Destination = Salvation (Eschatological)

Needless to say, every aircraft has a destination even if, on occasion, it never reaches its intended goal. So just where is the aircraft called religion heading?

1. Passengers on the aircraft called religion believe their destination is some form of individual salvation, however defined.

2. In general, however, this salvation is reserved for believers only. Non-believers may not only be excluded from salvation but also doomed to some form of hell or other punishment.

3. The strange thing about this aircraft is that by its nature the passengers, clergy and non-clergy alike, are likely to die before the aircraft reaches its final destination (should it have one).

4. Thus, there is a continual need for the onboard clergy to valorize the deaths of the individual passengers even though they have served as the aircraft’s “bombardier” or “tail-gunner,” allegedly in defense of the aircraft.

5. While in theory the taking of another human life might run counter to the tenets of their faith, in practice it never does (given its defensive nature) and death in mid-air battle becomes if not holy then at least deserving of eternal salvation.

In the United States it is almost given that the President will hold some sort of prayer meeting or breakfast with leading clergy prior to initiating armed conflict. While such events are typically promoted as opportunities to seek God’s guidance, their true purpose is to secure religious support, if not endorsement, for the impending war.

That is to say, by inevitably describing the military effort as a struggle between good and evil, the President seeks to demonstrate that he is about to launch a just war. One can only imagine what might happen if a leading cleric like Billy Graham were to emerge from such a meeting to announce that God had informed him America should not commence hostilities!

Yet, something nearly as dramatic actually happened at the beginning of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Namely, the Catholic Church refused to endorse America’s full-scale invasion as a just war. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first and only time the Roman Catholic Church has withheld its blessing, at least of U.S. war efforts. In an interview with the Vatican-affiliated Zenit News Agency on May 2, 2003, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, restated the position of Pope John Paul II on the Iraq War including the question of just war:

There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war.’

This incident clearly reveals just how hollow the doctrine of just war is in practice. Why? Because according to just war doctrine, a war, any war, must, by definition, be unjust if it is not deemed just. Thus if “there were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq,” it cannot be a just war. But did Pope John Paul take the next logical step and formally declare it to be an unjust war? No, he did not.

Let us imagine for a moment what would have happened had he done so. First, he would have issued a papal encyclical to be read in every Catholic Church in the world. It would have not only declared the U.S. invasion of Iraq to be unjust but any Catholic believer who participated in this war would no longer be in communion with the church, that is they would be excommunicated.

Together with shattering the notion of “For God and Country,” one can easily imagine that the Catholic Church, most especially in the United States, would have split apart, perhaps irretrievably. But, of course, that never happened. On the contrary, as the following news article reveals, Catholic military chaplains, like their Protestant counterparts, continued to minister to the troops in the field:

As American troops cope with life—and death—on a faraway battlefield, military chaplains cope with them, offering prayers, comfort and spiritual advice to keep the American military machine running. … Chaplains help grease the wheels of any soldier’s troubled conscience by arguing that killing combatants is justified.

Capt. Warren Haggray, a 48-year-old Baptist Army chaplain said: “I teach them from the scripture, and in the scripture I can see many times where men were told … to go out and defeat the enemy. This is real stuff. You’re out there and you gotta eliminate that guy, because if you don’t, he’s gonna eliminate you.” “I agree,” said Lt. Cmdr. Paul Shaughnessy, a Navy chaplain and Roman Catholic priest from Worcester, Mass.

In Capt. Haggray’s remarks we see once again the influence of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible with its strong emphasis on a God who both instigates war and authors the directive found in Exodus 21:23-27: “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” What better teachings than these if one wishes to “grease the wheels of any soldier’s troubled conscience.”

However, even the Old Testament does contain a teaching that, at first glance, appears to preclude warfare, namely the Sixth Commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.” Yet, in responding to a query about the meaning of this Commandment, Protestant Air Force Chaplain Major Gary Perry demonstrates that this dictum does not in fact pose any limitation on killing the “bad guys”: I interpret killing as a willful taking of life for personal gain, or because of hate or convenience. I view the military as an institution that when going to war, takes life to save people. …I believe it is sometimes necessary to kill in order to preserve life. Of course, I would always encourage actions short of that.

