ABSTRACT
There is a widely held idea that religions, especially those of a monotheistic kind, have deep and violent roots. The spectacular development of politico-religious movements in the final years of the Cold War, and the rise of religious fundamentalisms and terrorism, have only reinforced this interpretation (Juergensmeyer 2000). However, as the theologian William T. Cavanaugh demonstrates, this idea rests on a mythical construction of religion as “transhistorical, transcultural, essentially interior, and essentially distinct from public, secular rationality” (2009, p. 9). The myth would fulfil a dual function, both internal and external, by constructing a fanatical Other in contrast to a peaceful and rational secular subject. In domestic politics, this construction would allow for the marginalisation and controlling of religious groups while externally it would serve to justify wars and military occupations, since there was no room for dialogue when faced with the ‘fanatical’ subject. Moreover, it presupposes that societies which have separated religion from the public sphere are better and more peaceful than those in which religion still has a discernible influence. However, it is true that if we take what is commonly known as the age of extremes, most of the violence associated with this era had something to do with secular ideologies – nationalism, imperialism, Communism, Nazism, and Fascism – more than confessional hatreds (Asad 2003). The myth of the violent nature of religions would have been aimed initially at Christian faiths as rivals of the liberal sate. Currently, the goal of this myth is essentially, although not exclusively, Islam.
