Double Standards on Religious Violence

[Quintessence]

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.

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?

 

[Laika]

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

I think we need to admit this goes deeper than simply blaming one religion or another (or secular/atheist belief), and that our ethical stanards are simply inadequate at coping with the extremely complex and emotionally difficult issues of violence. no-one wants to accept responsibility for violence committed by members of the same group, but are quite happy to attribute fault to an "opposing" group. but really, it is not simply a question of saying "group X is representative of belief Y" because acts of violence are simulateously exceptional in most societies which require sustained periods of peace inorder to operate and also it is both necessary to use violence as a means for resolving conflict.

Arguing that group/belief X is violent and therefore bad, is almost always a fundammentally hypocritical position, because it is going to be used as the justification for violence against that group. when we characterise our enemies as irrational, violent, governed purely by animal passions of fear, hatred, greed and sadism, we rule out the possibility of negoiation and make it easier to deny them sympathy by turning killing into a form of "pest control" rather than calling it what it is: murder.

(edit: if we believe it is wrong for them, it follows its wrong for us. but that isn't a practical position, so we have to rethink our attitudes to violence more generally.)

 

[GoodbyeDave]

It goes both ways. Christians say their violent coreligionists are not real Christians, but Muslims do exactly the same thing. Personally, I find both guilty of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. 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.

Incidentally, I find the use of the word "Islamophobia" offensive. I have arachnophobia. Like all phobias, it is an irrational reaction. There is no way that my horror at the sight of a spider can be justified, and I am quite well aware of that. When some-one calls my hostility to Islam Islamophobia, they are thereby implying that my view of Islam is irrational and unjustified. People who throw such words about are no better that those who think to discredit their political opponents by simply calling them fascists or communists.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think a distinction must be made between so-called Islamophobia and other situations of broad judgment according to non-ideological factors such as ethnic origin.

Religious belief, even more than nationality (which is often seen as fair justification for various legal restrictions and moral prejudices, I hasten to add), has a strong motivational and ideological component that is, if anything, more remarkable and central in Islam than in the average, random religion.

We should not forget either that while powerful equanimity movements exist in both Christianity and Islam in order to counteract the "us vs them" mentality, the truth of the matter is that to a very significant extent both religions do in fact promote and at least arguably need such a mentality in order to thrive.

People are often allowed or even encouraged to have some ambiguity about where they stand in other ideological classifications. Not so much when it comes to whether they happen to be Christians or Muslims.

The equanimity movements within Islam and Christianity exist because they are sorely needed and many of the wiser adherents of those faiths realize their duty to raise their voices. But all too often, they do so at the expense of their own reputation among the "true believers" - an expression that acquired its current common meaning because it does in fact fit so many situations.

Both religions are to a very large extent about establishing relationships of trust, about giving somewhat ready-made answers about who to trust and to which extent. In effect, their goal is to create such a double standard as that described in the OP.

That their adherents use those criteria is not a bug so much as it is a design parameter, albeit one that can and should be transcended by their wiser members.

 

[Laika]

It goes both ways. Christians say their violent coreligionists are not real Christians, but Muslims do exactly the same thing. Personally, I find both guilty of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. 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.

Incidentally, I find the use of the word "Islamophobia" offensive. I have arachnophobia. Like all phobias, it is an irrational reaction. There is no way that my horror at the sight of a spider can be justified, and I am quite well aware of that. When some-one calls my hostility to Islam Islamophobia, they are thereby implying that my view of Islam is irrational and unjustified. People who throw such words about are no better that those who think to discredit their political opponents by simply calling them fascists or communists.

the problem is less specifically hostility to "Islam", and more that that so easily translates to an indiscriminate hostility of Muslims. people should be judged and held guilty for there actions and not their beliefs. otherwise, its an attack on the presumption of innocence and individual rights and becomes a danger to the very freedoms we are trying to protect. This is how Edward R. Murrow put it regarding McCarthyism;

No one familiar with the history of this country can deny that congressional committees are useful. It is necessary to investigate before legislating, but the line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one and the junior Senator from Wisconsin has stepped over it repeatedly. His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind as between the internal and the external threats of communism. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men — not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular. This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy's methods to keep silent, or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of a republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn't create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it — and rather successfully. Cassius was right. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves." Good night, and good luck.

 

[Quintessence]

Arguing that group/belief X is violent and therefore bad, is almost always a fundamentally hypocritical position, because it is going to be used as the justification for violence against that group.

Not necessarily, but that is certainly a route that such generalizations can take. It's why the perceived connections between religions (or irreligious aspects of culture for that matter) and taboo behaviors concerns me. I like to ask what purpose drawing such conclusions serve, or what the implications of that narrative are. On the one hand, it is perfectly understandable for any species to want to protect itself from a perceived threat, it is easier (both cognitively and practically) for us to simply by making generalizations about entire groups. On the other, this inevitable function of ours can result in some problems, right?

