Breathe
Hostis humani generis
Nice try, but no cigar.
Not all Japanese were Shinto even then, and they didn't attack the Chinese for being 'non-Shinto', regardless.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Religion and Chauvinism
- Thread starter Mr Nice
- Start date
Not all Japanese were Shinto even then, and they didn't attack the Chinese for being 'non-Shinto', regardless.
Even where religion has been used in support of war, most frequently, it's political, national, ethnic, racial, economical, and more; religion just providing a unified identity -- but then, so do ethnic, political, racial, national, and more.
Japan's aggressions against China in WWII had nothing to do with the religious beliefs of Japan, for example, but more to do with the way the Japanese saw themselves. Neither did the Hutu or Tutsi of Rwanda, nor the Korean war, nor Laos, or the DR Congo's massacre of Pygmy tribes, and so on.
The overall result of all wars, however, is humanity. Every war in human history has had humans involved.
Nobody's claiming that wars can't result without religion.
Just that religion can, and is, a powerful motivating factor that can also cause, or exacerbate, wars. Do you deny that?
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
Not at all, but I don't believe that religion is the big bad war causer that many try to paint it to be.
WyattDerp
Active Member
Yeah, and? And even if they were, you could say they weren't dedicated to it 24/7... and?
Did I say they did? If anything it was because they were the source and the center of all things good, in their mind. That is, that was in the water they were drinking (so much so there wasn't really a name for it for the longest time).
WyattDerp
Active Member
Nothing anyone could bring up could cause a war in isolation. Not a single thing.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
So no reason to bring it up; it wasn't religiously motivated as Japan was polyreligious.
No, but if you didn't think it you wouldn't have took issue with my post. Also, calm down.
Almost nobody wilfully does evil; most people think they do things for the greater good.
And yet many anti-religionists seem to naïvely think that a world without religion would be a world of peace.
I agree that that is naiive.
But I do think that the present troubles in the Middle East, and particularly the Israel-Palestine issue, wouldn't be such the festering turmoil that it is if religion hadn't been a factor.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
I don't think it'd be much different, except it would be more racially based, or "the old guys" vs "the new guys".
WyattDerp
Active Member
The religion back then was Japan and the Emperor, and to suggest that had no influence whatsoever would be just as ludicrous as saying "religion made them do it". Anyway, this isn't exactly my speed, toodles.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
They did it for the emperor, to spread civilization, and much, much more; as per usual, religion was only a small influence (I don't know why you decided to make out like I said religion had no influence). But toodles nonetheless.
Well, we can't know for sure, but I have my doubts.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
I'm pretty convinced, personally. I live in a significantly irreligious area, and people will fight over anything; I've seen people fight over women, race, gay-bashing, politics, too much alcohol, something someone else may have said about something or someone else, sport, and even TV shows. As in, actual fights. Fists and everything. I was in the same place when a fight broke out between two guys, because one tutted, and the other guy thought he was tutting at him, and they started a fight; the fight ended in the one guy (who tutted) losing teeth, and the other a broken rib.
We're a violent species.
Simurgh
Atheist Triple Goddess
Are you trying to say that because the area you talk about is irreligious people there are necessarily prone to violence? Given that irreligious can mean anything from people who are religious but do not belong to a formal religion or attend a local religious service; are not vocal about being part of a given denomination; are in fact non-religious; or are simply not interested in wearing their beliefs on their sleeves, this statement simply shows me that those are people in an environment where constructive venues of social intercourse are lacking.
It is a fact that there are very few atheists or non-religious people in our prison systems. Hence, the insinuation that atheists/non-religious people have no morals and/or ethics and are therefore more prone to violence is just a disingenuous way of deflecting from the fact that violence, stupidity, and the inability to communicate without physical aggression is lacking among many.
Religion is not oftenif evera cause for war, brutality, and social inequity. It is often used as a justification and a tool of legitimization when a path of violence is trodden upon in an effort to make a war or an act of terror palatable for some when a rational mind would see no reason or justification for such an act.
