Whenever there is a taboo against speaking about something, we can be sure that the subject prohibited is one that is difficult, important, and central to our lives.
Before addressing specific challenges to my comments on Patriarch Pavle, the worldwide leader of the Serbian Orthodox Church, in the context of the genocide in Bosnia, I need to address a wider issue. Why is this debate important?
For some, religious leaders are men and women of peace and could by definition never be associated with the horrors of genocide. It seems unseemly to hold religious leaders accountable for their statements and actions, even in the context of organized atrocities perpetrated by members of their flock in the name of their religion, against people of another religion.
For others, religions are essential false. They have been involved in the manipulation of violence from the most ancient times, through the crusades, to the present day. For such people, the less we take religions seriously, the less hold they will have over us.
The perspective taken here is that religious symbols are powerful. That power can lead people beyond their normal boundaries. It can lead them to acts of courage, acts of compassion beyond what we might normally expect. It can lead them to acts of evil beyond what we might normally imagine. Religious symbols tie together strings of meaning into a robust web. Religious symbols have been essential in motivating the acts of the various militias and in justifying them. They have also been at the basis of some courageous elements to resist conflict, polarization, and persecution. I hope we will come to discussing some of the specific symbols so central to the violence in Bosnia.
The role of religion in the genocide in Bosnia has been repressed. The religious violence is called by the euphemism "ethnic cleansing," even though the Catholic, Serb Orthodox, and Muslim Slavs Bosnia are all of the same essential ethnic group, speak essentially the same language, and are part of essentially the same cultural world.
We must ask this question: why has the world so readily embraced the euphemism of "ethnic cleansing" in referring to organized religious persecution of a scale that has been identified by the International Tribunal on War Crimes in the former Yugoslavia as genocidal?
The refusal to speak honestly and openly about the religious persecutions in Bosnia has reached the status of taboo. There has been a constant denial of religious elements in a conflict where 1) a central act is the dynamiting of houses of worship, 2) perpetrators are blessed by religious leaders before carrying out their atrocities and after returning from carrying out their atrocities, 3) victims are chosen solely on the basis of their religious identity, and 4) perpetrators are acting our particular, identifiable religious mythologies.
The euphemism, "ethnic cleansing" is convenient. To move aside the mask of "ethnic cleansing" and see what it hide may make us uncomfortable. For those who believe religion is the unpolluted source of truth and peace, it may be disillusioning to see it manipulated for such evil. For those who believe religion is made up of fancies and fantasies, it may be disturbing to see the power it has to mold human behavior and shape our geopolitical world.
But if we are to find healing in Bosnia, we must first understand the nature of the wound. For this reason I believe that all the posters, including those who disagree with the points I have made, are contributing to the discussion of a vital issue.
Michael Sells Chairperson, Dept. of Religion Haverford College msells@haverford.edu