Religion and Tyranny?

I was surfing at lunchtime (as usual) and found myself in one of those long linking exercises that brought me (eventually) to two rather excellent web sites at the University of Virginia. The first was Religious Movements and the second was Religious Freedom.

Both are chock full of interesting stuff, but one statement on the Religious Freedom page almost made me choke on my salad. Then, after rereading the page, I was uncertain if I was misinterpreting what it meant. In any case I sent off the following comment asking for some clarification. Given the length of time since the page was last updated, I don’t really expect an answer.


This is an excellent web site and raises some fascinating questions related to religion in public life.

I’m just beginning to explore the site but the following statement on the “Introduction” page brought my exploration to a screeching halt and I was wondering if I could get some clarification.

“On the matter of religious freedom, however, I have not hesitated to state my belief that religion is the final line of defense against every form of tyranny, including religious tyranny.” – Religious Freedom Page

Do you really mean “religion is the final line of defense” or Religious Freedom is the “final line of defense?” I can understand the latter position, but I’m stunned at the implications of the former position. If you really mean that Religious Freedom is the final defense, then please ignore the remainder of these comments.

I find the idea of religion as a defense against tyranny an absolutely fascinating position and I’m certain you have justification for believing this to be the case. Would you care to point me toward that justification?

To be honest with you I would have said that religion represents not a “defense against…tyranny” but rather one of the most heinous forms of tyranny every devised by man. I offer the history of religion and the well known quotations from Marx, Seneca and Napoleon as well as your own quotation in the introduction as justification.

“Religion is the opiate of the masses.” – Marx

“Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.” – Napoleon

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." – Seneca the Younger

“To be sure, through the ages people have also been motivated, in the name of God, to commit heinous acts beyond imagination. And, similarly, others have sought to persecute, and even eliminate, other groups because they professed to believe in a God unfamiliar to the dominant culture.” – Religious Freedom Page

Throughout history religion has tended to be a willing partner of tyranny as even a cursory review of the history of the middle ages will show. There have been INDIVIDUALS, often quoting religious justifications, that have had the courage to oppose tyranny, but I can’t think of too many instances where religion itself has provided any opposition.

I might also suggest that while Martin Luther King and others have historically appealed to some “higher law” in the face of what they consider to be injustice, I don’t believe there has ever been any agreement about what that “higher law” might be. If I remember correctly, the KKK appealed to a higher law as well and Waffen SS troopers wore belts with the motto “Gott mit uns.” So does the “higher law” support King, the Grand Wizard or Hitler?

Everybody is convinced that God is on their side. Established religion tends to side with the guys that have the biggest sticks. Again, let me emphasize that I’m not referring to individual men of God; I’m referring to religion itself. It’s a little difficult to envision a philosophy that teaches reward in the next world as compensation for suffering in this one as anything but, at best, a tool of tyranny or, at worst, tyranny itself.

Specifically in regard to the Civil Rights movement of the 60’s, I would have to ask are we talking about Blacks, some of whom happen to be Christians, or Christians who happen to be Black? I suspect that we are really talking about Blacks whose religion was, in reality, only incidental to what was a political and racial struggle. At the same time Southern Whites, including men of the cloth, were using Genesis 9:24-27 as a justification for segregation as it had been used 100 years earlier as a justification for slavery.

The fact is that people willing to place themselves in danger in order to correct what is wrong are the ONLY defense against tyranny. Perhaps in some cases it was religion, or their interpretation of religion, that inspired folks to take such a stand, but I can’t think of any instances where the religious establishment itself took such a position.

I note that the web page has not been updated since prior to September 11, 2001, (so perhaps I’m sending my thoughts to the wind, but I’ve found that capturing thoughts is often a useful exercise even if no one else ever hears them) how do those events relate to your idea of religion as a defense against tyranny? How do the possible religious motivations behind Bush’s decision to invade Iraq relate to it? How do the ongoing suicide bombing incidents in Iraq and the Middle East relate to it?

How do you reconcile the agenda of the Religious Right in the United States, discrimination against gays, the elimination of a woman’s right to choose and replacing the science of evolution with adherence to the book of Genesis with the idea of religion as a defense against tyranny? The Religious Right is clearly trying to mold American Society to their concept of morality using religion as a justification. Is this a “defense against…tyranny” or an act of tyranny in itself?

One cannot pick and choose only those initiatives that one admires while dismissing less admirable initiatives as a corruption of religion. One has to consider the totality of religion’s impact upon society. I doubt that Galileo, Hypatia, the victims of the Inquisition, the victims of the witch hunts and the Native American cultures would agree that religion is a “defense against…tyranny.”