Can we ignore the link between religion and religious violence?

[icehorse]

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

Seems to me that by doing a few minor tweaks to a few words, you could be describing spirituality. Hooray! Let's let spirituality stand on its own with no unwanted supervision from religion.

 

[Poeticus]

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?

It's called outward-rigorism, and I have talked about it quite heavily on RF. I even made a thread on it, at which point I used to hold it as mere theory but have come to realize that the academicians of religious studies that established such a concept have articulated something that is very much factual, unfortunately. I used ISIS as a case study:

There is also another notion: acts of radicalism - that of outward-rigorism - cannot be done in the name of religion.

Such a notion, however, betrays the very reality of outward-rigorism: it is derived and sanctioned by literalist and extremist readings of scripture - which are often then sanctioned and justified through scriptural analyses by clergymen and related parties. More importantly, it is also the biggest copout known to exist in the religio-sphere. Neither the amendment to the notion - the amendment being that the religion is being used as a cloak for criminal acts - does it any further rational justice. It betrays the logic of outward-rigorism in its entirety. How so ? Well, simply based on the fact not due to a lack of education but more specifically out of the growth phase that is known as religious cleansing: the [wanton] act of deliberately and consciously engaging in acts of iconoclasm and suppression of the Other in order to establish the social, economical, and political supremacy of the radical strain of one's own belief: which right now is the story of the horrid and savage group known as ISIS.

And I made another thread using the outward-rigorism concept as background pertaining to horrible events occurring in ISIS-controlled areas as we speak, which I hoped would involve RF's staunch feminists and liberal and egalitarian ideologues, but the thread didn't take off with the vigor it so rightly should have:

"A new U.N. report paints a terrifying picture of life under the Islamic State":

From Tal Afar, a group of 150 unmarried girls and women, mostly from Christian or Yazidi families, were selected and reportedly sent to Syria "either to be given to ISIL fighters as a reward or to be sold as sex slaves," according to a report released on Thursday, Oct. 2, by the United Nations' human rights office in Iraq.

The Islamic State, also known as ISIS and ISIL, captured the world's attention last June by declaring the creation of a caliphate in parts of both Syria and Iraq and embarking on a ruthless military campaign marked by mass executions, beheadings, and ethnic cleansing of ancient Christian, Shiite, and Yazidi communities. The 26-page report -- which documents rights abuses from July 6 through Sept. 10 -- constitutes the most detailed U.N. account of crimes committed by the Islamic State and sheds further light on its mass enslavement of women and girls.

Once they were in captivity, fighters from the Islamic State sexually assaulted the teenage boys and girls, witnesses told the United Nations. Those who refused to convert to the groups ran the risk of execution. "[W]omen and children who refused to convert were being allotted to ISIL fighters or were being trafficked … in markets in Mosul and to Raqqa in Syria," according to the report. "Married women who converted were told by ISIL that their previous marriages were not recognised in Islamic law and that they, as well as unmarried women who converted, would be given to ISIL fighters as wives."
source

... and before delusional rigorists intervene and post a myriad non-sequiturs, it is rationally proper to describe the above as a facet of militant Islamic rigorism. To even object to such a fact and either whitewash it by sweeping it under a rug or by arbitrarily condemning the involved perpetrators as non-Muslim is a grave injustice to not only progressive interfaith dialogue that seeks to highlight the importance of taking responsibility for such shortcomings but also a virulent slight to the women and children that have suffered such brutality and cruelty due to literalist and stringent readings of scripture.

 

[gsa]

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.

