Can we ignore the link between religion and religious violence?

[maggie2]

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?

This problem is as old as man. And unfortunately, much of the violence in our world stems from fundamentalist religious beliefs. It is not just how we respond to this latest violence, but how we respond to the books that have fostered such violence. If you read the Old Testament (the book of the Jewish people) there is a ton of violence in it.

If you take a look at the Christian faith it uses the Old Testament as its base and there is that violence again. While the New Testament does not contain the amount of violence that is depicted in the Old Testament, it still has violence in it. And unfortunately, the Christian church down through the ages has been a violent one. Take a look at how the Gnostics and other believers were treated in the early days of the church, take a look at the Knights Templar, the Inquisition, burning witches and there's lots more. And while Christians today may not be killing large groups of people there are still some who murder over religion. For example, those who have blown up abortion clinics, those who have killed gay young men and Timothy McVeigh, who was apparently a fundamentalist.

The Quran is full of violence and is used as a tool by those who are fundamentalist as an excuse for beheading and burning alive people that they disagree with. It is unfortunate, but even those Muslims who disapprove of what these extremists are doing are hesitant to come right out and say so. For example, when the killings happened in Paris, there was a moderate Imam from Ottawa who said that the Canadian government should enact laws to prohibit such things as the cartoons that caused the furor to begin with. At the same time he said he believes in free speech. Can't have it both ways, either we have free speech or we don't.

There have been and continue to be wars fought and millions killed in the name of religion. Until such time as we are able to get fundamentalism under some sort of control this will continue. And, in my opinion, at the heart of much of this senseless killing are three "sacred" books that promote it. Isn't it time for humans to stop believing that they have the only answer as far as spirituality goes? Isn't it time that we move into the 21st century and give up looking at books that are at least 2000 years old and 1500 years old that seem to encourage killing? Isn't it time we stopped appeasing those in Arab countries who treat women like dirt, kill people for adultery, and treat humans like swine? Isn't it time that we stop treating people who are different from us, i.e., gays, non-Christians, and, in fact, our own people, like we have a right to direct their lives and spend out time making their life difficult instead of helping our neighbor?

These three groups, the Abrahamic faiths, are violent groups and those who perpetrate the violence are literalists who think they have the only true faith, based on books that is full of violence. Most other religions do not promote violence like these three do. Maybe these groups need to find a way to calm their fundamentalists members and help them move away from violence and towards peace.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

Reason and observation are not lost on everyone, fortunately. I've noticed in my philosophy class Nietzsche has made at least a few Christians very unnerved and uneasy, and though they have that tone of voice people use when they want to say more but are holding back-and thus doing what Nietzsche criticized people for doing-but they haven't turned violent. Red in the face, but not violent.
And when we look at Muslims, they are treated like **** around here, yet they haven't launched any attacks and I have not observed any behavior that would suggest they are overly bitter about it and plotting revenge. They're just regular people going about their regular lives.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

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.

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."

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.

You know, I just watched a long documentary on Muhammad, and a couple things surprised me, there were interesting parts to his character, but then they went into the battles he fought and the salient one to me was the incident with the Jewish tribe of the Banu Qurayza. After the successful defense from persecutors with the Battle of the Trench, this Jewish tribe was apparently found to be traitorous in having an under-minding plot, and so many hundreds of them were beheaded.

Now, what if that were in the gospels, take for instance that part were Jesus said something like 'you're lucky this isn't my kingdom, for there my defenders would rush to my rescue.' So let's imagine that for a second, what if at the end of Luke, these angels instead rushed in down to earth and beheaded all these rabbis who resisted Jesus. Totally changes the story, right? Is Christianity then completely bonafide as being antisemitic or not, or does that depend on other complex hermeneutics?

Or let's imagine a new religion, let's say a new 22nd century Abrahamic religion is started somewhere in the world. Let's say somewhere in their hypothetical scripture hundreds of Christians and Muslims are beheaded because a claim was made for traitorous intent. Alright, all hypothetical - however let's say all their scripture beside just that one thing has the most wonderful wisdom of love and peace. Does that wisdom outweigh whatever wars they undertook?

