. The key is to explain why the organisation acts as it does — which religious teachings or principles motivate it.

5. Ignoring the complexity of religion as a cause of war

Saying "religion causes war" without qualification is too simple. Political, economic, and ethnic factors are almost always present. The most sophisticated answers acknowledge that religion is often used as a justification for conflicts that have multiple causes.