Even during Fall Break week, the readings for PHIL 366R offered a powerful lens into the intersection of religion and violence. From personal memoirs to theological treatises, each piece challenged me to think more deeply about how faith traditions grapple with conflict, justice, and moral responsibility.
We read To Hearken or Not by Brian Birch (my professor for the class). This essay examines the tension between obedience and moral authority within religious traditions. Birch's work made me think about how religious followers navigate commands that may conflict with personal or societal ethics. It's especially relevant in contexts where violence is justified by appeals to divine authority.
I have read Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer in its entirety multiple times. We were asked to read the prologue for this week as Krakauer introduces the story of religiously motivated violence within fundamentalist Mormonism. The prologue sets a chilling tone, showing how sincere belief can be twisted into justification for horrific acts. It raises questions about the boundaries of religious freedom and the role of institutions in curbing extremism.
We also read an article titled Radical Mormon Jihad by Eric Peterson which was published in the Salt Lake City Weekly on July 30, 2014. It features an interview with Dan Lafferty, one of the brothers convicted in the 1984 murders of Brenda Lafferty and her infant daughter Erica. In the article, Dan Lafferty shares his apocalyptic beliefs, including a prophecy about escaping prison and calling down fire from heaven, likening his future actions to those of the biblical prophet Elijah. This piece offers a chilling look into religious extremism and how fringe theological interpretations can fuel violent ideologies. It's a powerful complement to Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven, which explores the Lafferty case from a broader investigative and narrative perspective.
Eric Peterson and Jon Krakauer approach the same disturbing subject - religiously motivated violence - through different lenses. Peterson's article is a journalistic profile, grounded in direct interview and observation. He presents Dan Lafferty in his own words, allowing readers to confront the raw extremism of Lafferty's beliefs without much editorial framing. Peterson is able to access Lafferty's mindet at the time of the murders, his current beliefs now, and his life in prison. Peterson's piece feels like a warning - an unfiltered glimpse into the persistence of radical ideology decades after the crime. It's stark, factual, and disturbing in its restraints. Krakauer's book is written as a narrative nonfiction book. He blends investigative journalism with literary storytelling. He contexualizes the Lafferty murders within broader questions about Mormon history, revelation, and religious violence. Krakauer discusses deep historical and theological topics, and shows an emotional and psychological insight into the perpetrators. His literary style draws the reader into the story. Krakauer's work is also more interpretive, inviting readers to consider how religious belief can evolve into fanaticism. His storytelling makes the horror feel personal and systemic. Reading both pieces side by side is like seeing two sides of the same coin. Peterson shows us the present-day reality of a man still consumed by his beliefs, while Krakauer traces the roots of those beliefs and their consequences. Together, they raise urgent questions: How do we recognize and respond to religious extremism? What responsibility do religious communities bear in preventing violence? Can faith be both a source of peace and a catalyst for destruction?
Next, we read a chapter by James Turner Johnson titled The Idea of Just War in Christian Thought. This chapter outlines the historical development of Just War theory in Christian theology. Johnson's overview helped me understand how Christian thinkers have tried to reconcile the teachings of Jesus with the realities of political conflict. It's a sobering reminder that even peace-oriented religions have developed frameworks for war.
Thomas Aquinas provides criteria for when war can be considered morally just, and so we read his words. Aquinas's clarity and structure are striking. His criteria still influence modern debates about military intervention. Yet I wonder how his ideas hold up in today's world of asymmetric warfare and non-state actors.
These readings collectively highlight the tension between faith and violence. Whether through personal testimony or theological argument, they ask us to consider how religious traditions can both justify and resist violence. As I continue this course, I'm left asking: Can religion truly be a force for peace in a world so often torn by its name?
Sources:
Aquinas, T. (2011). Whether it is always sinful to wage war? In M. Juergensmeyer & M. Kitts (Eds.), Princeton readings in religion and violence (pp. 41–44). Princeton University Press.
Birch, B. D. (2016, October). To Hearken or Not: Divine Commands & Ethical Dissonance. Paper presented at the Conference on Peacemaking: Ethical Perspectives in and Around Mormonism, Utah Valley University.
Johnson, J. T. (2009). The idea of just war in Christian thought. In R. D. Bainton (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to religion and war (pp. 207–227). Cambridge University Press.
Krakauer, J. (2004). Under the banner of heaven: A story of violent faith. Anchor Books.
Peterson, E. S. (2014, July 30). Radical Mormon jihad. Salt Lake City Weekly. https://www.cityweekly.net/utah/radical-mormon-jihad/Content?oid=2477964
[Written for PHIL 366G class UVU Fall 2025]
aB . All Right Reserved . 2025
