Double Standards on Religious Violence

[outhouse]

The Public Religion Research Institute

Hope you don't place to much faith is these knuckleheads, they have known honesty issues.


Their polls are often based on misleading questions that do not always reflect the conclusion they write about.

 

[Sunstone]

The difference is that a violent Muslim can find passages justifying their acts in the Quran, but no such justification can be found in the Gospels.

For two thousand years, there has been an undeniable strain in Christianity to reject without thought or further examination the the humanity, dignity, intelligence, and moral worth of persons who are not professed Christians or who question Christian teachings (See, for instance, Paul's letters). This strain has from time to time encouraged, condoned, or initiated violence against people because of religious differences. Today, in some parts of the world, we enjoy a possibly temporary hiatus from the violence, and so certain people nowadays take advantage of the common person's ignorance to tell folks Christianity has never been a violent or very violent religion.

Any decent discussion of this issue must take into account why Christianity has been among those religions that have persecuted people while so many religions have not.

 

[Sunstone]

Hmm. Definitely some interesting things to think about there, Luis. My gut instinct is to raise the question in response of "isn't the human social animal inherently tribalistic?" and then "assuming this is the case, is it plausible to expect these sorts of solutions to ever be a possibility for the species?"

Good questions. Unfortunately people tend to overlook the immensely significant fact that levels of religious inspired violence vary tremendously from one religion to another. For instance, Christianity has historically -- and continues even to this very day in some parts of the world -- to inspire extraordinarily more violence than, say, the religion of the Lakota. Thus your questions might be somewhat misleading in that they seem to ignore the difference that different ideologies -- very much including religious ideologies -- can make in inspiring "Us versus Them" tribalistic violence. Humans may be inherently tribal, but some belief systems compound tribalism much like gasoline "compounds" an open fire.

 

[Quintessence]

One has to wonder if some of how we classify violence as being tied to a religion is at least in part biased towards how religion is understood in Western culture, though. When it comes to indigenous religions (aka, Paganisms), they were/are virtually indistinguishable from the cultural morass as a whole. Clearly various Pagan cultures were embroiled in wars and conflicts as much as any other sorts of cultures, though in some cases we may have less solid documentation of this given events occurred in pre-literate cultures. I don't know. There's no simple way to conduct an objective analysis of these things, and the confounding factors involve are monstrous.

 

[LuisDantas]

Anthropology and other sciences do however provide very interesting insights on the matter, Quintessence. It is IMO a mistake to act as if no useful understanding could be attained.

You bring up a very relevant factor: some religions are understood to be somewhat contrasting to everyday life, while others are nearly indistinguishable from it. If I am not mistaken, neither Hinduism nor Shinto even had names for themselves for a long time, because they were so intertwined with their own cultures. I assume the same to be true of many other faiths, particularly in the Pagan family.

That hints at an interesting consequence IMO: people in those religions did not have much room for controversies about what a proper religious decision would be, and odds are that they only very rarely saw fit to accuse others of being bad examples of their own beliefs. People were more directly responsible for what they believed in and shaped their religions instead of spending time discussing who are the true and who are the false believers.

It seems fair to me to describe violence that justifies itself on religious grounds are religiously-motivated, And it may be even more proper if it turns out that most believers of the same faith find it abhorrent.

 

[Sundance]

That highlighted text is wrong.

Christians have used the Bible to justify the torture and murder of those who believe differently.

The Bible was also used to justify slavery, etc.

*

*

Yeah, because those people either misinterpreted the passages used in attempting to justify such vile behavior, or they deliberately omitted other verses connected to the issue.

 

[Ingledsva]

Yeah, because those people either misinterpreted the passages used in attempting to justify such vile behavior, or they deliberately omitted other verses connected to the issue.

That is not the case.

The Bible says you can hold slaves forever and pass them on as an inheritance.

So-called against homosexuality verses - were used to kill homosexuals.

The Bible says you can rape women captured in war.

