Folks have a hard time accepting religion for what it is. It's hard for people not to get emotionally caught up in it.
Do you think people who go out and blow stuff up aren't violent people at all in the absence of the texts they claim inspire them? I think people are violent, inherently. I think if you can read the narrative of Jesus Christ...claim to be his follower...and still advocate for violence in his name, then you're being entirely intellectually dishonest. I think people latch on words in scripture sometimes as justification...but without that, they'd find something else to justify their "cause." Historically, we've found new reasons and new ways to divide up...pick sides...and fight one another. I see violence from those who consider scripture sacred...I see violence from those who consider scripture to be garbage. I don't think the scripture is the problem any more than I think video games are the problem...or violent movies.
I knew this post was coming next. I'm just glad it came from you. No, I do not believe the majority of people who commit violent acts in the name of god/religion would be doing so without divine inspiration. I think great evidence of people being predisposed to peace is evidenced in this thread, major religious texts teach a lot about peace/love etc, and a little bit about violence, how many people do we see who choose to follow one part of the teachings (the peaceful ones) over the other violent ones? Violence is a part of life, we're animals, animals fight, etc etc. But are people inherently or predisposed to being violent? Not in my estimation. And even if we were, there is no reason to give us any *more* reason to be violent with scriptures. Take two people, give one of them a book that tells them they will be rewarded for killing in the name of a god(s). Who do you think is more likely to wind up acting violently?
I don't mean all people. I don't mean you and me. I mean, it seems to me there are certain people who are predisposed to violence....and use whatever they want to justify it.
Yes, and I addressed those people in my post. I do not believe that the (great) majority of people who commit violent acts in the name of religion would do so without divine inspiration. The (very) few that would just qualify as disturbed psychopaths, who crop up every once in a while in the great DNA mixing pool.
maybe you're right. i just think people commit tons of violence in this world with all sorts of "justification."
I would reverse that, and say that most of those committing violence would do so under whatever pretext. I think they are going to be drawn to ideas, groups and movements that they believe will rationalize their violent tendencies. I think only a few are 100% peaceful people who are inspired by religion to do it.
Agree with max. If we can ackowledge that fundamentally the root of most terrorism (as an example) is not religion per say but socio-economic strife, than religion is just a means to an end. A conveniant one, no doubt, but there are a myriad of other methods to convince yourself that violence is justified. See, history, all of it.
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof that my assertion is, without a doubt, completely true and utterly irrefutable. Unfortunately,this margin is too narrow to contain it. [/fermat]
The problem is that violent fundamentalism in religion isn't a product of social or economic conditions. It seems like the simple answer, but it isn't. I used to think that was true. But while violence *does* occur because of social/economic strife/oppression, violence as it pertains to religion occurs because... as I've been saying... you have people being coerced into believing that their religion is everything, and that death for their religion is the greatest thing one can achieve. There is an inherent disconnect there between the idea that "welp, my life sucks cause I'm poor and can't vote so I guess I'll go out and blow up my oppressors" vs. "god is great, he tells me that if I kill you I'll be rewarded, so I guess I'll go out and blow you up"... those two thought patterns are NOT the same. For more details about this comparison; this is a great lecture to check out; I'd also recommend looking for stuff from Reza Aslan as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3YOIImOoYM One of my favorite passages; "I don't know how many more engineers and scientists have to hit the wall at 400mph for us to realize that violent religious fundamentalism is not a product of lack of education or economic opportunity. Our circumstance is far more sinister than that. In today's world, it is possible to be so well educated that you can build a nuclear bomb and actually believe that you are going to get 72-virgins."
of course it's an issue. but more to the topic of the thread, killing for what you believe in is most DEFINITELY an issue.
True. Violent fundamentalism in religion is not necessarily a product of social or economic conditions. (This is actually a far deeper topic; certain aspects of the bible, for example, can be seen as indicative of a socio-economic influence on religious ideology, e.g., the Israelite exodus from Egyptian captivity. Thus the use of “necessarily” since factoring historical context into such a statement is probably outside the boundaries of a conversation presumably intended far more generically.) However, what is missing from your equation, in my opinion, is the transition from “violent fundamentalism” implied or potentially interpreted from religion to actual action. Rarely do we see leaders advocating killing simply for the sake of cleansing the “unrighteous” - there is always a secondary (or primary) motive that is far more political. Examples abound – Israelite slaughter of the Canaanites for their land, the Crusades as an excuse to slaughter or expel the Jews from Europe, or even the Muslim caliphate’s expansion post-Muhammad as an economic endevour (most areas under Muslim rule were more religiously tolerant, for example). I think we can generally agree that direct requirements to commit violence on non-members of a particular religious group are generally absent or, at a minimum, require a specialized interpretation. As such, the violence is always there in a latent sort of way – and it requires an instigation to make the interpretation seem rational. Alternatively, the instigation aspect can become moot if enough time with continual strife turns the violent-ideology into a cultural rallying point. In essence, categorically blaming a religion for violence done in its name is an unfair omission of the details that led to the actual action being taken. It would be akin to blaming the gun instead of the shooter (annoying analogy). This is true also. But not typical or inherent; as an extension to the postulation I made above, it is of course possible for some crazed lunatic to take a stance that “their interpretation” is perfect and that heretics should be burned, if you will. But this can and does happen without religion – thus my argument that religion, while it may be the best at conveying such a murderous wrath, is not the only justification acceptable to those who decide to, for example, commit genocide. Genocide, as was made abundantly clear in the documentary and book “Worse than War” is usually very calculated – even when religiously motivated the “pawns” have to be led into the actual act. You are correct. But there is a connection between "welp, my life sucks cause I'm poor and can't vote so I guess I'll go out and blow up my oppressors" and "welp, my life sucks cause I'm poor and can't vote so I guess I'll go out and blow up my oppressors who are heretics and evildoers in the eyes of the LORD. If I interpret this passage correctly, my vengeance is justified!" No youtube here. Wish I could check it out though as this is not a “cut and dry” argument and I find your point very appealing. I’m just not sure I’m there yet. To again use the horrible gun analogy – sure it would be great and helpful if all guns disappeared, but that’s really not going to solve the root problem. Very poignant; I like that one too. I think we are seeing this clashing everyday. I like to think of it as the inverse property of our exploding society and population. While technology and “progress’ hum along at an ever increasing rate, so does the number of disenfranchised and destitute. Lacking anything else, they are ripe for manipualtion by the power hungry, who often use a religion to rally support. Of course, there is no doubt in my mind that there are plenty of the crazed-religious-lunatic types too. Sometimes they appear to be exponentially increasing. Hard to say which one causes the other, unfortunately. Are you crazy and religion pushes you down a path of violence, or are you religious and consequently go crazy-violent?
For *****'s sake, it's spelled "believe". I have seen you misspell this word so many times now, someone had to point it out at some point.
thats why muslim countries will NEVER strive. you cant disagree with someone without killing them. thats a great society to live in