 

[icehorse]

Reason and observation are not lost on everyone, fortunately. I've noticed in my philosophy class Nietzsche has made at least a few Christians very unnerved and uneasy, and though they have that tone of voice people use when they want to say more but are holding back-and thus doing what Nietzsche criticized people for doing-but they haven't turned violent. Red in the face, but not violent.
And when we look at Muslims, they are treated like **** around here, yet they haven't launched any attacks and I have not observed any behavior that would suggest they are overly bitter about it and plotting revenge. They're just regular people going about their regular lives.

Let's leave aside for the moment the uncomfortable fact that even in the West, apostasy from Islam is dangerous...

The most basic tenets of Islam are that Muhammad is the model of a perfect human, and that the Quran is the final, perfect, unalterable word of god.

Presumably, people who self-identify as Muslims are aware of these tenets. My studies lead me to believe that Muhammad was an effective but cruel general, and that the Quran promotes violence and widespread intolerance, and provides a sort of war manual for Muslims against all others.

Why should I trust people who willingly identify with these ideas?

Now you might say that I'm misinterpreting Islam - fair enough. For the last couple of years I've been trying to discover what Muslims *actually* believe in and value. Guess what, even here on PR, after many attempts, I cannot get an answer to these seemingly easy questions.

So what should I conclude?

 

[gsa]

First, Ali presents us with a false dilemma. ISIS and other Islamic supremacist terrorist organizations are neither handfuls of murderous thugs nor representative of most Muslims. There are a billion and a half Muslims in the world, of which only a fraction sympathize with the terrorists. In a world of seven billion people, that fraction is big enough to form transnational organizations.

I don’t believe that Ali is as reductionist as you suspect she is. Also, claiming that only a "fraction" sympathize with terrorists implies it is a fringe opinion, when in fact there is a substantial minority of Muslims, globally, who support Islamism. Whether or not they agree specifically with the Charlie Hebdo murders, they certainly agree that apostasy should be punishable, depictions of the prophet should be outlawed, etcetera. This is also consistent with the state policy of a number of Muslim majority countries, including the trustees of the most holy Islamic site.

Second, Ali tells us that the terrorists are inspired by the foundational texts of Islam, but fails to identify any relevant passages. This is insinuation, not rational argument.

This is ridiculous. Of course they are inspired by the foundational texts of Islam, including the Quran and the collected sayings of the prophet. Whether or not their interpretation is sound is of course subject to debate within the ummah, but to suggest that there's no way to read these texts in support of their actions, or to constantly demand that every opinion article on this point cite the passages at length, is unreasonable. It would be like demanding that a critique of Christian homophobia cite chapter and verse of Leviticus in order to support the argument that Christian homophobes are inspired by their religion.

Third, the idea that Western governments have an agenda of appeasing the terrorists is flat out false. If Ali doubts me, he can ask Osama bin Laden. He can also ask the many members of ISIS who have been subject to airstrikes from the West as well as from Jordon.

This is of course a mischaracterization of what she said. She was referring to "jihadist violence," and she gave examples.

As for censorship in the USA, it is a private company, Sony, that responded to ISIS with cowardice and lack of principle. It was the US government who persuaded them buck up.

That was North Korea, I believe, not ISIS.

France has not given in to censorship demands either. So when Ali talks of "appeasement," he's not giving a fair characterization of actual parties involved in the fight against terrorism--he is merely using a hawkish buzzword to smear anyone in the West who doesn't share his Islamophobia.

Ali is a female ex-Muslim. Islamophobia does not exist, unless you mean "anti-Muslim bias." Criticism of Islam or Islamism is not some sort of unwarranted prejudice.

Fourth, Ali's conflation of "Fundamentalist Islam" with "Islam" with "religion" is patently stupid. It is like saying that because cats are obligate carnivores, all animals that eat meat are obligate carnivores (no such thing as omnivores!), and that all animals are obligate carnivores. The fact that such conflation is popular among "New Atheists" does not make it any less stupid.

Fundamentalist tenets like scriptural infallibility is the mainstream of Islam, not some fringe element.

So, no, I do not agree with Ali's thoughts. In fact, I think that Ali has written one of an unfortunately large number of brainless Islamophobic smears, none of which deserve even the slightest respect.