The idea that Jews killed Jesus, - was used as an excuse to kill Jews, - at a couple of points in history. Hitler used this idea to get a rise out of his Christian German nation.

*

 

[Sundance]

Dear Ingledsva, while I am no longer a member of the Christian Religion, I do accept it in its fullness as one Revelation part of the single Faith of God, so I will answer your rebuttals to the best of my understanding.

Yes, but the scriptures mostly taught to slaves (the subject of my response), went more like this: “Slaves obey your earthly masters.... ”, but the slaveowners who used this verse, and others like it, had deliberately omitted the next verse which says,“Masters, you also, treat your slaves with respect, for you know that you also have a Master in Heaven.”

It is my understanding the verses (of which, there are very few) dealing with homosexuality had absolutely NOTHING to do with modern-day same sex relationships. They had to do with various other situations. Like what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah, the men were trying to have sex with Lot's companions, who were not men, but angels, which is still wrong, very wrong.

Thirdly, the idea that ‘the Jews’ killed His Holiness Jesus Christ, was Hitler's way of rallying people behind him in his vileness. Even then, this is rooted in a blatant ingnorance of the culture in which Jesus the Messiah was born and reared, which was 100% Jewish.

Finally, could you give a specific verse from which you derived the rebuttal concerning the rape of females captured in war? I do not recall where it is.

 

[Ingledsva]

Dear Ingledsva, while I am no longer a member of the Christian Religion, I do accept it in its fullness as one Revelation part of the single Faith of God, so I will answer your rebuttals to the best of my understanding.

Yes, but the scriptures mostly taught to slaves (the subject of my response), went more like this: “Slaves obey your earthly masters.... ”, but the slaveowners who used this verse, and others like it, had deliberately omitted the next verse which says, “Masters, you also, treat your slaves with respect, for you know that you also have a Master in Heaven.”

It is my understanding the verses (of which, there are very few) dealing with homosexuality had absolutely NOTHING to do with modern-day same sex relationships. They had to do with various other situations. Like what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah, the men were trying to have sex with Lot's companions, who were not men, but angels, which is still wrong, very wrong.

Thirdly, the idea that ‘the Jews’ killed His Holiness Jesus Christ, was Hitler's way of rallying people behind him in his vileness. Even then, this is rooted in a blatant ingnorance of the culture in which Jesus the Messiah was born and reared, which was 100% Jewish.

Finally, could you give a specific verse from which you derived the rebuttal concerning the rape of females captured in war? I do not recall where it is.

You seem to forget what you said -

yeah, because those people either misinterpreted the passages used in attempting to justify such vile behavior, or they deliberately omitted other verses connected to the issue.

You are now trying to "justify" around the verses.

The verses exist, and they were used, - just like those Islamic terrorists are using those verses from the Qur'an.

As for Hitler - it doesn't matter why. He used the Bible to raise up his Christian nation to kill the Jews.

*
What makes you think treating your SLAVES kindly - makes slavery OK?

Owning slaves, breeding them, owning the babies, and passing them on as an inheritance - is real slavery - and people would NOT be content in this position. And again - the reason I posted this - is that these verses were actually quoted by slave owners in the US south, as God giving them the right to own slaves.

Lev 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

Lev 25:46 And you shall take them for inheritance to your sons after you, to hold for a possession; you may enslave them forever. But on your brothers, the sons of Israel, one over another, you shall not rule over him with severity.

Exo 21:4 If his master have given him a woman, and she have born him sons or daughters; the woman and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. (Breeding of slave to pass on.)

*
The rape of war captives -

Deut 21:10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives,

Deu 21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire for her, that thou wouldest have her to thy woman;

Deu 21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

Deut 21:13 and shall remove the clothing of her captivity from her, and shall live in your house, and shall morn for her father and her mother a month of days.And afterward shall go into her as master, making her your woman. (slavery, rape)

WOW! She gets to scream and cry over her family that he murdered - for a whole 30 days - and then he can rape her. That 30 days - by the way - was just to make sure she wasn't pregnant.

