Can "secular" ideologies/institutions be as violent as "religious"?

[paarsurrey]

WW2 also given Hitler's apparent belief in a sense of destiny that was perhaps desitic (although is hard to classify).

The primary forces for WW1 were nationalism and politics though. Many believed god favoured their side, but I'm not sure how easily such people can be differentiated from secular nationalists/revolutionaries from the Romantic or Enlightenment traditions.

Nationalism is a 'religious-type' concept anyway, whether it is tied to religion or purely secular.

I believe in the West ,presently, nationalism is attached with the countries, not with the religion, so it is secular.

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

I believe in the West ,presently, nationalism is attached with the countries, not with the religion, so it is secular.

Regards

Perhaps. On the other hand, "religion" has become considerably tainted at the present time as well.

 

[LuisDantas]

But there is no commandment in the Word to become destructive. The righteous persons don't become destructive, they promote peace.

Regards

Sorry, @paarsurrey , but there are plenty of passages in both the Bible and the Qur'an that suit themselves far too easily to destructive interpretations - and far too few that encourage independent thinking.

 

[paarsurrey]

Sorry, @paarsurrey , but there are plenty of passages in both the Bible and the Qur'an that suit themselves far too easily to destructive interpretations - and far too few that encourage independent thinking.

Quran always explains the correct concepts in the context verses , yet the evil doers do the evil deeds blindly , so they should be blamed not the Word. Guidance given is perfect, nevertheless. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Can ideologies and institutions labelled as "secular" be just as violent as labelled "religious", please?

Regards

__________
Quran [2:31]
"And when thy Lord said to the angels: ‘I am about to place a vicegerent in the earth,’ they said: ‘Wilt Thou place therein such as will cause disorder in it, and shed blood? — and we glorify Thee with Thy praise and extol Thy holiness.’ He answered: ‘I know what you know not.’ "

The Holy Quran - Chapter: 2: Al-Baqarah

Sure. Any ideology can inspire violence, especially when taken to extremes.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

But there is no commandment in the Word to become destructive. The righteous persons don't become destructive, they promote peace.

Regards

You might need to re-read your Bible. There's plenty of commands to be destructive. Some downright genocidal.

Now, Im well versed in the various apologetics about the various passages in question, and how they don't necessarily mean what they appear to mean, but my question is this... if we accept such arguments about problematic Bible passages, maybe we should offer Muslims the same benefit of the doubt when they make similar apologetic arguments about their holy book?

Love as you would be loved, beam in thine own eye, and all that good stuff.

 

[LuisDantas]

Quran always explains the correct concepts in the context verses , yet the evil doers do the evil deeds blindly , so they should be blamed not the Word. Guidance given is perfect, nevertheless. Right, please?

Regards

I must assume that such is a popular interpretation of the facts.

Myself, I can't bring myself to agree.

 

[LuisDantas]

You might need to re-read your Bible. There's plenty of commands to be destructive. Some downright genocidal.

Now, Im well versed in the various apologetics about the various passages in question, and how they don't necessarily mean what they appear to mean, but my question is this... if we accept such arguments about problematic Bible passages, maybe we should offer Muslims the same benefit of the doubt when they make similar apologetic arguments about their holy book?

Love as you would be loved, beam in thine own eye, and all that good stuff.

We usually do. But in recent years I have come to wonder if that is a wise choice.

 

[SomeRandom]

Well sure. The difference being that religion ostensibly claims to speak from a position of authority, higher morality and virtue. Secular merely claims to attempt to reach those goals.

 

[paarsurrey]

Well sure. The difference being that religion ostensibly claims to speak from a position of authority, higher morality and virtue. Secular merely claims to attempt to reach those goals.

The righteous believers are always humble*, and it is a requirement to be righteous, from G-d. It is not a requirement of a secular. Right, please?

Regards

___________
Quran [31:19]
*"And turn not thy cheek away from men in pride nor walk in the earth haughtily; Surely, Allah loves not any arrogant boaster."
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 31: Luqman

 

[paarsurrey]

I must assume that such is a popular interpretation of the facts.

Myself, I can't bring myself to agree.

Sorry, there is no need for any assumption.
With Quran it could always be checked, one is welcome to do it any time.
Anybody, please

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

You might need to re-read your Bible. There's plenty of commands to be destructive. Some downright genocidal.

Now, Im well versed in the various apologetics about the various passages in question, and how they don't necessarily mean what they appear to mean, but my question is this... if we accept such arguments about problematic Bible passages, maybe we should offer Muslims the same benefit of the doubt when they make similar apologetic arguments about their holy book?

Love as you would be loved, beam in thine own eye, and all that good stuff.

I meant the secure and pristine Word, that is Quran.
There is no commandment, absolutely none, in Quran and one could always check it anytime, oneself. Right, please?
Regards

 

[Revoltingest]

I believe in the West ,presently, nationalism is attached with the countries, not with the religion, so it is secular.

Regards

First, I'll say that secular groups can be as violent as religious groups.
But western countries are not entirely secular. Our dealings with Israel
& predominantly Muslim countries are very driven by Judeo-Christian
values & agendas.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

What would its the reason for being be, then?