(edit: if we believe it is wrong for them, it follows its wrong for us. but that isn't a practical position, so we have to rethink our attitudes to violence more generally.)

What would that rethinking our attitudes towards violence look like? Do you have any suggestions for that?

 

[atpollard]

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.

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?

"But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you."
- Jesus (Luke 6:27-31)

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
-Mohammad (Quran 9:29)

I am flabbergasted that people continue to claim that Jesus and Mohammad taught their followers to act the same way. Christianity and Islam are really NOT the same. They are more different than alike.

When a self-identified Christian commits acts of violence, he MUST have violated the teachings of Jesus in Luke 6 (there is no other possible conclusion).
When a self-identified Muslim commits acts of violence, he may not have violated the teachings of Mohammad in Quran 9 (it is not for me to interpret Islam's sacred books).

I am surprised that you can not see this basic difference.

 

[LuisDantas]

What would that rethinking our attitudes towards violence look like? Do you have any suggestions for that?

For starters, it would mean an erosion of the meaning of nationality and the military. A very welcome change, that.

 

[Quintessence]

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.

I have not gotten the impression that such a difference exists with respect to Christians and Muslims rationalizing behavior using scripture, nor that this quibble particularly matters with respect to the existence of religious violence in both of these religions. Some background disclosure - I dug up the article above after seeing it cited in another newspaper article that was circulating today about "Christian terrorism." The article struck me because I felt that phrase was absurd upon reading it at first, but as I read the article, I realized I was being guilty of exactly what the APRI found in its survey: an unfounded double standard. That I'm not even Christian and have this immediate reaction to "Christian terrorism" being something of an oxymoron, but not the same reaction when I hear "Islamic terrorism" is... well, it's very sad to me that I have these responses, because I didn't consciously develop that response and they are not responses I want to see myself having at all.

Incidentally, I find the use of the word "Islamophobia" offensive. I have arachnophobia. Like all phobias, it is an irrational reaction. There is no way that my horror at the sight of a spider can be justified, and I am quite well aware of that. When some-one calls my hostility to Islam Islamophobia, they are thereby implying that my view of Islam is irrational and unjustified. People who throw such words about are no better that those who think to discredit their political opponents by simply calling them fascists or communists.

You're certainly welcome to feel how you feel about it, but I don't find the term to be a misnomer at all. When someone has arachnophobia for example, they have a broad-spectrum fear of spiders regardless of the spider they're looking at. There are some dangerous, poisonous spiders out there. Similarly, someone with Islamophobia has a broad-spectrum fear of Islam/Muslims regardless of the person they're looking at. There are some dangerous Muslims out there. In both cases, the solid majority of spiders and Muslims are not dangerous, and wanting to exterminate or suppress either group without regard for the group's heterogenaity is... well... if we don't want to call it a form of phobia, we could use words like prejudiced, bigoted, or genocidal? Do you like those words better?

 

[Quintessence]

For starters, it would mean an erosion of the meaning of nationality and the military. A very welcome change, that.

Huh. An unexpected response. I'm not sure how to process this one. How do you see nationality and the military relating to issues of violence? Does that relate to the tribalistic mentality you discuss in the earlier post (which was a very interesting read, by the way)?

 

[Laika]

Not necessarily, but that is certainly a route that such generalizations can take. It's why the perceived connections between religions (or irreligious aspects of culture for that matter) and taboo behaviors concerns me. I like to ask what purpose drawing such conclusions serve, or what the implications of that narrative are. On the one hand, it is perfectly understandable for any species to want to protect itself from a perceived threat, it is easier (both cognitively and practically) for us to simply by making generalizations about entire groups. On the other, this inevitable function of ours can result in some problems, right?

yeah. I think the problem is that now we exist in the age of "total war" treating groups indiscriminately on the basis of collective guilt will means we fail to make a distinction between the innocent and the guilty. it is both possible (but has probably happened already) that we fail to distinguish between enemy combatents and civillians because they are part of the same group. With the sort of power we now have, we cannot accept that as "just".

What would that rethinking our attitudes towards violence look like? Do you have any suggestions for that?

the best I have come up with is something very close to Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil": man is the source of moral values, rather than nature or god (or the state). Of course, I'm not sure whether that level of freedom to decide what is good and what is evil may necessarily be a good thing.

For starters, it would mean an erosion of the meaning of nationality and the military. A very welcome change, that.

I'd hope so, but as we would be deciding our own values, we'd have to take account of the role of sadism in determining our attitudes to violence. I don't think sadistic behaviour is innate but recognising violence as "necessary"could increase the size of the military rather than reduce it. that is the danger. if we were free to chose our own values, our standards of good and evil, it would be up to us with no-one to hold us accountable.

