Can we ignore the link between religion and religious violence?

[lovemuffin]

Do you think Ali oversimplifies it?

I don't have a problem with the point he's making. I wouldn't have a problem with it if we were discussing Christian sponsored oppression of gay people in Africa either (or whatever other suitable example there might be). I don't think the piece says everything there is to say about the relation between religion, culture, politics, and violence, but it's a short opinion piece and as a response to a kind of thinking that seems to attempt to completely separate the religious aspect from this, I think he makes a valid point.

At the same time, I think Nietzsche makes a valid counter-point, if perhaps taken too far. It's not all about religion. My best guess (and of course it's really no better than a guess) is that if it were even possible to keep all else equal and eliminate religion, there would still be plenty of violence in human history. The justifications would look different. But I wouldn't deny that, in reference to a specific culture and time, religious understanding can either marginally encourage or discourage violence. The religious aspect of islamist violence can't be separated from the cultural, political, and historical factors, but they can't be separated from the religious factor either. The idea that the religious understanding also needs reformation is perfectly valid. I don't think a general statement about the "peacefulness" of Islam or Christianity can really be true either way.

 

[gsa]

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.

Well people are behind all the actions that people do. That is self-evident, I agree. But I don't agree that all violence has the same character. I don't see many secular people murdering cartoonists and film directors in the name of, say, feminism, while we can count any number of people executed in the name of Islam.

 

[gsa]

I don't have a problem with the point he's making. I wouldn't have a problem with it if we were discussing Christian sponsored oppression of gay people in Africa either (or whatever other suitable example there might be). I don't think the piece says everything there is to say about the relation between religion, culture, politics, and violence, but it's a short opinion piece and as a response to a kind of thinking that seems to attempt to completely separate the religious aspect from this, I think he makes a valid point.

At the same time, I think Nietzsche makes a valid counter-point, if perhaps taken too far. It's not all about religion. My best guess (and of course it's really no better than a guess) is that if it were even possible to keep all else equal and eliminate religion, there would still be plenty of violence in human history. The justifications would look different. But I wouldn't deny that, in reference to a specific culture and time, religious understanding can either marginally encourage or discourage violence. The religious aspect of islamist violence can't be separated from the cultural, political, and historical factors, but they can't be separated from the religious factor either. The idea that the religious understanding also needs reformation is perfectly valid. I don't think a general statement about the "peacefulness" of Islam or Christianity can really be true either way.

Ali is an ex-Muslim and she is very passionate about bringing equality to women caught in traditional Islamic societies, and about the impact that Islam, specifically, has on violence and the subjugation of women. Including laws that were in place in Pakistan until about 9 years ago, for example, that resulted in the imprisonment of rape victims who did not have a sufficient number of witnesses to make their case in Islamic courts. Or the attitude that women deserve to be beaten, as solidified in the Quran:

I remember once talking to a Muslim woman about the Quran, chapter four, verse 34, which, to paraphrase: “If men are the maintainers of women, if you fear disobedience, warn them, leave them alone in their beds, beat them.” She said, “That’s not in the Quran.” I showed it to her. She looked at me. She blinked her eyes. Then she said, “Yeah, but it’s only for bad women, for disobedient women.”

I remember having a conversation like that with my half-sister, but my half-sister was more honest. She didn’t deny that the verse was there. She acknowledged that she agreed with it, and said, “Ayaan, this verse is for women like you.”
Which is great, because at least I know where I stand with Muhammad, and where I stand with my half-sister, which is more urgent.

I admit, there is no shortage of non-religious justifications for violence. But can we say that the actions above would be as pervasive or as well-defended if they were not supported by the claims of religious authority? Can we even say that the Holocaust would have been possible in the absence of nearly two thousand years of Christian anti-Semitism?

 

[ChristineES]

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.

Christians have done these things in the past, but it wasn't Yeshua who taught them to do that. I don't think my whole faith should have to answer to what people did in the past, especially when it wasn't taught by the faith itself.

 

[lovemuffin]

My bad on he/she. I read pretty fast. I'll accept my sexist whipping.

