Can we ignore the link between religion and religious violence?

[gsa]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in response to the murder of French satirists, says no:

How we respond to this attack is of great consequence. If we take the position that we are dealing with a handful of murderous thugs with no connection to what they so vocally claim, then we are not answering them. We have to acknowledge that today’s Islamists are driven by a political ideology, an ideology embedded in the foundational texts of Islam. We can no longer pretend that it is possible to divorce actions from the ideals that inspire them.

This would be a departure for the West, which too often has responded to jihadist violence with appeasement. We appease the Muslim heads of government who lobby us to censor our press, our universities, our history books, our school curricula. They appeal and we oblige. We appease leaders of Muslim organizations in our societies. They ask us not to link acts of violence to the religion of Islam because they tell us that theirs is a religion of peace, and we oblige.

Do you agree or disagree with Ali?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in response to the murder of French satirists, says no:

How we respond to this attack is of great consequence. If we take the position that we are dealing with a handful of murderous thugs with no connection to what they so vocally claim, then we are not answering them. We have to acknowledge that today’s Islamists are driven by a political ideology, an ideology embedded in the foundational texts of Islam. We can no longer pretend that it is possible to divorce actions from the ideals that inspire them.

This would be a departure for the West, which too often has responded to jihadist violence with appeasement. We appease the Muslim heads of government who lobby us to censor our press, our universities, our history books, our school curricula. They appeal and we oblige. We appease leaders of Muslim organizations in our societies. They ask us not to link acts of violence to the religion of Islam because they tell us that theirs is a religion of peace, and we oblige.

Do you agree or disagree with Ali?

One must examine the actual teachings of said religion.

If a religious person is violent, but his religion does not teach violence, or indeed expressly teaches against violence, it is not the religion but the man who is acting out of accord with his religion and instead with his own interests.

 

[gsa]

One must examine the actual teachings of said religion.

If a religious person is violent, but his religion does not teach violence, or indeed expressly teaches against violence, it is not the religion but the man who is acting out of accord with his religion and instead with his own interests.

Well Christianity has taught and practiced violence in the past. Christians have burned heretics, gay men and lesbians, killed Jews and Muslims by the thousands or millions. Today Christians often claim that those Christians were "acting out of accord with" the Christian religion, but that was not how it was understood at the time.

 

[SkylarHunter]

I think someone once said "your actions speak so loud I can't hear anything you say." For me the same principle applies with religions: they can say whatever they like but the only thing that matters to me is how they act.

Most christian religions talk about love but in reality their members can't even demonstrate love among themselves, much less for others.

Islam can't and it will never be a religion of peace when the book it is based on justifies and promotes violence even between family members (hence the whole men are allowed to beat their wives, etc).

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Well Christianity has taught and practiced violence in the past. Christians have burned heretics, gay men and lesbians, killed Jews and Muslims by the thousands or millions. Today Christians often claim that those Christians were "acting out of accord with" the Christian religion, but that was not how it was understood at the time.

They were acting out of accord with the teachings of Jesus in the Bible, that is quite clear, no matter what some religious institution of fallen men was telling their adherents to do or believe.

 

[gsa]

They were acting out of accord with the teachings of Jesus in the Bible, that is quite clear, no matter what some religious institution of fallen men was telling their adherents to do or believe.

The same Jesus who called Jews the children of the Devil?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

The same Jesus who called Jews the children of the Devil?

Yes, the same. Jesus never advocated violence against them though, or against anyone.

 

[gsa]

Yes, the same. Jesus never advocated violence against them though, or against anyone.

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."

That Jesus?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."

That Jesus?

Yes, the same. Once again, no violence here. The Gospel is inherently divisive, of course it would be. The "sword" is not a physical sword, the context should make that quite clear...

"The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That's enough!" he replied."

EDIT: The above is from a different Gospel, I jumped a bit there, ignore it.

EDIT: A better example would be Jesus' express condemnation of Peter using a sword, or the whole turn the other cheek thing.

 

[JRMcC]

It's fundamentalism that causes this kind of thing. Moderates believe some ridiculous things, fundamentalists believe a lot of crazy things. Believing in crazy things can be dangerous, as we have al seen.

 

[Sees]

I wouldn't want to make an absolute statement about it but I do think some of the elements could be improved towards love and peace, definitely...moved away from exclusivism and the idea other religious traditions are not just wrong but evil...away from ideas that we are fallen or sick, be more life-affirming and world-affirming.

These ideas create concepts of separation between the Good and Godly vs. the Bad and Worldly, the believers and the infidels. How much true love and peace can that allow? Some pity, but not the right deep, heartfelt connections needed to foster love and peace. Those have a wall of exclusivism built up as a blockade.

So the better representations of love and respect with nonbelievers are not as pervasive as they could easily be. Only from nonbelievers being guilty of a crime that doesn't exist...and in favor of a future world where we are not supposed to exist.

This naturally creates reciprocal animosity, to make matters worse.