 

[columbus]

self-identified Christians who commit acts of violence in the name of Christianity...

I'm trying to think of who this would refer to, exactly.
There are some nasty groups in Africa. There are the occasional Planned Parenthood shooters and bombers. But I can't think of any Christian groups comparable to AlQueda or Daesh or any of the many governmental groups claiming that their violence is blessed by Allah.
There used to be many. But most, like the KKK, are a joke now. Christian culture is now morally dominated by secular values. Secularism doesn't go in for violence the way religious cultures do, generally.
At the very least, Christian culture now outsources the violence to capitalism by and large.
Tom

 

[LuisDantas]

Huh. An unexpected response. I'm not sure how to process this one. How do you see nationality and the military relating to issues of violence? Does that relate to the tribalistic mentality you discuss in the earlier post

I would say so.

The very idea that a nation should have a military whose main task is to provide defense against foreign aggressors is one of the purest manifestations of the same "us vs them" mentality that sustains religion-based mistrust and violence.

It is in many senses one of the worst manifestations, as well, because it uses such simplistic criteria and is so widely accepted with so little challenge.

But then again, there is a reason why it is challenged so little; communities do feel a need of the tribal mentality to give them a sense of reliability, social parameters and, in their darker moments, a simple criteria to choose who to support and who to oppose.

A superior community will learn better. But those are few, far between and becoming scarcer.

(which was a very interesting read, by the way)?

Thanks!

 

[Quintessence]

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?"

 

[LuisDantas]

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?"

It certainly is, at least as of its earliest stages of social development.

Whether it is to its convenience and to the benefit of its long term perspectives of quality of life and survival to be content with that tribalism or rather take it as a significant goal to transcend it is a separate and IMO crucial question.

and then "assuming this is the case, is it plausible to expect these sorts of solutions to ever be a possibility for the species?"

I feel quite confident that it is indeed plausible. We have attained it once and again, quite reliably even. The advantages are simply too overwhelming to ignore.

Perhaps chief among them is the perspective of living among true brothers who happen to not always agree with us as opposed to living surrounded by barely contained enemies who are always ready to compete in barbaric arms race which we end up encouraging on our own.

The first option is very difficult to attain but worth the while every step of the way. The second is quite nihilistic and pointless, despite spending a lot of effort to convince itself otherwise.

 

[Quetzal]

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.

Very curious that you use the entire holy scripture when it comes to Muslims but only a small selection of the holy scripture when it comes to Christianity.

 

[LuisDantas]

There are questionable passages in the Gospels as well.

Matthew 10:34-39
Matthew 18:25-35
Luke 19:27
John 12:47-48

Sure, those passages may and in fact should be compensated for by a sufficiently sincere, wise and well-meaning believer. But that such a care is necessary in the first place should not be forgotten.

 

[Useless2015]

"But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you."
- Jesus (Luke 6:27-31)

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
-Mohammad (Quran 9:29)

I am flabbergasted that people continue to claim that Jesus and Mohammad taught their followers to act the same way. Christianity and Islam are really NOT the same. They are more different than alike.

When a self-identified Christian commits acts of violence, he MUST have violated the teachings of Jesus in Luke 6 (there is no other possible conclusion).
When a self-identified Muslim commits acts of violence, he may not have the teachings of Mohammad in Quran 9 (it is not for me to interpret Islam's sacred books).

I am surprised that you can not see this basic difference.

Jesus as a Jew was talking to fellow Jews to be kind to each other. The same text almost is in the hadiths.

Al Bukhari and Muslim reported from the Hadith of Anas ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "None of you will have faith till he wishes for his (Muslim) brother what he likes for himself." [1]

 

[Ingledsva]

It goes both ways. Christians say their violent coreligionists are not real Christians, but Muslims do exactly the same thing. Personally, I find both guilty of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. 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.

Incidentally, I find the use of the word "Islamophobia" offensive. I have arachnophobia. Like all phobias, it is an irrational reaction. There is no way that my horror at the sight of a spider can be justified, and I am quite well aware of that. When some-one calls my hostility to Islam Islamophobia, they are thereby implying that my view of Islam is irrational and unjustified. People who throw such words about are no better that those who think to discredit their political opponents by simply calling them fascists or communists.

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.

*

*

 

[Sunstone]

How do you feel about ... the overall idea of connecting whole religions with violent behaviors perpetrated by individuals?

It's not a black and white thing. To say that "Christianity inspires much more violence than Taoism" is not entirely wrong. One would be more precise to say that "Fundamentalist strains of Christianity are extremely more violent than Taoism", but the former statement is not entirely wrong either. The answer to your question isn't either/or.