Once again we see how concern for the wellbeing of others is used to justify killing “in order to preserve life.” What is particularly striking is how closely Major Perry’s thinking parallels Buddhist-inspired terrorists in 1930’s Japan who justified their assassinations of political and financial leaders as an expression of a “mind of great compassion,” claiming that they were “killing one in order that many may live.”[33] Nor should it be forgotten that Sura2:191-92of the Qur’anstates that although “God is forgiving and merciful,” Muslims should nevertheless “fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you … and slay [unbelievers] wherever you find them.”

Today we take the presence of “wheel-greasing” chaplains in the U.S. military as a given. Historically, however, this was not always so. There was a time in the early centuries of the Christian era when Christians were fed to the lions not simply because they were Christians (as is popularly supposed) but because, among other things, their faith led them to refuse military service in the Roman legions. What changed?

What changed was Emperor Constantine’s embrace of an all-powerful, victory-granting Christian God at the Battle of Mulvian Bridge outside Rome on October 28, 312 C.E. This battle marked the turning point in Rome’s persecution of the early Christian community, an event leading to Christianity becoming, for the first time, a state religion. Constantine, however, would extract a price for his magnanimity, namely, Christian laymen had to agree to serve in the military.

On the other hand, Christian clergy would be exempt from military service though with the stipulation that they must pray for victory in battle. In other words, while as holy men they were to remain unarmed, the clergy nevertheless contributed one of the most potent psychological weapons of all to the preservation of soldierly morale—the ability to confer God’s blessing (and protection) on their actions. Out of this Faustian compromise the military chaplaincy was born.

Clearly, military chaplains are far from the only clergy to valorize death on the battlefield. As we saw above with reference to Sgt. Garmback, civilian clergy are ever ready to assure the bereaved families that their fallen son or daughter “is safe at home, at last, at peace.” Eternal salvation is indeed the unquestioned destination and reward for all military passengers on the aircraft called religion.

Airline Owners = The Rich and Powerful (Economic)

While no single carrier, for example United or Delta, or individual can be said to be the owner of the aircraft called religion, this does not mean that there are no owners. Rather, ownership is shared among a select group – the rich and powerful.

1. While lay passengers on the aircraft called religion believe themselves to be in the hands of their “pilot clergy,” the passengers fly only on the routes and to the destinations determined by the aircraft’s owners, that is, the rich and powerful in society.

2. Failing to understand this, lay passengers are readily convinced that by following the calls of their clergy pilots to “fight evil and injustice,” they are defending their faith, not to mention their tribe or country. In reality, however, they promote the economic interests of the aircraft’s owners and their close allies in the political sector.

3. Should clergy pilots stray off the assigned path or inform their passengers of the truth, the aircraft owners will, through withdrawal of financial support, effectively censure or expel them from the aircraft. This threat also serves as a powerful brake on radical critiques of society’s ills.

4. The mutual interdependence between top clergy and the rich and powerful appears to function as a well-oiled, if not harmonious, machine. The only problem is that the cost of this harmony is the death of millions in the name of holy war and its variations.

The reader will recall the earlier words of Thomas Jefferson who wrote, “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.” If this quotation aids in understanding what’s in it for those clerics who collaborate with despots, the question must also be asked what’s in it for the despot (the rich and powerful in this case) who gives material support to the clerics? Since by definition the rich have power, or at least access to it, why do they even bother sharing a portion of their wealth with clerics and their affiliated institutions?

One reason already noted is that, even today, clergy are believed to enjoy a special relationship with the deity or deities. Not unlike shamans in tribal societies, or prophets in the Old Testament, clergy are thought to have special entrée to the Almighty, thereby helping to ensure that the deity will grant blessings to the faithful and their nations, most especially in time of war when victory is paramount.

Even if this were not objectively true, the fact that those engaged in the war believe it to be true is a powerful force in and of itself. Emperor Constantine certainly recognized this, as did Napoleon who famously said, “In war, the moral is to the material as three is to one.” What military leader, then or now, would not want to tap into this moral power, a form of “force multiplier,” that is nearly free for the taking?

Napoleon, however, had more to say, for he recognized two critically important roles that religion played in the service of the rich and powerful. First, “religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet,” and second, “religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.” Taken together it is clear Napoleon recognized that religion also has the power to make humans accept their lot in life no matter how miserable they may be or how unjust the social and economic system they live under is. There is, after all, paradise (with or without virgins) and eternal life to look forward to.