OK. But you didn't really address what she wrote, and what you have written demonstrates the kind of pretzel logic I see when some members of the left respond to criticism of Islam as though it is equivalent to racism or homophobia.

 

[viole]

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?

"'Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

- Steven Weinberg

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nada]

"'Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

- Steven Weinberg

Ciao

- viole

1 Corinthians 3:19,20. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, "He is THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS";20and again, "THE LORD KNOWS THE REASONINGS of the wise, THAT THEY ARE USELESS."…

-Apostle Paul

 

[viole]

1 Corinthians 3:19,20. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, "He is THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS";20and again, "THE LORD KNOWS THE REASONINGS of the wise, THAT THEY ARE USELESS."…

-Apostle Paul

Matthew 11:25
I praise you Father, Lord Of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nada]

Matthew 11:25
I praise you Father, Lord Of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

Ciao

- viole

If you think that God and His Word are irrelevant, then why quote it?

 

[viole]

If you think that God and His Word are irrelevant, then why quote it?

I think that the words of Jesus (not necessarily God) are relevant. He basically says that believing these things is childish and wisdom is corrosive towards buying them.

Or do you have a better interpretation?

Ciao

- ciole

 

[Nada]

I think that the words of Jesus (not necessarily God) are relevant. He basically says that believing these things is childish and wisdom is corrosive towards buying them.

Or do you have a better interpretation?

Ciao

- ciole

Genesis 40:8 "We both had dreams," they answered, "but there is no one to interpret them." Then Joseph said to them, "Do not interpretations belong to God? Tell me your dreams."

 

[redpolk]

Let's leave aside for the moment the uncomfortable fact that even in the West, apostasy from Islam is dangerous...

The most basic tenets of Islam are that Muhammad is the model of a perfect human, and that the Quran is the final, perfect, unalterable word of god.

Presumably, people who self-identify as Muslims are aware of these tenets. My studies lead me to believe that Muhammad was an effective but cruel general, and that the Quran promotes violence and widespread intolerance, and provides a sort of war manual for Muslims against all others.

Why should I trust people who willingly identify with these ideas?

Now you might say that I'm misinterpreting Islam - fair enough. For the last couple of years I've been trying to discover what Muslims *actually* believe in and value. Guess what, even here on PR, after many attempts, I cannot get an answer to these seemingly easy questions.

So what should I conclude?

Killing for apostasy is unthinkable for almost all Christians but substantial portions of Muslims agree with it.(Don't take my word.Look up the surveys.)That speaks volumes.I won't condemn over a billion people for what a comparatively tiny group (like IS) do but when large groups of Muslims unabashedly accept killing for leaving the faith,such a faith is at best in grave need of cleansing.The question is when Muslims will accept the need for such cleansing and take action.

 

[Cephus]

Killing for apostasy is unthinkable for almost all Christians but substantial portions of Muslims agree with it.(Don't take my word.Look up the surveys.)That speaks volumes.I won't condemn over a billion people for what a comparatively tiny group (like IS) do but when large groups of Muslims unabashedly accept killing for leaving the faith,such a faith is at best in grave need of cleansing.The question is when Muslims will accept the need for such cleansing and take action.

The only reason it is "unthinkable" is because most Christians live in a secular western society. The Bible is very clear that you're supposed to kill the heretics, just like the Qur'an is. Most Christians have had their beliefs altered by secular society, such that violence is not an option. It isn't Christianity that does this, it's society.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hypothetically, yes. Theres a lot of blood shed in religion. Most religions I know, they dont prokote the violence its followerers undertake.

You know, I just watched a long documentary on Muhammad, and a couple things surprised me, there were interesting parts to his character, but then they went into the battles he fought and the salient one to me was the incident with the Jewish tribe of the Banu Qurayza. After the successful defense from persecutors with the Battle of the Trench, this Jewish tribe was apparently found to be traitorous in having an under-minding plot, and so many hundreds of them were beheaded.

Now, what if that were in the gospels, take for instance that part were Jesus said something like 'you're lucky this isn't my kingdom, for there my defenders would rush to my rescue.' So let's imagine that for a second, what if at the end of Luke, these angels instead rushed in down to earth and beheaded all these rabbis who resisted Jesus. Totally changes the story, right? Is Christianity then completely bonafide as being antisemitic or not, or does that depend on other complex hermeneutics?

