Darlene Fozard Weaver’s entry in our textbook will help us think through the tricky issue of violence as it pertains to the study of religion. She draws upon a number of important frameworks that can be applied to other issues that we have and will study.

The first is Bruce Lincoln’s Four Domains of Religion. Please list and summarize these (pp. 99-100).

Relatedly, define the terms maximalist and minimalist.

Then I’d like you do summarize the following approaches to violence and religion, also defining the relevant key terms that accompany them.

Charles Kimball’s understanding of Religion and Violence

  • corrupt
  • authentic

Hector Avalos on Religion and Violence

  • scarce resources
  • empiricism

Rene Girard on Religion and Violence

  • Desire
  • Mimetic Violence [the war of all against all v. all against one/scapegoat]
  • Jesus
An MPAA movie rating: "R"- Restricted, for graphic bloody violence. Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian

This essay, perhaps more than any we have read thus far, shows the generous side of criticism. You can expose the weaknesses of an author’s argument while honoring its strengths. I see this as a rather advanced skill. This is what the ACE model is supposed to help us do. As such, I am curious on what you make of the essay’s conclusion: 

In sum, the problem is not that religions are ambivalent or hypocritical about violence but that we are… We need to engage in such rehabilitative efforts (re: religion) because we are the ones who may be rehabilitated in doing so. The point is not to “redeem” religious traditions for the sake of the tradition itself, but to clarify our own complicity in violence and cultivate our own commitment to just peacemaking.

p. 112
  • At first glance, what do you make of this quote? (25-50 words)
  • What does it imply or explicitly say about the scholar of religion and the practitioner of religion? (25-50 words)