ABSTRACT
In this chapter, the author argues that as religious identities more closely overlap with national identities, the likelihood of religion's support of state sponsored violence increases. In Weber's terms, the modern state "controls the total means of political organization, which actually come together under a single head". The author also argues war-legitimating and war-challenging advocates rhetorically engaged a binary set of symbolic codes with distinct meanings for advocates on either side of the debate. Peace was also understood differently by opponents in the debate. The author describes a model of religion's ambivalence that accounts for both religious identities' semi-autonomy vis-a-vis the nation and religion's polysemic cultural resources for both war and peace. The City on a Hill understanding of America's role in the world tended to inform those who critiqued America's war plans. Coding potential adversaries as evil is absolutely essential in narrating events to make a cultural argument for war.