Or let's imagine a new religion, let's say a new 22nd century Abrahamic religion is started somewhere in the world. Let's say somewhere in their hypothetical scripture hundreds of Christians and Muslims are beheaded because a claim was made for traitorous intent. Alright, all hypothetical - however let's say all their scripture beside just that one thing has the most wonderful wisdom of love and peace. Does that wisdom outweigh whatever wars they undertook?

 

[maggie2]

The only reason it is "unthinkable" is because most Christians live in a secular western society. The Bible is very clear that you're supposed to kill the heretics, just like the Qur'an is. Most Christians have had their beliefs altered by secular society, such that violence is not an option. It isn't Christianity that does this, it's society.

I beg to differ with you. Christians killed millions when they were reading the Bible literally. It may have been secular society that helped Christians finally wake up and realize that if God is loving then He wouldn't expect people to kill others...especially when he says "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Any person, Christian or Muslim or any other religion that uses a "sacred" book as an excuse to kill other humans is the most "sinful" of all others. Killing in the name of God or Allah or any other prophet is barbaric and needs to be stopped.

 

[Cephus]

I beg to differ with you. Christians killed millions when they were reading the Bible literally. It may have been secular society that helped Christians finally wake up and realize that if God is loving then He wouldn't expect people to kill others...especially when he says "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Any person, Christian or Muslim or any other religion that uses a "sacred" book as an excuse to kill other humans is the most "sinful" of all others. Killing in the name of God or Allah or any other prophet is barbaric and needs to be stopped.

But they did so when they didn't have secular society to rein in their impulses. If secular society went away tomorrow, you'd have Christians happily out there butchering the infidels. Christianity never changed, Christianity just got a muzzle. Islam needs the same muzzle.

 

[lovemuffin]

Christians are also part of that secular society, and helped to shape it. The clean separation which you have to assume to draw that conclusion doesn't exist and never has.

Or, to be more direct, the assertion that in the absence of secular society I would go out tomorrow to murder some infidels is a fantastic combination of ignorant, irrational, and insulting, all at the same time.

 

[gsa]

Christians are also part of that secular society, and helped to shape it. The clean separation which you have to assume to draw that conclusion doesn't exist and never has.

Really? Which Christians? In particular, I'm looking for members of the dominant group, not heretics who supported religious toleration and secularism because their heads would roll or roast if they didn't live in a tolerant society.

Reform in Islamic states is also likely to come from "Muslims," but much like earlier "Christians," these "Muslims" have no choice but to identify with the religion of their birth, because no alternative is tolerated.

 

[lovemuffin]

I don't think it's reasonable to play no true scotsman about who is and is not a Christian by saying all the ones who supported and support secular society and its ideals are heretics. Nor would it be reasonable to deny that there are Christians who are essentially theocrats who tend to authoritarianism, both in the past and now. I'm not prepared to provide detailed and specific arguments about this, it would entail a lot of research that I'm not interested in enough to pursue right now. So, from that standpoint, I suppose I concede the argument.

That said, however we got here, it seems obvious to me that the vast majority of Christians in the US in 2015 are not going to revert to the inquisition in the absence of "secular society", whatever that actually means. Whether Christians helped shape that society or have merely been changed by it (and I would accept the latter is probably more accurate, if you make it a dichotomy), they have in fact been changed by it.

 

[Cephus]

Christians are also part of that secular society, and helped to shape it. The clean separation which you have to assume to draw that conclusion doesn't exist and never has.

Or, to be more direct, the assertion that in the absence of secular society I would go out tomorrow to murder some infidels is a fantastic combination of ignorant, irrational, and insulting, all at the same time.

Christians are part of society. By definition, they are not part of "secular" society because they are not secular. The statement is also true. I never said *ALL* Christians would do that, but there absolutely and without doubt are Christians who would, who are only too happy to tell you that they would. They're happy to say that gays and whatever hate target of the day ought to be put to death, but they won't do it because they'd go to prison if they did. Take away that threat, you'd absolutely see people out doing exactly the same thing that you see in the Middle East. Not everyone, certainly, after all, most people have never lived outside of a secular society where such things are not punished, but your children or grandchildren? They'd be out slaughtering the infidels with the rest.