Some readers will see in Napoleon’s words nothing about the true nature of religion but merely the crassly opportunistic viewpoint of a megalomaniacal dictator who sought to twist anything and everything to his grandiose plans for empire. Yet, if this were true, how does one explain the words of yet another great eighteenth-century, military-political leader, George Washington?

At his presidential inauguration in New York City’s St. Paul’s Anglican Chapel in 1789, Washington offered the following prayer: “Almighty God, we make our earnest prayer that thou will keep the United States of America in thy Holy Protection, that thou wilt incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to the government.” [Emphasis mine] In calling on God in this way, isn’t Washington also looking to religion to “keep the common people quiet”? And, coincidentally or not, St. Paul’s Anglican Chapel is today located just around the corner from “Ground Zero.”

Each religion, of course, has different mechanisms for supporting and reinforcing the status quo. Protestant Christianity, for example, has traditionally viewed social and economic inequality and other misfortunes as manifestations of God’s will and/or predestination, both of which are beyond human questioning and understanding. For its part, Hinduism has used caste-affiliation at birth as justification for lifelong discrimination, while in the case of Buddhism, the doctrine of karma justifies not only social and economic inequality but death on the battlefield. For example, in 1941 the Japanese Pure Land scholar-priest Entai Tomomatsu wrote:

Your husband died because of his karma. … It was the inevitability of karma that caused your husband’s death. In other words, your husband was only meant to live for as long as he did. In those bereaved that have recovered their composure, one sees the realization that their husband’s death was due to the consistent working of karma. No one is to blame [for his death] nor is anyone in the wrong. No one bears responsibility for what happened, for it was simply his karma to die.

The rich and powerful, through their political representatives, typically send the youth of their nation off to war under the guise of defending the “national interest.” In reality, however, it is more often than not their own economic interests at home and abroad that are endangered. Thus, it is hardly surprising that economic and political leaders welcome and support a religion whose doctrine states “no one is to blame.”

One of the great ironies in their (mis)use of religion is that it is not at all unusual to find that behind the scenes, and despite their lip service to the contrary, the often morally corrupt rich and powerful despise the clergy and their institutions for their fawning attitude toward them (if not the challenge they present, at least in theory, to their self-indulgent lifestyles). For example, to his confidents, Hitler revealed his true attitude toward both Catholics and Protestants. About Protestants, Hitler said:

The Protestants haven’t the faintest conception of a church. You can do anything you like to them—they will submit. They’re used to cares and worries. They learnt them from their squires. The parsons, when they were invited to the Sunday roast goose, had their place at the foot of the table, amongst the children and tutors.

It was even an honor that they were not asked to sit at the servants’ table. They are insignificant little people, submissive as dogs, and they sweat with embarrassment when you talk to them. They have neither a religion that they can take seriously nor a great position to defend like Rome.

As for Catholics, Hitler claimed:

I am a Catholic. Certainly that was fated from the beginning, for only a Catholic knows the weaknesses of the Church. … If I wished to, I could destroy the Church in a few years; it is hollow and rotten and false through and through. One push and the whole structure would collapse. We should trap the priests by their notorious greed and self-indulgence.

We shall thus be able to settle everything with them in perfect peace and harmony. I shall give them a few years’ reprieve. Why should we quarrel? They will swallow anything in order to keep their material advantages. … They are no fools. The Church was something really big. Now we’re its heirs. We, too, are a Church. Its day has gone. It will not fight.

As today’s incarnation of everything “evil,” it would be easy to summarily dismiss Hitler’s description of both (German) Protestant and Catholic Churches. However, when the wartime words and actionsof these two institutions are examined, it becomes clear that there is more than a grain of truth in Hitler’s description.

One of the greatest siren songs for religious leaders favored by the rich and powerful is the opportunity such leaders appear to have to influence political affairs in accordance with the tenets of their faith. In return, all the religious leaders have to do is vouchsafe the morality of government policies, especially in times of war, and valorize the unjust economic system on which these policies are typically based.

rue, there have been authentic religious heroes like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who refused to be co-opted, but he paid a high price for his steadfastness—death. And in the context of this article, it should be noted that Dr. King was, at least initially, a black man leading a movement for racial equality for black people. As praiseworthy and just as his struggle was, it was not unrelated to a tribal mentality.

