Of religion in conflict

parties and/or the conflict. 
The confidence and trust that religion-based actors inspire in the 
parties to the conflict depend on these three characteristics, building 
confidence in their professional and conflict-specific qualifications, 
in their ethical and moral qualifications, and also in their emotional 
qualifications. Weingardt (2008a, 2008b) argues that all actors that want 
to promote peace should ideally have these characteristics, but he also 
contends that ‘religion-based’ actors have a comparative advantage: 
they often have a credit of trust.
 
There are three main reasons for this credit of trust. First is that 
reference to religious thinking can be used in all cultures as a means 
to justify – in a comprehensible and legitimate way – peaceful and 
non-violent conflict resolution. Secondly, conflict parties often 
see ‘religion-based’ actors as able and willing to consider not just 
obvious facts, but also underlying and profound dimensions of 
conflict resolution, such as morality, responsibility, reconciliation, 
and forgiveness. Lastly, ‘religion-based’ actors, in contrast to secular 
actors, are often perceived to be driven less by self-interest than by 
considerations of general interest of all.
Deep and widespread respect for religion underlies these perceptions 
by conflict parties, even though religion can also have negative 
connotations. Weingardt’s general view (2007, 2008a, 2008b) is that 
this respect can be attributed to a general – but certainly not universal – 
taboo on attacking religious dignitaries or religious sites. He maintains 
that conflicts in which the religious affiliation of the adversary is used 
to legitimise violence are the exception and not the rule, and that 
even in these conflicts (e.g. in Northern Ireland, Iraq, Israel-Palestine), 
direct attacks on religious leaders and sites constitute a red line. 
In the same way as religious leaders are respected, ‘religion-based’ 
actors are accorded the respect they require to promote peace. Through 
their credit of trust, it is relatively easy for them to start a conflict resolu-
tion process. In other words, religion provides an opportunity to engage 
with the conflict parties, but it is not itself
 
a guarantee for successful 
conflict resolution. 

---

British Academy // 
The Role of Religion in Conflict and Peacebuilding
39
A key lesson from the evidence in all this literature is that there is no 
single path for religious organisations or religious leaders to make a 
difference in conflict resolution, and that a flexible approach should be 
taken in identifying religious ‘leaders’ capable of playing a significant 
role. Little’s (2007) fascinating account of grassroots peacemakers 
tells how they contributed to peaceful conflict transformation because 
they were inspired by religious values and ideals, and they used 
religion-specific mediation and dialogue tools and communication 
techniques. He argues that policymakers have not yet sufficiently taken 
into consideration the need to promote grassroots peacemakers and 
include tools inspired by religion in their toolkit. The religious actors 
presented in his case studies are often ordinary clerics, not people in 
positions of power, and some were even ostracised in their respective 
communities precisely because of their courageous steps to promote 
reconciliation in the face of dominating prejudice. Their endeavours were 
successful because of a combination of qualities and circumstances 
and the individual ways in which religious beliefs and resources were 
used. Thus, the communication strategies, language, and symbolism at 
play in each situation were different, indicating that the outcomes were 
highly context-specific, including also the personality of the religious 
figure leading the peace initiative, even if sometimes the same religious 
tradition was present in different case studies.
4.5. Ways to promote the transformative power of religion
A further strand of academic literature on religion, conflict and 
peace is oriented around policy and action. It asks in which ways 
the transformative power of religion and its potential can be used 
to unite societies and to promote peaceful international relations. 
Lederach (1996, 1997) argued for and also developed conflict resolution 
mechanisms that focus on culture and religion as positive tools for 
bringing about change and for promoting a holistic approach, rather than 
an antagonistic approach that divides societies along religious lines. 
Faith-based peacemaking, for Johnston and Cox (2003, 15–18), is more 
about ‘reconciliation’ than about ‘conflict resolution’, that is, it centres on 
‘restoration of healthy and respectful relationships between the parties