Christian Reconstructionists strongly disagree. Are they "unchristian" for advocating a return to theocracy and reinstituting biblical law? The one that Christ came not to abolish, but to fulfill?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's called outward-rigorism, and I have talked about it quite heavily on RF. I even made a thread on it, at which point I used to hold it as mere theory but have come to realize that the academicians of religious studies that established such a concept have articulated something that is very much factual, unfortunately. I used ISIS as a case study:

With the logical that Islam turns people violent, if we use America as a case study, it is a stronger claim to state that environmentalism promotes destruction of property, as animal rights and environmentalist extremists have caused more attacks and more damage than Muslim extremists. There are even many exclusivist subcultures of environmentalists that live in communities that require strict rules to be adhered to.
When approached from the angle of the farming industry, to compare it to the debate over censorship, we should expect abusive profit-driven farms to close, and regulate that they treat the animals better (which we need to do anyways, but for other reasons) and not give harmful things to the animals (growth hormones, unnecessary antibiotics, etc.) because they are potential targets of these environmentalist extremist. Farms, labs, careers, and even lives with the ultra extremist are all at risk of attack from these groups.
But we barely even know of their existence, even though, here, in America, the extremist animal rights and environmentalist groups.
But, unfortunately, somethings are so strongly demonized that it takes a momentous effort to repair the damage. But from "small" things, such as the belief that there is always a "man and a woman" in a relationship in regards to homosexual relations, or "larger" things like the very common and widespread misconceptions about Communism, or serious issues, such as irrational fears of an entire group over actions conducted by a minority of a population. Groups like ISIS are dangerous, the rule in Islamic countries tends to be strict, harsh, and unreasonable, and clearly there are problems over there. But the local mosque or community center doesn't pose a threat, the rule in any theocracy tends to be strict, harsh, and unreasonable (as we typically see that religion is exploited as a tool for control), and we tend to not have problems with culturally Western Muslims (and when we do, they tend to fit our "lone attacker" profile which can come from any group), and not really even from the entirety of the Muslim population in those Muslim countries (do not forget, we have/have had many Muslims here who are from those parts of the world).
You also have to ask if we may be doing anything to fuel the flames. The United States government invaded another country, toppled the ruling regime, established their own government, and it wasn't even a "hush-hush" CIA operation like we typically see from the United States government that only accidentally gets discovered years later. The United States government armed Al-Qaeda. Western corporations are practically taking anything they want. All of these things, and more, are causing an outsider to have tremendous impacts on their cultures and societies. Sometimes, you have to step back, and wonder if your involvement may be making things worse.

 

[JRMcC]

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?

I wouldn't be particularly surprised. I wonder what the criteria for being a fundamentalist is though.

 

[ChristineES]

Then the violence has ended?

Then the violence has ended?

Do you actually believe that people are going to stop just because someone tells them to? It takes a lot more than that!! People protest all the time, but I never see anything change because of it. People are too busy protesting trying to get everyone to change rather than trying to change themselves. I don't approve of the WBC (Westboro Baptist Church): I don't know of any Christian who does approve of them. They say so to their face and WBC doesn't listen. We can talk and talk and talk, but we can't make people listen. The best I can do is to NOT be like the WBC, and make known that I don't approve of what they do. They have to want to change in order to change.
Has the violence ended anywhere?

 

[psychoslice]

As long as we have people believing their right and all else is wrong, we are going to have violence, its that simple.

 

[ChristineES]

As long as we have people believing their right and all else is wrong, we are going to have violence, its that simple.

It's that simple, but there is no solution to it. For instance, I don't even know if I'm right about anything so how am I supposed to know if anyone else is right? It might be different if I knew everything, but since I only know what I have been exposed to, I don't know hardly anything.

 

[psychoslice]

It's that simple, but there is no solution to it. For instance, I don't even know if I'm right about anything so how am I supposed to know if anyone else is right? It might be different if I knew everything, but since I only know what I have been exposed to, I don't know hardly anything.

yes in a deep sense your right, but we have to see things as we see them, and what we see is violence, sometimes outright, and sometimes subtle.

 

[Awoon]

Do you actually believe that people are going to stop just because someone tells them to? It takes a lot more than that!! People protest all the time, but I never see anything change because of it. People are too busy protesting trying to get everyone to change rather than trying to change themselves. I don't approve of the WBC (Westboro Baptist Church): I don't know of any Christian who does approve of them. They say so to their face and WBC doesn't listen. We can talk and talk and talk, but we can't make people listen. The best I can do is to NOT be like the WBC, and make known that I don't approve of what they do. They have to want to change in order to change.
Has the violence ended anywhere?