*
They were allowed to rape a woman once after the battle, - even the priests! = RAPE! We have writings discussing such.

"In the Talmud Bavli 12 we see in Kiddushin 21b the general agreement that a soldier is allowed one act of intercourse with a captive, but not on the battlefield. Another opinion is also mentioned by the jews: "..it seems to Rabbenu Tam 13 that a first cohabitation is permitted in war.."

Maimonides (1195a: 5:8:4): "A priest is permitted to have relations with a captive woman once, for permission to have relations with a captive woman is a concession to man's evil impulse; but he is not permitted to marry her, because she is a proselyte."

*
There are actually no anti-homosexuality verses in the Bible. However, they were reading the verses as such, and murdered homosexuals.

*

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The relationship between various world religions and acts of violence is complicated and very difficult to quantify or pin down to statements of causation. The subjective impressions people have about religions and violence, however, is much easier to measure. The Public Religion Research Institute examined the subject of terrorism last month, and included in their report was a finding that probably doesn't come as a surprise to most of us here:

"Americans employ a double standard when judging acts of violence committed by Christians and Muslims. Three-quarters (75%) of Americans say that self-identified Christians who commit acts of violence in the name of Christianity are not really Christian. Only 19 percent of Americans say that these types of perpetrators are actually Christian. In contrast, only half (50%) of the public say that self-proclaimed Muslims who commit acts of violence in the name of Islam are not really Muslim. Thirty-seven percent say these perpetrators really are Muslim, while thirteen percent offer no opinion."
**SOURCE**​

These findings likely reflect our overall tendency to want to place those who do things we disagree with in a "them" group instead of our own "us" group. We don't want to think about members of groups we associate with as being "bad" people, so we disown them as being "really" part of our group. It's an understandable reaction, considering nobody wants to be a victim to a witch hunt or be seen as guilty by mere association instead of individual merit.

It happens on other issues too, though. I've been told by Evangelical Protestants that Catholics aren't real Christians, and not in the context of some act of violence by a Catholic terrorist grouo or whatnot; it was more a matter of doctrinal disagreement: they had (weird) ideas about what qualified a person as a Christian, and in their view, Catholics just didn't qualify.

I also think that people are better at noticing the distinctions between groups when they're closer to the group than when they're far away. The subtle differences between a Methodist and a Baptist matter more to the average Methodist than the much more profound difference between Sunni and Shia, for instance. I don't think it's just a matter of Christians wanting to deny association with bad apples; I think it's also that it's easier for a Christian to see some other Christian in a competing denomination as an "other" than it is for that Christian to see a Muslim extremist as an "other" to mainstream Islam. Details blur together when you're seeing from far away.

In this case, we can also wonder if data like these are also indicative of the growing Islamophobia in American culture (and perhaps elsewhere in the West). When it comes to human behavior, our subjective perceptions are more important than the objective fact. Regardless of whether or not a religion objectively is a cause of a violent act, our perceptions of whether or not this is the case impacts how we treat other human beings, and by extension public policy and law. The study linked to above examines a specific case of that by asking about the treatment of Syrian refugees, which you can check out if you're interested.

How do you feel about this double standard, or about the overall idea of connecting whole religions with violent behaviors perpetrated by individuals?

If there really is a link, then I think it's fair.

The clearest sort of link is money: if a moderate believer's tithes end up funding some cause they disagree with, well, that moderate believer is still supporting it.

Everyone who has a hand in funding some act - and in some cases, this can include every member in good standing of a religion - shares in the responsibility for that act.

Something similar applies in terms of beliefs and doctrines. If, for instance, a religious group promotes the idea that the Bible is the inspired word of God, then they shouldn't be surprised when people take the "do not suffer a witch to live" part seriously; that's partly on the people promoting the Bible this way, even if they would never burn a "witch" themselves. The only way they could avoid a share of the responsibility is if they promoted an annotated or expurgated version of the Bible that labelled the parts they disagreed with as not from God, or that just deleted these passages altogether.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One has to wonder if some of how we classify violent is being tied to a religion is at least in part biased towards how religion is understood in Western culture, though. When it comes to indigenous religions (aka, Paganisms), they were/are virtually indistinguishable from the cultural morass as a whole. Clearly various Pagan cultures were embroiled in wars and conflicts as much as any other sorts of cultures, though in some cases we may have less solid documentation of this given events occurred in pre-literate cultures. I don't know. There's no simple way to conduct an objective analysis of these things, and the confounding factors involve are monstrous.

