Response to the Peace and Justice Education Conference, By Michael VanZandt Collins

Posted on August 2nd, 2010 | Filed under InterViews

In response to the question posed by coordinators of the Peace and Justice Education Conference at Columbia University:

One can argue that we propagate an attitude or culture of violence in a myriad of ways. Surely, those arguments can also be applied to our schools and our religious communities, as well as our society-at-large. Such communities are simply too large and diverse not to produce inequities and attitudes of superiority at some level, subtle, blatant or anywhere in between. What becomes the most vital question for religious communities is whether they can mitigate this inevitability with a lived moral commitment to combat institutions that perpetuate such disadvantages. Perhaps this is a case of wistful historiography, but it seems that only a generation ago religious leaders and activists were at the forefront of peace movements and civil issues.

In recent decades, the political solicitation of religious groups may be contributing to the reluctance of religious leaders to assume the central position in moral campaigns. Through Nixon’s famed Southern strategy, the G.O.P. was able to capitalize on an alienated conservative Christian demographic. Although this is not the first time that political parties pandered to religious communities, in recent years religious communities have become a major forum to advance political platforms rather than organize against moral injustices. This relationship to a structure of power – specifically and especially, to a superpower such as the U.S. government – goes to great lengths in undermining the legitimacy of religious communities.

Thich Nhat Hanh and Daniel Berrigan say as much in the ecumenical book The Raft Is Not the Shore. When religious communities bow to the demands of “power,” it is no longer possible for them to still serve as witness on behalf of their traditions. Nhat Hanh raises the case of Vietnam – at the time immersed in the war against the U.S.A. –, “if you have to choose between Buddhism and peace,” he declares, “then you must choose peace. Because if you choose Buddhism you sacrifice peace, and Buddhism does not accept that.” And so, that imperative has not changed and religious communities must resist the self-serving human impulses and instead seek the ways in which they can help the world.