But arent the "real" Christians/Muslims/Jews constantly praying to God for peace? Seems prayers don't work. But as I said in another thread, there is NO money to be made from peace.

 

[ChristineES]

But arent the "real" Christians/Muslims/Jews constantly praying to God for peace? Seems prayers don't work. But as I said in another thread, there is NO money to be made from peace.

If humans wanted peace, there would be peace. G-d gave us free will. It isn't religions themselves that are violent , it's the human race, by and large, that's violent, and, unfortunately, the human race doesn't want peace: Each one wants to be right: And that includes people of faith, people not of faith, people who don't care about faith. Even both you and I want to be the one who is right in our little part of the debate, although neither one of us would turn to violence, I would guess.

 

[1robin]

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

It appears this was the only part of your post directed at me. Are you wanting to debate whether the bible or the Quran gives the most incentive, permission, allowances for the violence we see in our modern age, in the last 2000 years all together?

Before you answer that keep in mind what my original claim was. I said the NT contains no commands for violence of any kind for any reason. I added the OT does contain commands for violence BUT these commands only applied to the Hebrews and have not applied to anyone in over 2000 years, AND that they unlike the Quran are not generalized and open ended commands to violence even in their day.

After taking all that in what is it specifically you want to debate?

 

[1robin]

Christian Reconstructionists strongly disagree. Are they "unchristian" for advocating a return to theocracy and reinstituting biblical law? The one that Christ came not to abolish, but to fulfill?

Disagree with what? I am not swayed by reconstructionist, revisionists, or redactionists. They and their theories come and go and Orthodoxy remains unchanged.

The one what Christ came to fulfill?

 

[icehorse]

It's that simple, but there is no solution to it. For instance, I don't even know if I'm right about anything so how am I supposed to know if anyone else is right? It might be different if I knew everything, but since I only know what I have been exposed to, I don't know hardly anything.

I think that honest, self-aware critical thinking is at least a partial solution. (This would include - for instance - acknowledgement of your own biases.)

 

[Awoon]

If humans wanted peace, there would be peace. G-d gave us free will. It isn't religions themselves that are violent , it's the human race, by and large, that's violent, and, unfortunately, the human race doesn't want peace: Each one wants to be right: And that includes people of faith, people not of faith, people who don't care about faith. Even both you and I want to be the one who is right in our little part of the debate, although neither one of us would turn to violence, I would guess.

"God gave us Free Will." I've heard that so much from people/Christians it makes me sick. By taking thought are you healing the sick? By taking thought are you moving mountains? By taking thought are you raising the dead? That is what "Free Will" means and I don't see it demonstrated by any Human.

 

[ChristineES]

"God gave us Free Will." I've heard that so much from people/Christians it makes me sick. By taking thought are you healing the sick? By taking thought are you moving mountains? By taking thought are you raising the dead? That is what "Free Will" means and I don't see it demonstrated by any Human.

I can't deny that we see things totally different. We are 180 degrees out in our way of thinking. That means we see the same thing yet think about it totally differently. What are you doing to make the world a better place? Another thing is we all need to look at ourselves.

 

[Cephus]

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?

Which is about the same with Muslims, numbers I've seen place the number of radicals at 23-30%.

 

[Cephus]

I can't deny that we see things totally different. We are 180 degrees out in our way of thinking. That means we see the same thing yet think about it totally differently. What are you doing to make the world a better place? Another thing is we all need to look at ourselves.

Not to be offensive, but what are you doing? Talking to yourself? How does that help?

 

[ChristineES]

Not to be offensive, but what are you doing? Talking to yourself? How does that help?

I wasn't talking to myself, I was giving an answer. You didn't offend me, since I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.

 

[Cephus]

I wasn't talking to myself, I was giving an answer. You didn't offend me, since I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.

What is it that believers can do that non-believers cannot, except pray, which is just talking to yourself anyhow?