"Does religious involvement increase or reduce the likelihood of committing partner violence?" This question is found in an article in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (Vol. 40, No. 2 [Jun., 2001], pp. 269-286). The article, "Religious Involvement and Domestic Violence among U.S. Couples", was written by Christopher G. Ellison and Kristin L. Anderson. They cite a study done in '86 which found that, among nearly 1,000 New Zealand families, "self-reported religious attendance of parents (both fathers and mothers) is inversely related to their self-reported perpetration of domestic assaults." They also cite a study done in '92 which found no correlation between religious attendance and domestic violence in Canada. And finally, they cite a study done in '99 in the U.S. which found that "both men and women who attend religious services regularly are less likely to commit acts of domestic violence than persons who attend rarely or not at all." They then consider the possibility that there may be no real correlation between religious involvment and domestic violence. This is because of the possibility of a social desirability bias. The studies which found a correlation used self-reporting, which could cause some to over-report religious involvement and under-report violent acts. But assuming that the correlation does in fact exist, Ellison and Anderson go on to consider the mechanism by which religion may reduce domestic violence. They think this could be done by religion (1) increasing levels of social integration and support, (2) reducing the likelihood of alcohol or substance abuse, and (3) decreasing the risk of psychological problems.
I think it actually is a good possibility that there is a correlation between religious involvement and violence. (However, I did find another article that looks at the empirical evidence out there that would support Durkheim's argument, that religion inhibits suicide but encourages outward violence: http://www.chronline.org/PDFs/HRWG%20Proceedings%202001.pdf#page=175) I'm wondering, though, if this is a result of the role that religion merely plays at the moment or if it's a role that only religion can play. In other words, if people who are (all things being equal) going to be decent, upstanding citizens feel the need to go to church or synagogue or temple or whatever *as an expression of their moral commitment*, then we are going to get a correlation without a necessary causal connection. Decent people are the kind of people who will feel the need to be involved in a religion. Religions may not necessarily be making people decent.
I think the most important part of Ellison and Anderson's evaluation is mechanism (1). Are religions necessary to provide social integration and support? (I appologize for not providing a link to the article. I don't think it's freely available online.)
Having no concrete evidence that there is a correlation between religious involvement and violence leaves us with our own observation. I believe there is a correlation on both sides of the spectrum. Religion is a very strong belief in something therefore creates a strong passion. Whenever an area of passion is violated one can lose control. Take for instance the Town meetings of some Democratic Congressmen that have been in the news lately. There has been such a disruption of violent protests that some are canceling their meetings. The extreme right (I am speaking both politically and religiously) have such a strong passion because they feel they are not only standing for their country but for God--now that the country is going a different direction seem to be losing some self control and violence erupts. On the other hand a religion whose belief system and passion is more focused on character such as Buddists or some christians who truly get Jesus teachings will allow stress and controversy to motivate them to be peacemakers. We see both of these response in Islam as well.
ReplyDelete