Can we ignore the link between religion and religious violence?

[Smart_Guy]

The word "violence" confuses me. Is defending one's self against violence, resulting in a no-choice (maybe accidental too) violence only as needed, considered violence?

 

[LuisDantas]

But if you talk to a lot of theists, including theists on this very forum, you get a lot of them who don't want sanity, they don't want rationality, they don't want logic or reason, they just want their emotionally comforting fantasies and some, although I wouldn't hope any here are like this, are willing to kill to get it.

I am an anti-theist, you realize.

 

[LuisDantas]

The word "violence" confuses me. Is defending one's self against violence, resulting in a no-choice (maybe accidental too) violence only as needed, considered violence?

Yes, it is. Understandable, but still violence. It has a way of perpetuating itself.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Yes, it is. Understandable, but still violence. It has a way of perpetuating itself.

Hmm, I thought the definition of violence was the intended unneeded harm delivered to those done nothing to cause it to them selves. A combination of physical and mental offense, that is.

Are there still people against it even if it is understandable, according to you definition?

 

[LuisDantas]

Hmm, I thought the definition of violence was the intended unneeded harm delivered to those done nothing to cause it to them selves. A combination of physical and mental offense, that is.

Are there still people against it even if it is understandable, according to you definition?

Yes. Badshah Khan was one of them. So were the Khudai Khidmatgar. So was Gandhi.

Not to say I'm comparing merits or anything, but so am I.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Yes. Badshah Khan was one of them. So were the Khudai Khidmatgar. So was Gandhi.

Not to say I'm comparing merits or anything, but so am I.

I don't criticize, but honestly, those guys seem like they did not have families and people under them that needed protection to care for and worry about.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't criticize, but honestly, those guys seem like they did not have families and people under them that needed protection to care for and worry about.

I suppose that is a fair point to raise. It is all too human to think of family first and peace later. I can't even say that I disapprove.

All the same, I find it painfully obvious that such an attitude does not lead to peace, nor even to stability. It is often understandable, but never a solution.


Also, specifically when it comes to the Khudai Khidmatgar, I am under the impression that they actually had very little to lose. Those specific historical and social circunstances that they lived in seem to have given them a lot of good reasons to believe that their families might be ravaged anyway if the hostilies were allowed to continue and escalate.

I figure that non-violence would have a lot of American supporters as well if they had to see the results of the air bombings and such up front, every day, and to live next door with those who suffer the direct consequences.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Well I guess the opinion differs on the security status of the person. I mean, someone that lives a peaceful life swears that violence is never justified because they do not know the feeling of being threatened themselves or for those they care for and love, and vise versa with those living in continues fear and life/honor/property threat.

Violence is never the absolute solution, but non-violence is also the same, as I see it. I believe we need to be rational and in a middle ground and think of all possibilities. I also encourage leaving violence to the last and never think of it unless it is absolutely necessary. Completely removing violence from any possibility does not seem rational to me.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well I guess the opinion differs on the security status of the person. I mean, someone that lives a peaceful life swears that violence is never justified because they do not know the feeling of being threatened themselves or for those they care for and love, and vise versa with those living in continues fear and life/honor/property threat.

Different people will react differently, no doubt. But not always out of lack of an ample perspective.

Violence is never the absolute solution, but non-violence is also the same, as I see it. I believe we need to be rational and in a middle ground and think of all possibilities. I also encourage leaving violence to the last and never think of it unless it is absolutely necessary. Completely removing violence from any possibility does not seem rational to me.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this, then. Violence is always destructive IMO. It may sometimes be unavoidable, but it is never constructive, and never part of any true solution.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this, then. Violence is always destructive IMO. It may sometimes be unavoidable, but it is never constructive, and never part of any true solution.

Oh, but I agree with you in this. What I meant is that even non-violence could be destructive. Then what really matters to me is which would be less destructive. Violence is indeed destructive, but at some point I think it could be less destructive that non violence.

(Warning: This link has material that is rated offensive)
'I didn't think of Iraqis as humans,' says U.S. soldier who raped 14-year-old girl before killing her and her family | Daily Mail Online

In the above link, if one of the family members used violence against the rapist, it could have turned resulted in the rapist is the one getting hurt in the end and non of the family members would have been hurt, yet in the end the single rapist lived and the whole family were murdered and one of them raped.

I never been in any similar situations (God willing I never will, and all those seeing this too), so I'm not sure if my assumption are good.

 

[bain-druie]

I read the whole thread, and it was worth reading. I don't remember who said it here, for which I apologize, but the point was very well-made that not only CAN we [*we* being humans] ignore the correlation between religion and violence, we always HAVE been; at least where our own faith is concerned. When it's someone else's faith, lots of people are happy to point the finger to ludicrous extremes while doing the most incredible feats of superhuman mental acrobatics to avoid the same blame where their own religion is guilty [ahem, here's looking at Christendom]. I was pleasantly surprised to find that was in several cases not so in this thread.

I understand and relate to the indignation peaceful Muslims or Christians feel when they really are doing their best to follow the peaceful, love-promoting aspects of their faith, only to be slapped repeatedly with historical atrocities or current atrocities done in the name of the same deity they earnestly love and trust.

However, I think what they're missing is that when they react with shock and outrage that they could be put into the same categories, they make the rest of us (or at least me - let me not presume to speak for everyone) feel the skepticism and annoyance encapsulated in Shakespeare's 'The lady doth protest too much, methinks' [Hamlet].

