On Normalizing the Possibility of Violence: Religious Ethics and Eco-terrorism in a World on Fire

Nonviolence is widely assumed to be the most effective form of religious-moral resistance. I argue this assumption is (1) ahistorical and (2) harmful to ongoing struggles to create positive social change worldwide. More specifically, I focus on how contemporary environmental activism is rendered ineffective due to its blind allegiance to nonviolence—a fidelity that religious studies and ethics have done little to assuage. I propose we change this, starting with examining why strategic acts of violence (property) might not simply be permissible but moral and necessary given our climate crisis. First, I provide a counter reading of the civil rights movement—one that shows that the possibility of violence was essential to creating social change (e.g., 1964 Voting Rights Act). I then turn to Eco-Leninism, Antonio Gramsci, and just war theory to construct a foundation for religious ethics to reflect on strategic violence’s moral role in seeking climate justice.