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

[paarsurrey]

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

 

[dust1n]

Um, of course. Everyone human can be just as violent as anyone else.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sure.

However, a better, more natural question would be: What makes a religion valid if it does not even know how to discourage violence among its own adherents?

 

[Skwim]

Sure.

However, a better, more natural question would be: What makes a religion valid if it does not even know how to discourage violence among its own adherents?

IMO, just because a religion can talk out of both sides of its mouth shouldn't disqualify it as a religion. Who says that a religion has to be all good?

.

 

[danieldemol]

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, but can religion provide the same rights to minoritys that the best examples of secularism has?

 

[LuisDantas]

IMO, just because a religion can talk out of both sides of its mouth shouldn't disqualify it as a religion. Who says that a religion has to be all good?
.

What would its the reason for being be, then?

 

[MonkeyFire]

Sure.

However, a better, more natural question would be: What makes a religion valid if it does not even know how to discourage violence among its own adherents?

If you believe, you should be passive.

 

[Sunstone]

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

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.

 

[Skwim]

What would its the reason for being be, then?

Control.

I think most religions have been established by those wanting to control a population, be it a tribe or much larger arena of people. And I believe this has been done by promising a people that if they believe and do as one says (XY&Z) their life will be better, or at least not made any worse. And what better basis for one's decrees than an unquestionable, supernatural authority with the power to do just that, AND whom only you have access to. "In order to attain a better life this is what the grand PoohBah above requires of you. Do ABCD & E . . . . . Oh yes, that will be 30 scrubles or the sacrifice of your firstborn male child please. Thank you, and don't forget; to renew your protection: next week, same time, same place."

.

 

[KT Shamim]

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

Yeah
WW1 and 2 come to mind

 

[LuisDantas]

Yeah
WW1 and 2 come to mind

Both are poor examples, though.

 

[paarsurrey]

Sure.

However, a better, more natural question would be: What makes a religion valid if it does not even know how to discourage violence among its own adherents?

G-d did not say that every person who just takes name of a religion as a label will become him peaceful, the same happens with a person who takes Humanist as label does not make him a humanist, either. Does it, please?

Regards

 

[ChristineM]

Yeah
WW1 and 2 come to mind

Bad examples, none of the major combatants in either conflict were secular.

 

[LuisDantas]

G-d did not say that every person who just takes name of a religion as a label will become him peaceful, the same happens with a person who takes Humanist as label does not make him a humanist, either. Does it, please?

Regards

Uh... I am not sure of what you mean. Nor do I think you answered the question that I proposed.

 

[paarsurrey]

Uh... I am not sure of what you mean. Nor do I think you answered the question that I proposed.

Those who don't follow Word of G-d, but only take label of a religion just as a politician to become rulers do not belong to the truthful religion, they merit to be numbered with the irreligious or the secular. Does it help, please?

Regards

 

[Augustus]

Bad examples, none of the major combatants in either conflict were secular.

You live in France don't you? Weren't they secular again by that point?

Then there's the Soviets who definitely were. Nazi Germany gets a bit more complex and is arguable either way although wasn't traditional religious. Britain mostly as secular as it is today, etc.

 

[LuisDantas]

Those who don't follow Word of G-d, but only take label of a religion just as a politician to become rulers do not belong to the truthful religion, they merit to be numbered with the irreligious or the secular. Does it help, please?

Regards

It helps a bit.

Trouble is, many people seem to sincerely believe to, as you put it, follow the word of god in destructive ways.

Therefore, no, I can't quite agree with you.

 

[LuisDantas]

You live in France don't you? Weren't they secular again by that point?

Then there's the Soviets who definitely were. Nazi Germany gets a bit more complex and is arguable either way although wasn't traditional religious. Britain mostly as secular as it is today, etc.

WW1, at least, had a sizeable side of "God-given destiny" to its motivation, IMO.

 

[paarsurrey]

It helps a bit.

Trouble is, many people seem to sincerely believe to, as you put it, follow the word of god in destructive ways.

Therefore, no, I can't quite agree with you.

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

Regards

 

[Augustus]

WW1, at least, had a sizeable side of "God-given destiny" to its motivation, IMO.

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.