I do not believe we can say that the actions you cite would be as pervasive or well-defended absent the specific claims of religious authority that are used to defend them. Or that the holocaust would have happened. I'm sure those counterfactuals are unknowable, but it seems perfectly reasonable to say that the exact cases of extraordinary violence we have seen would not have occurred in just the way they did occur if the religious authorities were entirely different or non-existent.

But, part of saying that the justifications would be different is also saying that the exact acts of violence would also be different. I don't think it's possible to say that they would be greater or lesser with any real certainty. They would certainly be different. The problem with trying to grasp at the counterfactual cases to begin with is that it doesn't seem at all reasonable to think that the religious causes of violence can be properly isolated from all the other causes, in order to answer a question about what it would be like if there were no religion. People are not so compartmentalized, and it's not properly a question of what some specific individual would do or not do absent their religion, but what things would look like in aggregate. I think there's enough evidence that cultures can be violent across a wide variety of religious beliefs, and also without them.

So the "yes, but" of it is that

a) the relationship between religion and violence is too complex to make sweeping generalizations about counterfactuals
b) that doesn't mean we can't criticize religious influences when they are obviously inciting violence in a way that we think is unjustifiable

(b) necessarily entails making moral judgements about the religious beliefs that are inciting violence, i.e declaring them to be unjustified, despite the claims of believers! And of course the nature of moral judgement and all of that can be as hopelessly complicated as we want to make it, but in practice I'm perfectly fine adopting mostly western liberal attitudes about politics and basic human rights, and saying that it would be better if they were held universally.

 

[gsa]

Christians have done these things in the past, but it wasn't Yeshua who taught them to do that. I don't think my whole faith should have to answer to what people did in the past, especially when it wasn't taught by the faith itself.

Given that the Christian religion teaches that Jesus was also Yahweh, I think there's plenty of evidence that Jesus, within the Christian context, supported genocide, murder of gay men and lesbians, etcetera.

"Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!" Pslam 137:9

"If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through." (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

Then, with Micah's idols and his priest, the men of Dan came to the town of Laish, whose people were peaceful and secure. They attacked and killed all the people and burned the town to the ground. There was no one to rescue the residents of the town, for they lived a great distance from Sidon and had no allies nearby. This happened in the valley near Beth-rehob.Then the people of the tribe of Dan rebuilt the town and lived there. They renamed the town Dan after their ancestor, Israel's son, but it had originally been called Laish. (Judges 18:27-29 NLT) God (Jesus) approves of the slaughter of the town in verse 6: "“Go in peace,” the priest replied. “For the LORD is watching over your journey.”

Plenty more vile, violent verses that I can dredge up, but I think you see the point.

 

[ChristineES]

Given that the Christian religion teaches that Jesus was also Yahweh, I think there's plenty of evidence that Jesus, within the Christian context, supported genocide, murder of gay men and lesbians, etcetera.

"Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!" Pslam 137:9

"If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through." (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

Then, with Micah's idols and his priest, the men of Dan came to the town of Laish, whose people were peaceful and secure. They attacked and killed all the people and burned the town to the ground. There was no one to rescue the residents of the town, for they lived a great distance from Sidon and had no allies nearby. This happened in the valley near Beth-rehob.Then the people of the tribe of Dan rebuilt the town and lived there. They renamed the town Dan after their ancestor, Israel's son, but it had originally been called Laish. (Judges 18:27-29 NLT) God (Jesus) approves of the slaughter of the town in verse 6: "“Go in peace,” the priest replied. “For the LORD is watching over your journey.”

Plenty more vile, violent verses that I can dredge up, but I think you see the point.

I doubt sincerely you can quote any verse that I haven't seen before. I know it's hard to believe, but some of we Christians read the Bible. I am not going to debate the Torah, the Tanakh, etc with you, it's pointless. I follow Yeshua's commands, at any rate.
Edited to add: The Bible is not a book full of rules, there are some Laws in it, but mostly, it is a book about men and women who followed G-d in the past, and that would include any wars that were fought in those times.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Okay in the name of...I thought you mean the religion itself.