Interesting point. I think that understanding of religion is at least partly a function of evangelism being common: evangelism (usually) hinges on the idea that religion and cultural identification can be separate things: the Romans didn't stop being Romans because they switched from worshipping the Roman pantheon to worshipping the Christian god.

... and even if an evangelized religion ends up permeating a culture, it can still make sense to talk about religion as distinct from culture: for instance, Japanese Buddhists and Indian Buddhists don't share a culture, but they do share a religion.

 

[Augustus]

The relationship between various world religions and acts of violence is complicated and very difficult to quantify or pin down to statements of causation

The expression 'religiously motivated violence' is a bit like seeing 'based on a true story' at the start of a film - 1% or 99%?

If you look at 'serious' media coverage of Sunni-Shia violence in the Middle East, it will usually give you a nice little story about Ali and Abu Bakr both coveting the position of Caliph followed by some reductionist tripe. This is a bit like starting an article about the troubles in Northern Ireland with Martin Luther pinning a piece of paper on the church door.

People see what they want to see and weave it into a nice soothing narrative that shows them as superior to the 'other': my religion's better than yours or my irreligion's better than your religion. I can pick and choose the aspects of my identity that absolve me from responsibility for violence, but I also get pick and choose the aspects of your identity that make you responsible for violence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

People see what they want to see and weave it into a nice soothing narrative that shows them as superior to the 'other': my religion's better than yours or my irreligion's better than your religion. I can pick and choose the aspects of my identity that absolve me from responsibility for violence, but I also get pick and choose the aspects of your identity that make you responsible for violence.

But (assuming we're being honest - albeit selective - about those aspects), it *would* be correct to say that there are aspects of this hypothetical religion that can be tied to violence. If so, the person does have a share of responsibility.

The good aspects of the religion might factor into some discussions (e.g. "overall, is this religion's impact positive or negative?") and be completely irrelevant to others (e.g. "are there aspects of this religion/practice that can be improved?").

It doesn't do much good to say "well, 99.9% of my religion isn't evil at all"; even the most horrendous mass murderers spend the vast majority of their time not killing.

 

[Sundance]

You seem to forget what you said -



You are now trying to "justify" around the verses.

The verses exist, and they were used, - just like those Islamic terrorists are using those verses from the Qur'an.

As for Hitler - it doesn't matter why. He used the Bible to raise up his Christian nation to kill the Jews.

*
What makes you think treating your SLAVES kindly - makes slavery OK?

Owning slaves, breeding them, owning the babies, and passing them on as an inheritance - is real slavery - and people would NOT be content in this position. And again - the reason I posted this - is that these verses were actually quoted by slave owners in the US south, as God giving them the right to own slaves.

Lev 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

Lev 25:46 And you shall take them for inheritance to your sons after you, to hold for a possession; you may enslave them forever. But on your brothers, the sons of Israel, one over another, you shall not rule over him with severity.

Exo 21:4 If his master have given him a woman, and she have born him sons or daughters; the woman and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. (Breeding of slave to pass on.)

*
The rape of war captives -

Deut 21:10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives,

Deu 21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire for her, that thou wouldest have her to thy woman;

Deu 21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

Deut 21:13 and shall remove the clothing of her captivity from her, and shall live in your house, and shall morn for her father and her mother a month of days.And afterward shall go into her as master, making her your woman. (slavery, rape)

WOW! She gets to scream and cry over her family that he murdered - for a whole 30 days - and then he can rape her. That 30 days - by the way - was just to make sure she wasn't pregnant.