Regarding the ME, religion was not a problem under the Ottoman Empire, Jews, Christians, and Muslims managed to live together without major bloodshed. And if there were violent conflicts, they were grounded in political and/or economic issues. So no, religious differences are not actually at the root of conflict in the ME, religion is merely used to justify the imperial policies of the West and the result that colonialism had in the long run by pitting different ethnicities, tribes against each other. Their concomitant religious affiliations were just that, concomitant not determining factors in the conflicts that were rooted in the colonial enterprise.
And yes, I know about the millet system and how it functioned. I am also aware that the ottomans were an empire that conquered non-Muslim areas, but that does not mean that Islam was the reason for their imperial aspirations, or that the destruction of non-Muslims was considered a goal of their policies.
As far as the question concerning religious chauvinism goes, yes it exists and is clearly visible. For example, all one needs to do is look at US political discourses. Regarding unreasoning partisanship I doubt that this partisanship can be deconstructed. It reinforces and simplifies political agendas for those who want and need some form of (pretend) morality to justify their baser urges and proclivities. Love thy neighbor only works when thy neighbors are similar enough to you so that you need not fear them. That usually means they go to your church and act, dress, and (at least pretend to) think the way you do.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, but no: that's not what I said, nor implied, in any way, shape, or form. I thought my post was simple enough, but apparently not; I shall reiterate: I live in an area with high irreligiosity (meaning there are a significantly higher number of people who answer 'no religion', 'atheist', and very low rates of attendance at place of worship), and violence is still just as common. As a percentage, rates of violence are significantly higher here than in other areas, but this owes nothing to religion or lack of it.
In brief: Humans, as a species, are violent, and will always find something to fight over; even if we disposed of religion, humans would still fight over things.
I don't understand the need to convince me of the virtues of atheism and how they have significantly lower numbers in terms of the prison population, but while we're on it, whilst that may be true in America, it's not true here; I was visiting a prison on Thursday on faith-based issues, so religiosity in our local prisons isn't as high as in the US.
Even then, assessing religion in prison is significantly more complex than 'religious people are more inclined to violence': are they nominally religious but have little religious activity? Is it related to other issues such as poverty, drugs, heat of the moment, etc? Saying they are in hopes of getting a lighter sentence? Basing it on ethnic grouping? Trying to find a group so they don't fear getting their heads smashed in? What crimes? - and so on and so forth.
"Atheists are less frequently found in prison" means very little as a statistic other than to attempt to justify how atheism is superior to religiosity. One could easily ask how many atheists had committed crimes but hadn't been caught - and even then, what brought them to it, in the same way we could ask that of the religious.
If 1,000 atheists commit crimes, and 2 get caught, and 1,000 Christians commit crimes, and 20 get caught, it doesn't mean atheists are more moral, or Christians are less moral.
The rest of your post is merely a diatribe to support your position; I'm not planning on responding to it unless you really request it.
Of course not. The main cause is the sense of "I" and 'Others'. In fact, religions try to dispel that sense of separation. That the notion of separation persists as an inertia for long is a fact and for that religious teachings cannot be faulted.
Religions tend to provide just another way-- and generally a very compelling and important way-- to divide people. Protestants vs Catholics, Hindus vs Muslims, Jews vs Muslims, Christians vs Native American beliefs, etc, etc.
Though, I acknowlege that some people will never believe that religion can be responsible for any ills in the world.
I'm not talking generalities. I am talking about specific scenarios.
It's the difference between claiming that a particular fight between two kids would have occurred no matter what (your claim), or believing that some fights occurred for a specific reason (my claim).
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
Covered in politics, and even sport, though. If they agreed with each other there wouldn't have been a problem; yet people rarely tirade on the evils of soccer.
If people want to fight, they will find a reason.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
I think religion sees after a lot of chaos and turmoil at end of times ultimately peace will usher in.
There is no harm to try to finish chaos and turmoil at end of times ; I think religion does not bar any such efforts.
And some, it seems, will not agree that man's ignorance and hatred for the other is inborn.
For example, i will show from a thread that I made yesterday.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/145729-why-important-muslims.html
You will see that the interpretations are man made, although the scripture is not. Man made interpretations promote conflicts based on the assumption of absolute separateness between man and man and between man and environment, arisen out of sensual outgoing view. Whereas, the scripture asks us to see that the differences are underlain by an indivisible substratum. All scripture teach about a single source of all beings, their intelligence and their lives.
:yes: