By Geoffrey Sorensen

The relationship between religion and violence has been greatly debated in recent years with the nation’s increased awareness of international terrorism. The question of whether violence is a valid product of religion was the topic of the Distinguished Faculty Lecture last Wednesday. The lecture, which is the 28th since the series started in 1981, was titled: “In the Name of God: The Evolution of Religious Ethics and Violence.”

Dr. John Teehan, associate professor of philosophy, presented his thesis: “Religious morality and religious violence are both authentic expressions of religion.”

He began the lecture with quotes from President George W. Bush and terrorists Mohammad Atta and Osama bin Laden that showed how religion is used to justify certain acts of violence.

“Violence in the name of religion is not a perversion of religion,” he said. They both stem from the same source of evolutionary logic underlying religious ethics.

Religions exist to codify a set of moral standards. They then create signs of commitment, such as observation of the Sabbath and dietary laws, which serve to identify who belongs to the “within group” and who does not. Those in the “within group” are treated differently than those who are not.

Gods are often portrayed as “full-access strategic agents” who are aware of everything each person does. This is so that the god is allowed to “reward and protect cooperators while punishing the cheaters,” Teehan said.

“Thou shall not kill” in the Ten Commandments is not always practiced by those who follow Judaism and Christianity. An example of this would be a listing of some of the crimes that were once punishable by death: murder, adultery, blasphemy, profanity against the religion and the cursing of one’s parents. Capital punishment is set up to “restore the imbalance created by threats from the ‘within group,'” Teehan said.

“An eye for an eye” is the flipside of “do unto others.” Teehan said. A more accurate translation of the Commandment would be, “Thou shall not murder.”

Teehan said Islam implies God is on the side of its followers while non-believers are on the side of Satan, apparently leaving the door wide-open for violence against those who do not share the same religious beliefs. Muslims may not kill other Muslims, but Teehan said there is no such prohibition of a Muslim killing a non-Muslim. Some Muslims hold the belief that Muslims who support the United States are taking themselves out of the “within group” and are essentially aligning themselves with Satan, making them subject to murder just as a non-Muslim would be.

In the days after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 President Bush said, “In this struggle, God is not neutral.”

This statement implied the terrorists were not acting with accordance of their supposed religion. Teehan argued there is no paradox of the idea of peaceful religions because the purpose of morality has evolved to promote pro-social “within group” behavior and to define and defend group boundaries.