*
They were allowed to rape a woman once after the battle, - even the priests! = RAPE! We have writings discussing such.

"In the Talmud Bavli 12 we see in Kiddushin 21b the general agreement that a soldier is allowed one act of intercourse with a captive, but not on the battlefield. Another opinion is also mentioned by the jews: "..it seems to Rabbenu Tam 13 that a first cohabitation is permitted in war.."

Maimonides (1195a: 5:8:4): "A priest is permitted to have relations with a captive woman once, for permission to have relations with a captive woman is a concession to man's evil impulse; but he is not permitted to marry her, because she is a proselyte."

*
There are actually no anti-homosexuality verses in the Bible. However, they were reading the verses as such, and murdered homosexuals.

*

For the sake of relevance to the subject of my first post, I'm going to just focus on the issue of slavery.

Number one, you DO know that I myself am a descendant of people who were made slaves, right? So, of course, this is personal.

Secondly, when did I EVER say the ownership and mistreatment of human beings was OK? I didn't. What I DID, however, say is that the verses slaveowners often quoted focused so much on slaves' being submissive to their masters. They deliberately omitted the verses that said treat the slaves, the servants WITH RESPECT, which is ironically the same trap YOU have fallen into.

Thirdly, you've insulted me by thinking that you can tell me about something my people, my ancestors went through for centuries. How dare you!!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They deliberately omitted the verses that said treat the slaves, the servants WITH RESPECT, which is ironically the same trap YOU have fallen into.

A contradiction in terms. If a slave master was treating his slave with respect, the slave would not be a slave.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thirdly, the idea that ‘the Jews’ killed His Holiness Jesus Christ, was Hitler's way of rallying people behind him in his vileness.

Hitler didn't invent Christian anti-semitism. He took quite a bit of his inspiration in that regard from the writings of Martin Luther.

Even then, this is rooted in a blatant ingnorance of the culture in which Jesus the Messiah was born and reared, which was 100% Jewish.

Early Christianity was not "100% Jewish". There is anti-semitism in the New Testament; presumably, these passages were influenced by non-Jewish thought.

 

[Ingledsva]

For the sake of relevance to the subject of my first post, I'm going to just focus on the issue of slavery.

Number one, you DO know that I myself am a descendant of people who were made slaves, right? So, of course, this is personal.

Secondly, when did I EVER say the ownership and mistreatment of human beings was OK? I didn't. What I DID, however, say is that the verses slaveowners often quoted focused so much on slaves' being submissive to their masters. They deliberately omitted the verses that said treat the slaves, the servants WITH RESPECT, which is ironically the same trap YOU have fallen into.

Thirdly, you've insulted me by thinking that you can tell me about something my people, my ancestors went through for centuries. How dare you!!

This is pure BULL! The TOPIC is - Double Standards on Religious Violence

My first post was -

That highlighted text is wrong.

Christians have used the Bible to justify the torture and murder of those who believe differently.

The Bible was also used to justify slavery, etc.

To which you replied -

Yeah, because those people either misinterpreted the passages used in attempting to justify such vile behavior, or they deliberately omitted other verses connected to the issue.

That is not the case.

The Bible says you can hold slaves forever and pass them on as an inheritance.

So-called against homosexuality verses - were used to kill homosexuals.

The Bible says you can rape women captured in war.

The idea that Jews killed Jesus, - was used as an excuse to kill Jews, - at a couple of points in history. Hitler used this idea to get a rise out of his Christian German nation.

Dear Ingledsva, while I am no longer a member of the Christian Religion, I do accept it in its fullness as one Revelation part of the single Faith of God, so I will answer your rebuttals to the best of my understanding.

Yes, but the scriptures mostly taught to slaves (the subject of my response), went more like this: “Slaves obey your earthly masters.... ”, but the slaveowners who used this verse, and others like it, had deliberately omitted the next verse which says,“Masters, you also, treat your slaves with respect, for you know that you also have a Master in Heaven.”