 

[gsa]

It's fundamentalism that causes this kind of thing. Moderates believe some ridiculous things, fundamentalists believe a lot of crazy things. Believing in crazy things can be dangerous, as we have al seen.

It seems like the definition of "moderate" is indeterminate though; while I agree that Christian and Islamic fundamentalists are particularly bad, I also think that "moderate" is too broad. Evangelicals claim that they are moderate as well.

 

[gsa]

Yes, the same. Once again, no violence here. The Gospel is inherently divisive, of course it would be. The "sword" is not a physical sword, the context should make that quite clear...

"The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That's enough!" he replied."

EDIT: The above is from a different Gospel, I jumped a bit there, ignore it.

EDIT: A better example would be Jesus' express condemnation of Peter using a sword, or the whole turn the other cheek thing.

Believing that some violence is not justified is not the same as believing that no violence is ever justified. How do you explain historic Christian support for violence? Are we to regard them as outside of the faith?

Also Christians use the state as an instrument of violence by, for example, supporting laws that oppress minorities. Even if you regard this as inconsistent with Christianity, can we say that they are outside the boundaries given historical reality?

 

[lovemuffin]

"Can we ignore the link between religion and religious violence?"

No. Although we probably shouldn't oversimplify the link either.

 

[gsa]

"Can we ignore the link between religion and religious violence?"

No. Although we probably shouldn't oversimplify the link either.

Do you think Ali oversimplifies it?

 

[Deidre]

Well Christianity has taught and practiced violence in the past. Christians have burned heretics, gay men and lesbians, killed Jews and Muslims by the thousands or millions. Today Christians often claim that those Christians were "acting out of accord with" the Christian religion, but that was not how it was understood at the time.

Non-violent, peaceful Muslims state the same thing, but in reference to Islam.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I just have a question before I comment. Do all the Muslims who do not act in a "terroristic" way but in a act of peace considered a Muslim?

In the past I thought about becoming Muslim. If I were would I need to treat woman unequally, be a terroist, and be a person of war?

I dont come from a family who promotes violence. I dont follow the history of my country who did. Im sure many Muslims do not fit into the sterotype americans understanably give Muslims.

If I can be a Muslim and the Islam faith brings out peace in me from God, that religion is a religion of piece. Im not the only one who shares these views. I just find it wrong to generalize the Muslim faith as not peaceful.

Likewise with Christianity. Like Islamic faith (and buddhist and so forth) their followers had war in the name of their faith. The faith is that of love Christianity-sacrifice;islam-obedience;buddhism-selflessness.

Its the people not the faith.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in response to the murder of French satirists, says no:
How we respond to this attack is of great consequence. If we take the position that we are dealing with a handful of murderous thugs with no connection to what they so vocally claim, then we are not answering them. We have to acknowledge that today’s Islamists are driven by a political ideology, an ideology embedded in the foundational texts of Islam. We can no longer pretend that it is possible to divorce actions from the ideals that inspire them.

This would be a departure for the West, which too often has responded to jihadist violence with appeasement. We appease the Muslim heads of government who lobby us to censor our press, our universities, our history books, our school curricula. They appeal and we oblige. We appease leaders of Muslim organizations in our societies. They ask us not to link acts of violence to the religion of Islam because they tell us that theirs is a religion of peace, and we oblige.

Do you agree or disagree with Ali?

 

[gsa]

Non-violent, peaceful Muslims state the same thing, but in reference to Islam.

Indeed. To me, this suggests that they are both in error.

 

[Nietzsche]

I do not think there is a link between religion and violence, not in the sense you're claiming.

I think there is a like between people and violence, and since religions are formed by people(genuinely divinely inspired or not) they tend to lead to violence. But this is true of nearly all things done by people.

The only difference between religious-violence and political-violence is what kind of hat the person telling you to do it is wearing.

 

[gsa]

I just have a questiin before I comment. Do all the Muslims who do not act in a "terroristic" way but in a act of peace considered a Muslim?

I assume that those who identify as Muslims are Muslims. Whether they are peaceful or violent, soft or sadistic, they are part of the ummah.

In the past I thought about becoming Muslim. If I were would I meed to treat woman unequally, be a terroist, and be a person of war?

No. But I don't think that is really the issue. Clearly there are Muslims who are not violent, treat women equally and do not engage in acts of barbaric terrorism. Likewise, there are people who identify as Christians who don't bomb abortion clinics and gay bars. I just don't think it is honest to ignore the fact that violence is being carried out in the name of religion.

Likewise with Christianity. Like Islamic faith (and buddhist and so forth) their followers had war in the name of their faith. The faith is that of love Christianity-sacrifice;islam-obedience;buddhism-selflessness.

Its the people not the faith.

I don't really see the dharmic religions as coming anywhere near the Abrahamic ones when it comes to religious violence. There appears to be plenty of compulsion in Islam, but I'm not aware of any Buddhists leading wars of conquest against Muslims in the name of Buddhist doctrine. The immediate possible exception that comes to mind is the Sinhalese nationalists, but it stands out precisely because it is exceptional and clearly inconsistent with very basic tenets of Buddhist practice.