Be that as it may, how many clerics are prepared to pay the same price for social and economic justice as Dr. King? And in the meantime, how many common folk must die because large numbers of the world’s religious leaders delude themselves into believing they haven’t been co-opted, even as they enjoy the material comforts of their calling, that is, the crumbs at the table of their benefactors?

Manufacturer = Evolution (Biological)

Finally, just who or what was it that created the aircraft called religion? While this article takes no position on first causes, it is nevertheless true that once the biological process began on planet earth, the evolutionary process that accompanied it has had momentous impact on the nature of the “aircraft” born out of it. The chief characteristics of this process are:

1. Although evolution does not address first causes, it does suggest that groups, like individuals, may change and adapt over the ages to better ensure their ongoing existence.

2. If, as scholars of evolution like David Wilson claim, religion is a product of group adaptation, then the emergence of tribal religions and their successors, universal religions, must play some role in successful group adaptation.

3. Historically, it is clear that such values as group loyalty, cohesion and altruism have been fostered by religion in ever-expanding groupings.

4. Holy War may therefore be seen as altruistic action designed to: a) destroy outer threats to the group, while b) valorizing death as the ultimate act of sacrifice on behalf of the larger group.

5. The key question then becomes, Can biological evolution help move us to the point where one’s “group” expands still further to include the collective welfare of all human beings and living things?

Viewed from an evolutionary viewpoint, one, if not the greatest, contribution of universal religions has been their ability to enable the community of believers to successfully adapt to the real world. While the same thing could once be said of tribal religions, the major and fundamental difference is that universal religions opened, in theory if not always in practice, the community of believers to participation from any tribal, racial or ethnic group, though always at a price, that is converts were expected to change their lives in accordance with the tenets of their new faith and conform to the norms of their adopted community.

For example, as David Wilson described in Darwin’s Cathedral, prior to the advent of the Protestant Reformation, the city-state of Geneva was torn apart by internal discord among its disparate inhabitants. However, when city leaders adopted Calvinism, a new sense of unity and purpose was acquired with the result that “the city assumed an importance in world affairs out of all proportion to its economic significance.” John McNeill explained how this was accomplished:

Notwithstanding the repressive discipline, harsh laws, and paternalistic controls, the positive and constructive elements of Calvin’s system were becoming more and more effective. The people of Geneva listened to preaching several times weekly. A new generation was arising, trained in Calvin’s Sunday school, instructed by his sermons, able to recite his catechism, to sing the Psalter, and to read the Bible with understanding. Possibly no community had ever before existed so well indoctrinated and broken to discipline.

This was not, of course, the first time Christianity had played a unifying role in Europe. Christianity had contributed, as the name suggests, to the creation of the Holy Roman Empire (CE 800-1806), generally recognized as a relatively well-balanced mechanism for uniting a multitude of contending European states.

Yet, this empire also marked the appearance of a series of Christian Crusades to the Holy Land and within Europe itself (against allegedly heretical forms of Christianity) that lasted from the eleventh through the thirteenth century. According to the Catholic Church, the Crusades also contributed to the further unification of not only Europe but of the world itself. The [Old] Catholic Encyclopedia states:

Notwithstanding their final overthrow, the Crusades hold a very important place in the history of the world. Essentially the work of the popes, these Holy Wars first of all helped to strengthen pontifical authority; they afforded the popes an opportunity to interfere in the war between Christian princes, while the temporal and spiritual privileges which they conferred upon crusaders virtually made the latter their subjects.

It was the spirit of the true crusader that animated Christopher Columbus when he undertook his perilous voyage to the then unknown Americas, and Vasco de Gama when he set out in quest of India. If, indeed, the Christian civilization of Europe has become universal culture, in the highest sense, the glory redounds, in no small measure, to the Crusades.