So... it's perfectly okay for a secular institute, say a business, to be immoral as it wishes, yet any religious building must explain itself?

Please explain why it must explain. Because it seems to me that the only reason it needs is whatever purpose it's religion gives it. If I have a Hindu butchery, and want to slaughter animals with the standard ritual decapitation, why do I need to justify any grand reason for being?

Do the atheists have to explain for having an atheist cheese shop? No? Then what you are suggesting is nothing more than religious persecution of the same sort where Christians or Jews have to conform to unreasonable expectations from customers. Sorry, but if you don't want a customer, it's your loss.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Can ideologies and institutions labelled as "secular" be just as violent as labelled "religious", please?

Regards

__________
Quran [2:31]
"And when thy Lord said to the angels: ‘I am about to place a vicegerent in the earth,’ they said: ‘Wilt Thou place therein such as will cause disorder in it, and shed blood? — and we glorify Thee with Thy praise and extol Thy holiness.’ He answered: ‘I know what you know not.’ "

The Holy Quran - Chapter: 2: Al-Baqarah

Yes

 

[dianaiad]

Can ideologies and institutions labelled as "secular" be just as violent as labelled "religious", please?

Regards

__________
Quran [2:31]
"And when thy Lord said to the angels: ‘I am about to place a vicegerent in the earth,’ they said: ‘Wilt Thou place therein such as will cause disorder in it, and shed blood? — and we glorify Thee with Thy praise and extol Thy holiness.’ He answered: ‘I know what you know not.’ "

The Holy Quran - Chapter: 2: Al-Baqarah

I suppose that they can.

However, up until now they have proven to be exactly the opposite; that is, far LESS violent (or at least, the governments have been so) than theologies and officially atheist (that is, anti-theistic) governments have been.

The thing about secular governments is that they let the question of religion alone; citizens can believe, or not believe, as they wish.

And THAT is turning out to be the best way to handle that sort of thing.

 

[LuisDantas]

So... it's perfectly okay for a secular institute, say a business, to be immoral as it wishes, yet any religious building must explain itself?

How did you go from my question to this?

I am asking what the point of a religion would be if it fails to promote morality. That seems simple and direct enough, and does not lead to your odd question, don't you think?

Please explain why it must explain. Because it seems to me that the only reason it needs is whatever purpose it's religion gives it. If I have a Hindu butchery, and want to slaughter animals with the standard ritual decapitation, why do I need to justify any grand reason for being?

Do the atheists have to explain for having an atheist cheese shop? No? Then what you are suggesting is nothing more than religious persecution of the same sort where Christians or Jews have to conform to unreasonable expectations from customers. Sorry, but if you don't want a customer, it's your loss.

Missed the point, I see.

 

[SomeRandom]

The righteous believers are always humble*, and it is a requirement to be righteous, from G-d. It is not a requirement of a secular. Right, please?

Regards

___________
Quran [31:19]
*"And turn not thy cheek away from men in pride nor walk in the earth haughtily; Surely, Allah loves not any arrogant boaster."
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 31: Luqman

The so called righteous believer can contort out any message they please if they believe they are God's chosen one/few. A book saying one thing doesn't mean much to me. Holy books have long been used to justify atrocities. Meh.
Secularism depends largely on basic humanity. Without the smug authority of a divine being, it has to rely on other way to either justify intolerance or bring peace.
Neither is guaranteed but I'd rather live in a secular society than a theocracy.

 

[Vouthon]

Yes, and secular ideologies/institutions can be just as motivated to do violence as religious ones.

There's no significant difference in that regard between the two.

But some ideologies/institutions -- both religious and secular -- are better at managing and/or encouraging their adherents to be non-violent than are others. We could all learn a lot from Tibetan Buddhism, for instance. It's not perfect, but it has a great track record.

And Jainism above all, as well as the Anabaptist, Amish, Mennonites and Quaker Christians (all staunchly pacifist and non-violent).

If I weren't a Catholic, I'd likely be a Quaker or a Mennonite and if I couldn't be any kind of Christian, then Jainism would seriously attract me along with Buddhism and Vaishnavite Hinduism.

@Sunstone just to add, Petr Chelčický (c. 1390 – c. 1460) a Czech Hussite Christian spiritual leader and author in the 15th century Bohemia, is my hero:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petr_Chelčický

His published works concentrated on critique of immorality and violence of the contemporary church and state. He proposed a number of Bible-based improvements for human society, including nonresistance, which influenced such luminaries as Tolstoy, Gandhi, and M.L.King...

Chelcicky's teachings laid the foundation of the Unity of the Brethren.​

 

[paarsurrey]

The so called righteous believer can contort out any message they please if they believe they are God's chosen one/few. A book saying one thing doesn't mean much to me. Holy books have long been used to justify atrocities. Meh.
Secularism depends largely on basic humanity. Without the smug authority of a divine being, it has to rely on other way to either justify intolerance or bring peace.
Neither is guaranteed but I'd rather live in a secular society than a theocracy.

I did not favor any theocracy. Religion has nothing to do with power or politics. The state should be run under secular government and that does not mean under Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism and or Theocracy, Quran supports equitable form of government.

Regards