Be braver than that, Muslims and Christians. No, you're not responsible for the violence or injustice committed by those you call extremists or fundamentalists, and you should not bear the burden of guilt for their actions. HOWEVER, you are responsible to realistically acknowledge the fact that when you have a 'holy text' which claims to be direct communication from the all-powerful creator, which you revere and follow as much as the violent extremists, just with a different focus, you should expect to answer for it to those of us who are justifiably deeply offended. ESPECIALLY when your faith wants you to proselytize us.

No, you have no chance of winning me or many others to your faith; but you do have a chance to be adult enough that we could come to respect you and the side of your faith you choose to represent.

The inescapable fact is that both the Koran and the Bible - both of which I own and have read - espouse and even encourage violence or injustice against unbelievers. New Testament is no exception, christians - be honest and look at it as someone without bias. Try not to read it through your prism of 'I love Jesus no matter WHAT anyone says and will defend this faith blindly because I KNOW IT'S RIGHT'; no one outside your faith can possibly respect that. Try to read it instead with objectivity, like someone who never heard of it might.

I personally do hold Christianity responsible for every act of violence and prejudice committed in Christ's name, and I hold Islam responsible for every act of violence and injustice committed in Muhammad's and the Koran's names. I look at the deity depicted in those books as a severely narcissistic bipolar sadist, because that is what I see in those pages, if I assume the character to be a real person [as his followers claim].

The fact that I know both Muslims and Christians that I love and respect in SPITE of their faith does nothing to mitigate the distrust and disgust I feel for the faith itself; that won't change if the better representatives of those faiths continue indignantly repudiating all connection with the fundamentalists who embrace different aspects of the very same holy text, no matter how many times you squawk 'OUT OF CONTEXT' or 'OLD COVENANT' or 'WE CAN'T UNDERSTAND THE WAYS OF GOD'.

The fact is, anyone can read those texts, and those of us without a bias can clearly see that *both* sides of the same faith, the violent and the non-violent, can justify themselves from those texts.

Bottom line, I'm not against good Muslims and good Christians; I know they exist, I love many of them, I even respect and trust a few of them - however, that's because of the people they are, and I judge them worthwhile in SPITE of what I perceive as the handicap of their religion. I *AM* very much against religions that have caused - or at the very least, contributed to - a vast amount of bloodshed throughout human history when in political power.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The word "violence" confuses me. Is defending one's self against violence, resulting in a no-choice (maybe accidental too) violence only as needed, considered violence?

According to the OED (the dictionary for English):
a. The deliberate exercise of physical force against a person, property, etc.; physically violent behaviour or treatment; (Law) the unlawful exercise of physical force, intimidation by the exhibition of such force. Formerly also: †the abuse of power or authority to persecute or oppress (obs.).
I do question it's marking the last definition as obsolete though, as anthropologists use the term institutional violence to describe what the phenomena of the last definition, typically when referring to governments (or ruling class) and minorities.
When defending oneself, one very often must resort to some degree of violence. Even if you just slam someone on the ground and apply some sort of hold that restrains them because they attacked you, you are still deliberately using physical force against some one. It is understandable, and no one should ever penalized for defending themselves from bodily harm or death, but it is still a degree of violence, even if it is a small amount of force being exerted.

 

[ChristineES]

If religions were the only ones who were apt to violence, I might just agree. But since I know that any human organizations can turn to violence, even ones that are so-called peaceful. As I keep saying, people are the ones who are violent.

 

[Cephus]

I am an anti-theist, you realize.

As am I, that doesn't change any of the points that I made. If theists cared about being rational and critically evaluating their own beliefs, there wouldn't be the kind of religious violence we see around the world. I've been debating religion since I gave up on Christianity well over 30 years ago and in thousands upon thousands of debates, I have yet to run into any theist who can rationally argue their faith, every single one gets to a certain point and then rides off to Buffalo on a unicorn of absurdity. It's just the nature of religion.

 

[LuisDantas]

As am I, that doesn't change any of the points that I made. If theists cared about being rational and critically evaluating their own beliefs, there wouldn't be the kind of religious violence we see around the world. I've been debating religion since I gave up on Christianity well over 30 years ago and in thousands upon thousands of debates, I have yet to run into any theist who can rationally argue their faith, every single one gets to a certain point and then rides off to Buffalo on a unicorn of absurdity. It's just the nature of religion.

It is a very common danger in religion, certainly. And IMO it is a particularly grave danger of theism. To say that it is the nature of religion is going a bit too far IMO.

 

[lovemuffin]

I prefer to ride off on a buffalo

 

[ChristineES]

I guess we should put off all human organizations, including political parties, environmentalism, etc because all of them have to the capacity to start violence if someone misuses them.

 

[Cephus]

It is a very common danger in religion, certainly. And IMO it is a particularly grave danger of theism. To say that it is the nature of religion is going a bit too far IMO.

Why? At least for religions with supernatural beliefs, it happens to be completely true, or do you think adherents of those religions can actually rationally justify their beliefs?

 

[LuisDantas]

Why? At least for religions with supernatural beliefs, it happens to be completely true, or do you think adherents of those religions can actually rationally justify their beliefs?

I don't think supernaturalism is a good influence in religion, period.

 

[Cephus]

I don't think supernaturalism is a good influence in religion, period.

I think it's a horrible influence on everything, that doesn't change the fact that it is pervasive in most religions.