Can we ignore the link between religion and religious violence?

[Nakosis]

I suppose not if you call it religious violence instead of political violence.

I wonder when does religion cross the line and become a political organization?

The importance of secular governments to avoid religions becoming political groups.

 

[lovemuffin]

I never said *ALL* Christians would do that

fair enough. In my blind rage I misunderstood you.

Re: "secular", it seems reasonable to me to think that even as a Christian I can participate in secular society in a secular way. For example, if I discuss politics, I can attempt to make political arguments that don't depend on religious belief in order to be persuasive, even though the issue for me is related to certain religious beliefs. It seems to me that this is foundational to a pluralistic society, because otherwise you are suggesting that the religious have no part in the secular institutions which are also foundational to this society.

 

[Cephus]

fair enough. In my blind rage I misunderstood you.

Re: "secular", it seems reasonable to me to think that even as a Christian I can participate in secular society in a secular way. For example, if I discuss politics, I can attempt to make political arguments that don't depend on religious belief in order to be persuasive, even though the issue for me is related to certain religious beliefs. It seems to me that this is foundational to a pluralistic society, because otherwise you are suggesting that the religious have no part in the secular institutions which are also foundational to this society.

Certainly you can. You just need to set your religious beliefs aside to do it. Most theists only touch on their religious beliefs for a very small portion of their lives, in fact, most only pay any attention to religion for about an hour on Sunday morning, then they ignore it again for the rest of the week. Those people tend to do well in secular society because they are mostly secular themselves. Then there are the people whose entire lives are subsumed in their religious beliefs, the people who can't open their mouths without "Jesus" coming out 150 times a minute. You know, the fanatics. Those are the ones that don't function well in a secular society because, according to them, there's no such thing as secular. Religion is the end-all-be-all of everything, more specifically, their religion. All other religions are wrong. Pluralistic societies are great, so long as everyone is working toward a common goal. Unfortunately, and this isn't just a problem with religion, far too many people have their own goals and their own ideas that just don't work for the common good.

 

[lovemuffin]

I still think there is a pretty clear false dichotomy there. Religion is enormously important to my life, occupying far more than an hour on Sundays, and yet I am also dedicated to pluralistic ideals. I think you are implying that only fundamentalists are truly dedicated to religion, which is not true. I have no interest in denying the problematic aspects of religion in society, but it would still be nice not to see the enormous breadth of religiosity caricatured as if the truly religious were all fanatics, and the non-fanatical aren't truly religious

 

[Cephus]

I still think there is a pretty clear false dichotomy there. Religion is enormously important to my life, occupying far more than an hour on Sundays, and yet I am also dedicated to pluralistic ideals. I think you are implying that only fundamentalists are truly dedicated to religion, which is not true. I have no interest in denying the problematic aspects of religion in society, but it would still be nice not to see the enormous breadth of religiosity caricatured as if the truly religious were all fanatics, and the non-fanatical aren't truly religious

Just because that's the case for you doesn't mean it's the case for the majority. In the western world, every study shows that religion really isn't that valuable to the majority. I'm not insulting you for not being in the majority, I'm just saying that you're not. It's hard to argue that there aren't a lot of fanatics out there, those for whom their religion is the entirety of their life, and even the minimally religious, the ones who show up at church and that's it, they all feel they are "truly religious" as well. I'm not worried about how people feel, I'm only interested in what is factually true.

 

[jtartar]

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).

SkylarHunter,
It really does not matter if a religion satisfies a person or not. The requirement is; does the religion satisfy God???
The Christian religion satisfies God The Almighty. The son of the Almighty came to earth to provide a ransom sacrifice for all men that would accept it, John 3:16, Matt 20:28. The Bible record states that there is only one name under heaven, by which we MUST be saved, Acts 4:12.
There are today, three great religions that came from Abraham, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. The first two rejected God's own son as being the Messiah, Christ. The Bible says that anyone that does not accept Jesus as Christ is an Antichrist, 1 John 2:18,22, 4:1-4. These scriptures say that if you do not accept Jesus as the Christ, you do not have his Father, God, either. Neither of these religions are blessed by God, because they deny Jesus!!!
Another significant reason that neither Islam or Judaism is acceptable to God is what is recorded in the Holy Scriptures, at Gal 1:6-9, which tells us that any writings considered holy, that are different than the Bible are cursed!! Both Islam and Judaism have their own writings, and they differ from the Holy Bible.

 

[Looncall]

SkylarHunter,
It really does not matter if a religion satisfies a person or not. The requirement is; does the religion satisfy God???
The Christian religion satisfies God The Almighty. The son of the Almighty came to earth to provide a ransom sacrifice for all men that would accept it, John 3:16, Matt 20:28. The Bible record states that there is only one name under heaven, by which we MUST be saved, Acts 4:12.
There are today, three great religions that came from Abraham, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. The first two rejected God's own son as being the Messiah, Christ. The Bible says that anyone that does not accept Jesus as Christ is an Antichrist, 1 John 2:18,22, 4:1-4. These scriptures say that if you do not accept Jesus as the Christ, you do not have his Father, God, either. Neither of these religions are blessed by God, because they deny Jesus!!!
Another significant reason that neither Islam or Judaism is acceptable to God is what is recorded in the Holy Scriptures, at Gal 1:6-9, which tells us that any writings considered holy, that are different than the Bible are cursed!! Both Islam and Judaism have their own writings, and they differ from the Holy Bible.

So why should one rely on some old book cobbled together by ignorant savages as a guide to anything? You seem to be demonstrating that your bible book is a source of bigotry. Is that a good thing?

 

[Tumah]

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?