13 century japan had wars in the name of their faiths. Look up Nicheren Diashonin.

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.




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.




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.

 

[gsa]

I doubt sincerely you can quote any verse that I haven't seen before. I know it's hard to believe, but some of we Christians read the Bible. I am not going to debate the Torah, the Tanakh, etc with you, it's pointless. I follow Yeshua's commands, at any rate.

Well plenty of Christians (most of them in fact) believe Yeshua=Yahweh, so I don't know how that is supposed to resolve the matter.

 

[ChristineES]

Well plenty of Christians (most of them in fact) believe Yeshua=Yahweh, so I don't know how that is supposed to resolve the matter.

The Christians have managed to resolve that matter. They can read it, study it, etc. and don't seem to have any trouble with it. But the vast majority of Christians I know are benevolent, I can't say they all are, because people, no matter how you slice it, are pretty damned violent: Look at the movies they watch, they love to stop and stare at car accidents, they love boxing and wrestling, bar fights happen on a regular basis. I can't go a day without seeing on the news some person being maimed or killed by another person. There are wars going on all over the world, even as I sit here typing this.

 

[Deidre]

It's interesting when you look at a religion simply to educate yourself, and then actually consider following it. When you're merely educating yourself on any particular religion, not just Islam, you will find dark histories. In virtually all of them. They all seem to have 'survived' due to much violence and blood shed. Much of what I've read about Muhammad from a historical perspective, shows him as a warrior defending 'his cause,' and that cause was to build a Muslim community. Depending on who you talk to, Muhammad wasn't seen as a wager of war. So, we can view all of these stories as just stories...UNTIL...we look at the religious aspect, whereby a deity comes into play. The Qur'an and the Bible to a lesser degree, is touted as the infallible literal word of God. The Bible is riddled with allegory, but for all intents and purposes, most Christians believe it to be the word of God. And for me, as I've been exploring religion again, and feel that draw back into theism...that's a tough thing to reconcile with my worldview. I'm not a violent person, and don't believe that anyone needs to resort to violence to get things done in life. The world has been at war so many times, because human beings can't control themselves enough to finding common ground without resorting to violence. But, we look at the U.S., and it has a violence issue too, on a different scale, but it does.

So, back to what I was saying about exploring a religion...when you are actually looking at different faiths in terms of following one...you see another side to them. You go beyond merely educating yourself on the histories of them, and start looking at their mystical sides, their worship style, their prayer life, the social and cultural aspects, the way the religion makes you feel, what type of charity work is it involved in, etc... That is also very much a part of religion. And that is the part that MOST are attracted to. And then the tough parts of the holy book of which the religion you follow is based on...sort of becomes background noise, and maybe it will go away if no one brings it up.

So, that becomes the elephant in the room, and the fact that what draws people to different religions isn't the dark parts or the dark histories -- it is that whole other side that simply put, makes you feel comforted by Something that you can't quite explain. Islamic Sufism is fascinating, for example, and other mystical components to other religions. If you have never prayed, or have never felt connected to a 'higher power,' through prayer or meditation...all I can say is you travel to another world. And that is what draws people, and Islam has it too. So, when we look at peaceful Muslims say my friends for example...they are busy about being better people, helping others, and they attribute their love and kindness to Islam. They view the dark parts as history, and not meant for us to live that way today. The rub comes in when you have a deity ''blessing'' the violence of men, in your holy book. Same thing holds true for the Bible as well. So, how to have that kind of conversation, I don't know.

This is when identifying as an atheist was a wee bit easier. LOL

 

[Awoon]

If one Christian or Muslim commits a violent act against any human then ten Christians and Muslims should stand up and condemn the act and the violator of the act.

Too bad we don't see that happening from so called "peaceful" Christians and Muslims.

 

[ChristineES]

If one Christian or Muslim commits a violent act against any human then ten Christians and Muslims should stand up and condemn the act and the violator of the act.

Too bad we don't see that happening from so called "peaceful" Christians and Muslims.