Readers well acquainted with the modern history of the Catholic Church will no doubt take exception to the above portrayal of the Church’s understanding of the Crusades. For the preceding reference is indeed outdated, in that it was contained in a Church-approved publication issued between 1907-14. Today, thanks to a reconsideration of the historical relationship between Christians and Muslims set in motion by the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), the church has undergone a major change in its outlook. Paul Johnson, an English Catholic Church historian, now describes the Crusades as follows:

The crusades were not missionary ventures but wars of conquest and primitive experiments in colonization; and the only specific Christian institutions they produced, the three knightly orders, were military. … A crusade was in essence nothing more than a mob of armed and fanatical Christians. Once its numbers rose to over 10,000 it could no longer be controlled, only guided. It might be used to attack Moslems, or unleashed against Jews, or heretics. … The fall of Jerusalem [in 1097] was followed by a prolonged and hideous massacre of Moslems and Jews, men, women and children. …

In general, the effect of the crusades was to undermine the intellectual content of Islam, to destroy the chances of peaceful adjustment to Christianity, and to make the Moslems far less tolerant: crusading fossilized Islam into a fanatic posture. The typical response in the West, especially in the United States, to the Crusades is to regard them as ancient history. “Why do Muslims keep harping about things that happened hundreds of years ago?” is an oft-heard refrain. When, in Iraq or Afghanistan, Muslim “extremists” refer to U.S. and Western allied soldiers as “crusaders,” this is seen as yet further proof of their fanaticism, grasping at straws to justify their barbaric acts of terrorism.

While there is no doubt an element of truth in this attitude, religious scholar Karen Armstrong points out:

The wars in the Middle East today are becoming more like the Crusades. … They are “holy” war because they are fought on issues that are felt to be sacred by all three participants [the West, Israel, and Arabs], and they could be seen as the last round in a long and bitter process that began when the European Crusaders attacked Muslims and Jews at a period when the West was finding its soul.

If Armstrong is correct, the first question that must be asked is what has been the cost of Western “soul-finding” in terms of the innocent blood that was shed to accomplish it? Further, what guarantee is there, if any, that the current conflicts occurring in the Middle East are indeed the last round?

For some, the most attractive aspect of evolution is its scientific nature, for it suggests the inevitable development of lower life forms to higher, thereby allowing observers to relax and let nature take its course. Thus, inasmuch as tribal religion was limited in its scope and worldview, the advent of universal religions, by definition, seems to be a giant step in the right direction. If allegedly universal religions are, nevertheless, still heavily tribal in nature, can anyone doubt that the next evolutionary step in the process of successful adaptation will be for universal religions to truly live up to their universality?

In fact, evolutionary records indicate that numerous species have not evolved, at least not successfully, and therefore became extinct along the way. The impact of meteors, volcanic eruptions, changes in climate, and so on, have had far-reaching, sometimes catastrophic, consequences on biological organisms, humans included. Viewed in this light, there is no objective evidence to suggest that the evolutionary process really cares, let alone guarantees, that any of the multitudes of species it has produced will evolve successfully or continue to exist thousands, let alone tens of thousands, of years from now.

If indeed the evolutionary process is the manufacturer of the aircraft called religion, it must be identified, at least from a human perspective, as amoral in nature, that is, adapt and survive or fail to adapt and perish. Yet if this appears as a bleak prospect for the human species, it does not in any way prevent humans and the religions they embrace from genuinely embracing and acting in accordance with the universal values their respective religions claim to represent.

At this moment, we find ourselves staring into the abyss of a “clash of civilizations,” endless “wars on terrorism,” and the ongoing possibility of nuclear conflagration. It is no exaggeration to say that the collective conscious decision, most especially by the faithful of all religions, to take the next step in the evolutionary process may well be ‘make or break’ time for the human species.

Failure to make this adaptation may lead, in another 65 million years or so, to the successors of homo sapiens (should there be any) displaying our bones next to those of dinosaurs and other extinct species in their museums of “natural science.” The decision is in our hands, for we are the first species that has the ability (should we chose to exercise it) to consciously direct the evolutionary process to a successful, not to mention humane, outcome.
 

Conclusion

In summary, the key universal characteristics of holy war are:

1. The individual, tribe, nation is able to access an unseen power or deity that exercises supernatural power to ensure victory for its followers, and, by definition, is more powerful than any other (false) deity or deities.

2. Soldiers are regarded as “instruments” of that deity or power, facilitating, if not requiring, “selfless” acts of courage. Since their acts are in accord with the deity’s will, combatants are freed from taking personal responsibility for their acts.

3. Military acts are sacred, just, moral, and compassionate, no matter how horrific or self-serving they may be (both for oneself, one’s nation, and the enemy); for such acts are seen as part of a holy struggle against evil in accordance with transcendent goals and in the service of justice, peace, human redemption, civilization, if not human progress. Facts and fact-based logic no longer apply.

