Dalai Lama defines religious violence out of existence

This week, the Dalai Lama engaged in more mealy-mouthed bullshit that went viral because it’s telling many people what they want to hear. In condemning religious violence (yay DL?) he said that anyone partaking in violent activities is not a genuine practitioner of their religion. Here’s a quick quote from This Independent article:

Buddhist terrorist. Muslim terrorist. That wording is wrong, Any person who wants to indulge in violence is no longer a genuine Buddhist or genuine Muslim, because it is a Muslim teaching that once you are involved in bloodshed, actually you are no longer a genuine practitioner of Islam. All major religious traditions carry the same message: a message of love, compassion, forgiveness, tolerance, contentment, self-discipline – all religious traditions.

I’ve written before about (ok, against) the Dalai Lama (see these posts). I’ve also covered No-True-Scotsmansing when applied to religion and the specific problem with saying ISIS “aren’t Muslim”. But this is next level — he is without a trace of self-awareness defining religious violence out of existence.

Let’s be charitable-ish and reconstruct the–ahem–argument:

1. All major world religions carry the same message
2. That message is of love, compassion, forgiveness, tolerance, contentment, self-discipline
3. That message constitutes theessence of the religion
4. Anyone indulging in violence is going against this message (and hence the essence of the religion)
5. This means they’re not a true practitioner of their religion.

Unfortunately for his “holiness”, every part of that is bullshit.

1. This is a deepity. To the extent that it’s true, it’s trivial (most religions probably have teachings about ethics, our place in the universe etc.). To the extent that it’s profound, it’s false and very insulting to the complexity of human existence. Also note that he specified “major religion,” maybe he realises that saying “all religions” here is too ridiculous.
2. Different religions have some pretty varied attitudes to love, compassion self-discipline etc. That’s why the Wikipedia entry on religious views on love has subsections and not just plain body text. Different branches/sects of the same religion might also have very different views. For example, the practices and beliefs of Sunni and Shia Islam in terms of the self-discipline involved in mourning the death of Imam Hussein are pretty different. Both links here are to Wikipedia because that’s about the level of depth you need to confirm facts that are at the level of “the sky is blue”.
3. Assuming each religion has some major essence (in a world where each religion actually has variation) grants particular groups the intrinsic power of defining orthodoxy. The Dalai Lama isn’t just saying that some groups enforce orthodoxy through force or persuasion — that would be a fact. He’s saying that some groups are/should be considered “true” members of their religion by the virtue of their essence. This is a deeply authoritarian worldview, which is expected for a clergyman of a deeply authoritarian religion.
4. As for violence, every religion I know of has teachings that are violent and have consistently been used for violence. There are also counter-movements and reform movements in every religion I know of that protest the persecution, abuse and violence of their fellow co-practitioners (justified explicitly in religious terms). This is an important struggle that is a key factor in modern history and the Dalai Lama defines it out of existence.
5. To say that someone who commits violence is no longer a member of their religion actually dehumanises them. They may be a monster but they have thoughts and reasons and motivations. We don’t just get to pat them on the head and tell them we understand their motivation better than them.

There are also some parallels between this type of denialism and the idea of colour-blindness. People who profess a colour-blind ideology might claim something like “I don’t see race, I just see the individual” and think this is a valid response to racism. Of course it isn’t because refusing to name the problem means refusing a chance of addressing systemic issues which will make them worse. If you don’t see race you don’t see racism and (say) every violent racist act is then seen as being committed long series of lone wolves espousing “general hatred” (or worse, ableistly attributed to mental illness).

Similarly, defining religious violence out of existence is designed to fail to to address systemic issues. If you refuse to consider that someone’s genuine, heartfelt religious beliefs might influence them to be violent, how can you improve a world where millions of people have been victimised by people who explicitly refer to their religion when justifying these acts? What good will your tut-tutting that these people aren’t “genuine” do? All you’ll have left is naming every act with the label of “extremist” (which is not an actionable label), or worse, ableistly blaming of mental illness, classistly blaming of poverty. As if talking about one cause makes another cause magically disappear.

I see race. And religion. Not as some roots of all evil but as real things in the real world, and therefore capable of having a real influence on people’s lives (since they might take them seriously). This influence might sometimes be bad, that’s all.

And I see the Dalai Lama and everyone else engaging in this type of respectability politics too. This shit needs to stop if we’re to have any hope of addressing systemic causes of violence and injustice.