Nope. (save for the 2% of the population that is legally psychotic, and the even smaller percentage therein that is violently psychotic) If you tell somebody that X is the infallible word of God, and X has violent precepts in it (as all Abrahamic faiths do), then don't be shocked when that somebody goes off and commits violence. They think they are 1) doing the will of God and 2) going to be rewarded with the greatest gift imaginable for it or 3) at the very least avoiding the worst punishment imaginable. People are not inherently violent. We will fight for our survival (that includes resources, mate selection, territory, etc), but we do not seek out conflict. We are a cooperative, co-habitating species by nature. Only when we introduce these violent directives into culture do we see this behavior. Violence has a place in society, but this is violence without purpose. Needless, endless, pointless.
And patriarchy and males have been behind all of the movements and committed most all the crimes. Lets dispose all our penises and testosterones into the container next the plastics recycling bin for maximum sustainability of peace.
Testosterone may be correlated with increased violence, but it's not causation. And even if it is partial causation, our balls are essential to our survival. Unlike religion, which is not essential and has a direct causal link.
I agree wholeheartedly that people will use religion to perpetrate violence...I also believe wholeheartedly they'll use just about anything else to get the upper-hand on others. Parents beat their own children. Husbands beat their wives. This happens without regard to religious pre-disposition. More is never enough...so we make war for even more. If we can create some perception of superiority over the enemy, we'll do it....but at it's heart, it's not usually about the excuse we make up for creating violence. There is conflict and violence where religion is very clearly the key issue involved. There is conflict and violence where religion is very clearly not the key issue involved.
I think you've got that backwards; religion uses people to perpetrate violence. That's very sad you are that pessimistic about human nature. I'd say how far we've come as a society (today is the most peaceful and prosperous time in human history) is a testament to the falsity of that belief. Unfortunate (or inevitable?) as it may be, it doesn't excuse the violent precepts of modern religion.
Religion is ideology...it's inanimate. Ideology doesn't use people...people use ideology. But for people, ideology doesn't exist. Don't get me wrong...I believe people can be better than that. The 20th Century is awfully bloody, though...that's not ancient history. I'm hopeful, though. To the extent any religion preaches violence, I'm in complete agreement with you here.
People are not inherently violent? ONLY when we introduce these violent directives? I guess there is more we disagree on then. Maybe 2% is LEGALLY psychotic... my guess at a number is higher. I don't think people are as innocent as you, nor do I think religion is as to blame. I'm not saying I don't get your point, I think we just differ as to where the impetus/source of violence and oppression lies. In my opinion, if you could get your wish and religion somehow disappeared, the violence and oppression would not. It might remove the more convincing and handy tool/excuse for it, but others would arise. I suspect money would be next on your list when you saw that removing religion(s) did not achieve the desired result.
Disagree. Does religion not shape the way people feel/think/act? I'd say in many (if not most) cases, it does. To claim it does not would be to declare religion as ineffectual and only a mere reflection of us as people, which while partially true in some cases (a small, small percentage of people "pick" their religion... most are "born into it", therefor they have no choice, and it is not reflective of who they are), is most definitely not absolute. It's all good in the hood, broseph. http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html
Yes, people do not seek out violent confrontation. It is a small, small portion of society who act in this way. And we've learned how to deal with them. And most of those people who act violently do so under the influence of some greater force, drugs, lust, etc. And those people show remorse and regret. Those who act without provocation and without remorse are the psychotic ones, and represent a fraction of a fraction of society. I'm just going by scientific research here. 2-3% is the typical accepted psychotic range IIRC. And those aren't even the inherently violent psychopaths. I already explained the impetus for religious violence. It's written in black and white in books. There will always be a small number of people who use religion as an excuse, but the people *I'm* worried about are the people who use it as their sole reason. And believe me, they exist, en masse. Incorrect. Violence, in the name of religion, would completely stop. That is unnecessary and avoidable violence. The violence done in the name of religion would not transfer directly to violence done for the purpose of survival. Violence over resources is a part of survival and the natural order of life. It does not justify the violence, but it does justify the existence of those resources.
I agree that people use religion to manipulate other people to violence. No argument there. But religion doesn't thrust itself on people without the help of other people.
Yes, but isn't spreading the faith an intrinsic part of religion? It is written into the doctrine, no? People are just a conduit.