I think your question is wrong. The point is not whether there is a link between religions and religious violence or whether it should be ignored or not. Making blanket negative statements about religions is just as bad as trying to whitewash their extremism. The idea is to recognize DANGER. Whether Judaism, Christianity, Islam or any other religion is truly a religion of peace or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is how their believers are practicing their faith. If their are groups within Islam that are acting in a dangerous manner towards others, than they need to be dealt with. And that is just as true if the groups were practicing Jainism or Taoism or Druidry.

 

[gsa]

I think your question is wrong. The point is not whether there is a link between religions and religious violence or whether it should be ignored or not. Making blanket negative statements about religions is just as bad as trying to whitewash their extremism. The idea is to recognize DANGER. Whether Judaism, Christianity, Islam or any other religion is truly a religion of peace or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is how their believers are practicing their faith. If their are groups within Islam that are acting in a dangerous manner towards others, than they need to be dealt with. And that is just as true if the groups were practicing Jainism or Taoism or Druidry.

I do not think it is simply a question of how current groups are behaving today. There is another, deeper layer: How groups might behave tomorrow, taking the religious teachings at face value. There are undoubtedly violent Jains, Taoists and Buddhists, for example, but you would be hard pressed to find in their religions the call for murdering apostates, homosexuals or infidels.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Another poohoo thread.

 

[Tumah]

I do not think it is simply a question of how current groups are behaving today. There is another, deeper layer: How groups might behave tomorrow, taking the religious teachings at face value. There are undoubtedly violent Jains, Taoists and Buddhists, for example, but you would be hard pressed to find in their religions the call for murdering apostates, homosexuals or infidels.

I understand that. But I don't think its our place to tell people what to believe, or to ostracize them for their beliefs, so long as they can live in harmony with their neighbors. Its just one of the dangers of having a free society. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with profiling. Blinding oneself to a trend for the sake of political correctness is just as dumb and can endanger lives. But it has to be done with some degree of sensitivity.

I guess in a way you are right, we can't ignore the link altogether. But I think the action one takes based on that link needs to ensure that the majority of innocents aren't suffering too much because of it. In the case of the OP, calling Islam a religion of peace. I would say, I'm not an Islamic scholar but its not the religion that I need to judge in any case, but the Muslims who practice it: is this one a danger? Is that one a threat?

 

[SkylarHunter]

SkylarHunter,
It really does not matter if a religion satisfies a person or not.

Yes, it does. If your can't find the answers to your questions in your religion what good is it to you ?

 

[Looncall]

Somehow all this brings a notion to mind.

Suppose a family of skunks sets up house near you.

Skunks are usually pretty peaceful and are attractive to look at.

Skunks have some mildly annoying habits: they like to dig holes in lawns in search of grubs.

If skunks are annoyed, however, they may retaliate in a devastating way, and there is no knowing what might annoy one of them.

Skunks are sometimes carriers of rabies, which is a mortal danger.

 

[fred williams]

typical reactions within certain groups
#1 say a bad word about the koran then walk through a crowd of Muslims
#2 say a bad word about the bible then walk through a crowd of Christians

#1 you'd be dead
#2 you'd be unharmed

 

[gsa]

typical reactions within certain groups
#1 say a bad word about the koran then walk through a crowd of Muslims
#2 say a bad word about the bible then walk through a crowd of Christians

#1 you'd be dead
#2 you'd be unharmed

Well to be fair, there have been plenty of places and times in which you'd be burned at the stake for the second transgression. We owe the fact that you are not to tolerance secularization, which took quite a while.

 

[Nakosis]

Do you agree or disagree with Ali?

Can you ignore the link between religion and the good actions of religious folks?

I say yes. I have to disagree with Ali. One deals with actions of individuals regardless of their religious beliefs. If one is interested in equality, one must not take someone else's religion into consideration in dealing with them.

Should we deal differently with a murderer who happens to be an atheist than we would a murder who happens to be a Catholic?

How much bigotry and bias can we allow for and still remain equal?

People in taking the actions they take are influenced by many things. Childhood, parents, mentors, personality, self-esteem, level of pain tolerance. To arbitrarily pick one cause as the mitigating factor is overly simplistic. You of course can assume and treat people differently based on your assumptions.

 

[Ouroboros]

#2 you'd be unharmed

Tell that to Thomas Aikenhead. I know, it was 400 years ago, but still, it used to be death penalty for blasphemy against the Christian faith.

Here's the transcript of his judgment

That ... the prisoner had repeatedly maintained, in conversation, that theology was a rhapsody of ill-invented nonsense, patched up partly of the moral doctrines of philosophers, and partly of poetical fictions and extravagant chimeras: That he ridiculed the holy scriptures, calling the Old TestamentEzra'sfables, in profane allusion to Esop's Fables; That he railed on Christ, saying, he had learned magick in Egypt, which enabled him to perform those pranks which were called miracles: That he called the New Testament the history of the imposter Christ; That he said Moses was the better artist and the better politician; and he preferred Muhammad to Christ: That the Holy Scriptures were stuffed with such madness, nonsense, and contradictions, that he admired the stupidity of the world in being so long deluded by them: That he rejected the mystery of the Trinity as unworthy of refutation; and scoffed at the incarnation of Christ.[3]

That's what got him executed...

Your religion is not without guilt.

 

["Born Eunuch"]

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?

Not clear about what your post is saying but in my opinion, people who claim that they are Muslims and "go against Islam's ideas" are maybe just like these Christians who claim Christianity and "go against Christianity's ideas:"

Christian terrorism
Christian terrorism in the United States (but page contains other info about terrorism in the U.S. from other groups, INCLUDING THE JEWS)

My guess is that any response to Muslims who "go against Islam's ideas" should be the same as a response to Christians who "go against Christianity's ideas."



-