It is my understanding the verses (of which, there are very few) dealing with homosexuality had absolutely NOTHING to do with modern-day same sex relationships. They had to do with various other situations. Like what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah, the men were trying to have sex with Lot's companions, who were not men, but angels, which is still wrong, very wrong.

Thirdly, the idea that ‘the Jews’ killed His Holiness Jesus Christ, was Hitler's way of rallying people behind him in his vileness. Even then, this is rooted in a blatant ingnorance of the culture in which Jesus the Messiah was born and reared, which was 100% Jewish.

Finally, could you give a specific verse from which you derived the rebuttal concerning the rape of females captured in war? I do not recall where it is.

At this point I showed the ACTUAL verses allowing for slavery - and rape.

And noted that YOU are now trying to "justify" around those verses to fit your belief. Post number 29 above, - which includes actual Bible slavery verses.

"Lev 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

Lev 25:46 And you shall take them for inheritance to your sons after you, to hold for a possession; you may enslave them forever. But on your brothers, the sons of Israel, one over another, you shall not rule over him with severity.

Exo 21:4 If his master have given him a woman, and she have born him sons or daughters; the woman and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. (Breeding of slave to pass on.)"

This is FACT based on the Bible, - its use by people to do evil acts, - just as the Islamic terrorists are using Qur'an verses, and is in line with the post subject.

Your feigned indignation is ridiculous.

*

 

[Sundance]

Hitler didn't invent Christian anti-semitism. He took quite a bit of his inspiration in that regard from the writings of Martin Luther.

I know that. I'm just saying that it was the spark that lit the fire called the Holocaust.

Early Christianity was not "100% Jewish". There is anti-semitism in the New Testament; presumably, these passages were influenced by non-Jewish thought.

Where in the NT?

 

[Sundance]

This is pure BULL! The TOPIC is - Double Standards on Religious Violence

My first post was -



To which you replied -







At this point I showed the ACTUAL verses allowing for slavery - and rape.

And noted that YOU are now trying to "justify" around those verses to fit your belief. Post number 29 above, - which includes actual Bible slavery verses.

"Lev 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

Lev 25:46 And you shall take them for inheritance to your sons after you, to hold for a possession; you may enslave them forever. But on your brothers, the sons of Israel, one over another, you shall not rule over him with severity.

Exo 21:4 If his master have given him a woman, and she have born him sons or daughters; the woman and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. (Breeding of slave to pass on.)"

This is FACT based on the Bible, - its use by people to do evil acts, - just as the Islamic terrorists are using Qur'an verses, and is in line with the post subject.

Your feigned indignation is ridiculous.

*

Ah, well then. Allow me to swing it around to the topic discussed. In any case, the verses often quoted by both Christians and Muslims as justifying violence are the product of misinterpretation. So, in the end one side shouldn't condemn the other, agreed?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I know that. I'm just saying that it was the spark that lit the fire called the Holocaust.

The Holocaust was not the start of anti-semitism.

Where in the NT?

Matthew 27 comes to mind:

15 During the feast the governor was accustomed to release one prisoner to the crowd, whomever they wanted. 16 At that time they had in custody a notorious prisoner named Jesus Barabbas. 17 So after they had assembled, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Christ?” 18 (For he knew that they had handed him over because of envy.) 19 As he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent a message to him: “Have nothing to do with that innocent man; I have suffered greatly as a result of a dream about him today.” 20 But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus killed. 21 The governor asked them, “Which of the two do you want me to release for you?” And they said, “Barabbas!” 22 Pilate said to them, “Then what should I do with Jesus who is called the Christ?” They all said, “Crucify him!” 23 He asked, “Why? What wrong has he done?” But they shouted more insistently, “Crucify him!”

Jesus is Condemned and Mocked
24 When Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but that instead a riot was starting, he took some water, washed his hands before the crowd and said, “I am innocent of this man’s blood. You take care of it yourselves!” 25 In reply all the people said, “Let his blood be on us and on our children!”

There are many other passages: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2009/07/new-testament-anti-semitism/