The Sept. 2 shocking revelation in this newspaper’s sister publication, Kamloops This Week, that an ex-TRU student and his brother are fighting for ISIS in Syria has sent shivers to many.

Another source indicates that more than 50 Canadians are embroiled in the jihadist cause.

Not only is such news unnerving for Kamloops and Canada, it’s too close for comfort for the U.S. as well, especially as our neighbour observes the 13th anniversary of 9-11 today.

Thirteen years ago, people had a fresh glimpse of what makes America tick and how Western civilization is far from falling off the precipice.

At that time and even now, questions were raised about the role of religion as a source of conflict, ultimately leading to terrorism.

The pervading ‘sickness’ of religious violence has increased since then and has been calling for serious study by sociologists, political scientists and historians as a revived phenomenon.

It’s also attracting the attention of scholars of religious studies because the past 50 years or so has seen a big rise in Jewish-Muslim, Hindu-Muslim, and Christian-Muslim conflicts.

Religious conflicts in other parts of the world, especially since the Iranian revolution of 1979, have evoked new challenges and spurred thinking about the role of religion in the international political arena.

Noted scholars continue to echo the dual sentiment that “religion brings war, religion brings peace.”

Some of them argue that religion is a source of conflict because it has an inherent tendency to promote violence.

Others contend that ‘true’ religion is peaceful. It’s only in its deviant form that religion leads to violence.

Violence is not something alien to religion. It has been a feature from its origin to the present.

A provocative and notorious theory alleges that religion is the central characteristic of civilization and suggests that religion is a dominant engine of violence.

One paradoxical question keeps arising: Why is religion often a source of violence? Is it because it acts absolutely, behaves divisively, and is insufficiently rational?

In When Religion Becomes Evil, Charles Kimball defines religion as that which “evokes a wide variety of images, ideas, practices, beliefs, and experiences – some positive and some negative.”

He espouses the theory that religion is a central feature of human life. We all see many indications of it every day and we all know it when we see it.

Kimball concludes that religious convictions, locked into absolute truths, can easily lead people to see themselves as God’s agents.

Its followers are then emboldened and are capable of violent and destructive behaviour in the name of their traditions.

However, Kimball does not present convincing arguments to distinguish religious violence from secular violence.

Also, his definition of religion does not clearly point out what does and does not qualify as “religion.”

He ignores other kinds of nationalism, despite acknowledging blind religious zealotry is similar to unfettered nationalism.

Other scholars claim that religion is prone to conflict because it produces a particular intensity of non-rational or irrational passion that is not subject to firm control of reason.

Various words such as “rage,” “passion” and “fanaticism” are often tossed around to describe the mental state of religious actors driven to conflict and violence.

In recent years, there has been rising interest among scholars to engage in conversation on how religion could be a resource of peace and be used in both conflict resolution and peacemaking.

Exploring the role of religion in peacemaking and peace building is essential to the survival of religion itself.

Historian Scott Appleby says that religion has an ability to sustain cycles of violence beyond the point of rational calculation and enlightened self-interest.

He refutes the notion that argues religion – having so often inspired, legitimized, and exacerbated deadly conflicts – cannot be expected to contribute to peaceful resolution.

Several strategies for transformation of religion into a force for peace can be suggested:

First, the pursuit of dialogue among religions can be an influence. The call for dialogue is the need for education within various faith traditions.

Second, the strategy of fostering economic development, especially as it benefits the poor and the marginalized in any religious society.

Third, the strengthening of democracy on both national and local levels is necessary. Along with economic development, there is a great need to artfully promote the values of democracy.

Religion can be an effective source of peace in motivating believers toward tolerance and peaceful acceptance of others.

Narayan Mitra is the pastor at Merritt Baptist Church.