I see people condemning violent acts all the time, especially when it's within their own faith.

 

[Deidre]

I don't assume that because people share the same religion, that they all agree on how one another represents it.
While the solidarity of non-violent Muslims condemning these acts would be seen as a positive, it's not necessary for me to witness that, in order to believe that most Muslims DON'T agree with ISIS and the like.

If one Christian or Muslim commits a violent act against any human then ten Christians and Muslims should stand up and condemn the act and the violator of the act.

Too bad we don't see that happening from so called "peaceful" Christians and Muslims.

 

[1robin]

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.

Perfectly stated, Not one verse in the NT justifies violence for any reason, and not one OT teaching on violence was open ended or has applied to anyone beyond Israel and to no one in over 2000 years. The Quran is pretty much the mirror image of that.

 

[bobhikes]

I chose other as in each person's or groups actions must be dealt with in the present. Just because a group is associated with a higher authority doesn't mean they speak for that authority. Now when you deal with that group and if the higher authority speaks out then and only then do you have a link. It certainly seems with ISIS's actions most Muslims across the world are against them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Too bad we don't see that happening from so called "peaceful" Christians and Muslims.

You are apparently blind. I don't even use things like Twitter but I know of the massive social movements by these peaceful Muslims who are denouncing the acts of ISIS.

Perfectly stated, Not one verse in the NT justifies violence for any reason, and not one OT teaching on violence was open ended or has applied to anyone beyond Israel and to no one in over 2000 years. The Quran is pretty much the mirror image of that.

Do you care to test that claim?
Is The Bible More Violent Than The Quran? : NPR

Given this violent legacy, religion historian Philip Jenkins decided to compare the brutality quotient of the Quran and the Bible.
"Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible," Jenkins says.
Violence in the Quran, he and others say, is largely a defense against attack.

"By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane," he says. "Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide."

Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?
It's not letting me past, but the Bible has nearly twice as many violent verses than the Quran.
And just because, really, all three religions and books should just be examined together, because, after all, Islam built off Christianity which built of Judaism.
30 of the Most Violent Exhortations from the Bible, Torah and Quran | Alternet

1. Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the [holy man] who represents God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged.

2. I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those, who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes.

3. I will fill your mountains with the dead. Your hills, your valleys, and your streams will be filled with people slaughtered by the sword. I will make you desolate forever. Your cities will never be rebuilt. Then you will know that I am God.

4. Fight them until there is no more [disbelief or worshipping of other gods] and worship is for God alone.

5. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

6. Whoso fighteth in the way of God, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.

7. Make ready to slaughter [the infidel’s] sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants.

8. [God’s messenger]... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The [holy man] replied, "They [women and children] are from them [unbelievers]."

9. Then I heard God say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children.”

10. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

11. Keep [my holiday], for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die.

12. The punishment of those who wage war against God and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement.

13. If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death.

14. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land...

15. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

16. I shall terrorize the [heathens]. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them, because they oppose God and his apostle.

17. A [holy man’s] daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death.

18. So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.

19. Everyone who would not seek God was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

20. And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.

21. But if [a girl wasn't a virgin on her wedding night] and evidence of the girl's virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her father’s house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against God’s people by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.

22. The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, "O [believer]! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

23. If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you.

24. God’s Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but God."

25. Cursed be he who does God’s work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood.

26. God said, "A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. [Prophet], you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But God desires killing them to manifest the religion."

27. Anyone who blasphemes God’s name must be stoned to death by the whole community of [believers].

28. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) [your religion]; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them [a tax]. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek God's help and fight them.

29. Anyone else who goes too near the [Holy Place] will be executed.

30. Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us.

 

[roger1440]

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.

Today if a Catholic burns a heretic at the stake he would go to jail, a few hundred years ago, the same Catholic would have got a metal.

 

[Awoon]

I see people condemning violent acts all the time, especially when it's within their own faith.

Then the violence has ended?

 

[icehorse]

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.

I think we're led to believe that there aren't many fundamentalists. What would you think if you found out that 20 or 30% of the followers of Abrahamic religions were fundamentalists?