4. The result is a sense of moral certainty, if not moral superiority, in the combatants themselves and the nations they serve in that their religious faith removes doubts about the necessity of their destructive acts, thereby effectively serving as a “force multiplier,” enhancing the fighting spirit and dedication of both combatants and their civilian supporters.

5. Should physical death occur on the battlefield, clergy valorize it as according with the deity’s transcendental goals (even if, as is typically the case, those goals are claimed to transcend human understanding).

6. Further, physical death on the battlefield is seen as guaranteeing some form of eternal life or life beyond death for the slain, a just reward for their loyalty to the deity (and the country, people, or religion the deity favors).

In closing, let me once again reiterate that I have deliberately set out to portray the dark side of religion, fully prepared to acknowledge that there is an equally compelling bright side as well. Yet, it is not religion’s bright side that contributes so significantly to the ongoing carnage in our world, past, present (and future?). If you were to ask if the dark side can ever be eliminated, my honest answer is that I don’t know. Nevertheless, I am fully convinced that unless and until those who believe in one or another of the universal religions are prepared to first recognize and then confront the dark side of their own faith, no substantial progress can be made in separating religion from sacralized violence.

There may be readers who imagine that the problem is far less difficult or complicated than described above, especially in a country like the United States. Inasmuch as one of the founding principles of this nation is the separation of church and state, why not just further strengthen the separation that already exists. For example, why not simply eliminate the role of chaplains in the U.S. military if indeed their role is to “grease the wheels of any soldier’s troubled conscience.” Unfortunately, such a proposal is unrealistic, most especially in the United States where religion plays such an important role in national life. As Jacob Neusner noted, “Because religion is comprehensive, it is fundamentally about power and therefore cannot avoid politics. Religion has the ability to ground the use of force in a cosmic and moral order; therefore, _religion constitutes the ultimate legitimation of any political system.”

Given, at least for the foreseeable future, the inevitable involvement of religion in the political realm, the question to be addressed is the willingness of persons of goodwill to actively and resolutely rectify those aspects of their respective faiths that contribute to human suffering in its multiple forms. This willingness is most acute as it relates to the massive slaughter of humankind associated with modern warfare, but it extends to all forms of human oppression and injustice. In closing, I leave the last word to Rabbi David Gordis, president of the Hebrew College of Boston. He laid down the challenge that adherents of all the world’s major religions must grapple with if their respective faiths are to reach their full potential, i.e. to become truly universal in nature:

More than ever before … independent religious communities and cultures must come to terms with the reality of the interdependence of all humanity. Prior to our identity as Jew, Christian or Muslim, prior to our identity as male or female, as Indian, British or American, is our fundamental human identity. Both the nobility and the tragedy of human experience are universal. They cross religious and national lines. This must be part of the religious insight and teaching of all religious traditions. Our very survival on this planet is dependent on our successfully navigating this [terrain].

Notes

The use of the word “tribal” here is not intended as a pejorative, i.e. as a synonym for a society that is “primitive,” “backward” or “uncivilized.” Rather, the referent is to a social system where human society is divided into small, roughly independent subgroups, called tribes. Tribal societies lacked any organizational level beyond that of the local tribe and appear to be the first social system that human beings ever lived in, lasting much longer than any other kind of society to date.

Closely connected, yet distinct from “tribal,” is “tribalism,” used in this article to refer to the possession of a strong cultural or ethnic identity that separates oneself as a member of one group from the members of another. This phenomenon is related to the concept of tribal society in that it is a precondition for members of a tribe to possess a strong feeling of identity for a true tribal society to form. The distinction between these two terms is important because, while tribal society no longer strictly exists in the western world, tribalism, as defined here, is arguably undiminished.

Some scholars have postulated that the human brain is hard-wired towards tribalism due to its evolutionary advantages. Whether or not this is true, I argue that “tribalism” clearly lives on in and through the modern state or nation and, concurrently, in allegedly universal religions as well. It should be noted, however, that in modern nations, tribalism is typically referred to as “nationalism.” The difference between these two terms is that while ethnically chauvinistic nationalism does exist, modern nationalism also has the ability to join disparate ethnic and racial groups into a unified whole, albeit a whole that continues to act, especially when endangered by a perceived enemy, on the basis of tribalism, i.e. “us” versus “them.”