Political Science

Examine the statements about contemporary religion put forth by James Carroll. He appears to believe that, under the proper conditions, religion can be a positive force in international affairs. Would you agree or disagree with this notion

James Caroll (2003) argues that religion and the social order of the contemporary world cannot be separated. He suggests that the fate of the world depends on religious reform that includes a healthy critique of long-held absolute truth claims of each religion. While acknowledging religions role in past as well as contemporary global violence such as the September 11th attacks, the American War on Terror, the fight over territory in the West Bank and even the seemingly secular nuclear recklessness of North Korea, Carroll also argues that all the major religions of the world simultaneously possess the capacity for peace and harmony. Inherently, most religions promote compassion, social justice, charity, and love. However, most are also prone to triumphalism, which is the notion that one particular dogma of a religion is superior to, and victorious over, all others. The conditions Carroll argue for to achieve positivity in international affairs includes an introspective project on the part of religious adherents to reinvestigate their basic tenets in light of the existence of other religions and the fact of religious violence. Believers of all faiths must reexamine their truth claims and seek to maintain their beliefs that do not simultaneously denigrate the different tenets of faith held by others (Carroll, 2003, pg. 11). Is this nave thinking Can such deep religious introspection really occur and subsequently result in increased world peace

While Carroll cites examples of hope in this regard, including new efforts on the part of the Catholic Church, Islam, as well as Jews, I find it difficult to agree that such efforts are going to produce a new pool of believers who maintain their religious beliefs alongside a genuine respect for other religions that will ultimately result in religious harmony. A few efforts on the part of some believers to review their religion represent a weak case for religions role as a positive feature of international relations. Much of this response has occurred in the aftermath of an embarrassing expose for these religions, which reduces their opportunities to gain converts. So in my opinion, this religious introspection is happening because of religious self-interest, not based on a true desire to coexist peacefully in a religiously plural world. I understand that Carroll might suggest that even if this is not the explicit intention of these believers, it may result in world peace, but I argue that if the goal of these believers is not world peace through mutual religious tolerance of other beliefs systems, then religion will continue to play a negative role in internal affairs, even if it also continues to provide comfort, explanations, and humility for its individual believers.