Can violence be religiously motivated after all?

Can violence be religiously motivated after all?


Religion is often charged with inciting violence - that people are killing or otherwise harming other people in the name of their God, and that their religiousness is the immediate cause of that violence, and not politics or socio-economic reasons.

Theists and pro-theists often argue that violence in the name of religion is actually politically motivated, that people's religious persuasions could not possibly be what drives them to kill or otherwise harm others.


But I am wondering: Why not? Why would people not kill for religious reasons?
What are the doctrinal or scriptural injunctions against the use of violence against people of other religious convictions?

Why not kill someone because they are a Muslim and you are a Christian? Why not kill someone because they are not a Vaisnava?

What is the philosophy behind religious non-violence, if there is such philosophy?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree. I think the religious nutjobs that want to kill people from other faiths should all be gathered on an island with a machete for each.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

uh, because there are other reasons to disagree? or to gain?

have you heard of a cheerleader mom killing another cheerleader to get rid of competition? or how about that case in the other thread where a woman killed a pregnant female and stole her child?

or someone just killing another to steal or enslaving others to gain?

the philosophy can be about gain, pure and simple, which doesn't value others at all or doesn't consider that they can also become victims. that can occur with religion and with other vehicles. overall the realization that cooperation is more productive than constantly having to watch your back but this cooperation has to consider other's needs, not just expecting or demanding another acquiesce to another's convenient desires or wants which is the problem of religious fundamentalism as any form of tyrannical or intolerant belief system. this is why ethics came about, the understanding that we are all trying to survive so to curb our selfishness or destructiveness because what goes around, can come around to us.

the more danger is when it's institutionalized using justifications such as religious dogma to destroy others. religious non-violence in relation to fundamental religions is to value other lives based on teaching them morals not as a primary goal but to use the concept of a singular correct god or religion to justify the annhilation of other philosophies which also may be non-violent or also have ethical codes by recruitment to their own.

i think originally it had in some ways a good cause in more primitive times and at outset since if you have a concept of one absolute authority (one god, one true religion) which teaches morals, then it's harder to make excuses for immorality. the problem with fundamental religions is that they don't consider that other philosophies or religions exist that are also based on ethics or the fundamental religions tend to be hypocritical when it comes to issues of violence and non-violence.

originally, if one were to justify murder or the enslavement of others for gain, the victim would think of a way to address the value of life or that they and others value their lives. one would have to find a way to address the essence of life just as one would pray when all hope seems lost or no one around them cares to validate this. that would be a pervading higher universal authority or understanding, the concept of god.

the problem is that it was just a start and it needs to be refined or some aspects need to be changed. that's why a dogmatic authority can be arbitrary without understanding or giving legitimate reasons behind the rules. the understanding is supposed to be about valuing life period, not just based on one's religion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What is religion anyways.
Think about it. The leaders that organize it have to be athiest or delusional but they dont sound stupid so I would go with athiest.

 

how does that make them an atheist?

how does forming a concept of a deity which is a creator being an atheist?

i'm not saying all of them believe it, we don't know everyones agenda but some may believe it.

 

I'm sure they can be delusional without being stupid.

 

it depends on the religion. if your talking about religions that explicetly condoone violence at times like Islam or Christianity or have a religion like Judaism that extolls violence than yes. on the other hand its next to impossible for say a sincere follower of wicca to commit violence motivated by the faith.

 

I would say that most conflicts are probably political. Religion is just used as a herding tool to make the people act in a certain manner and to create a "them vs us" narrative. The more different people think and look the easier it will be to make them fight against eachother. Religion is a good way to create such a difference.

 

Why are there no replies from theists in this thread?

 

On a national level it may be the differences in cultures that cause animosity or even wars, generally, and religion can be a large part of culture.

On both a creed and an individual level, the sheer existence of other religions would seem to lessen the credibility of one's own, and so that can eventually lead to violence.

And then there are the religions that expressly wish to do away with infidels.

 

Some go off and imagine scenarios that they think must be the answer, and further develop them into a ‘concept of good’, or at least a concept of “This is it” that works for them, as “good” is a relative term. When they see differences in other cultures and beliefs, they label these ideologies as “Not good”, meaning not their own, and thus they must be weird, then wrong and even ‘evil’, and so many problems and wars begin. Thus, their arbitrary and flawed ‘goods’ were the very root of violence and evil, and such they themselves may often meet a bloody end when trying too much to protect their ideas.

 

You will not see me arguing that violence in the name of religion is not carried out. Indeed it is.

But i have always argued that it is never carried out by followers of the Messiah Jesus. Simply because the teachings of Jesus to His followers is not to take part in violence. The very definition of a follower of Jesus is someone who believes His teachings. So a follower of Jesus never seeks to justify or carry out violence.

Indeed people do. Sometimes is the spirit of demonstrating to their god how hard core they are in their loyalty to him. Sometimes they believe that they are called upon by their god to enforce their beliefs through intimidation and violence. Sometimes the religious will execute an offender trying to win eternity by demonstrating how hard core they are for their gods rules.

Well as a Christian all those people are my Neighbours. I am to love my Neighbours even if they are an enemy to me. I do not love my neighbours by killing them.

Because the very definition of a Christian as defined by the founder Jesus is totaly against me killing anyone. muslim included.

Well that’s a question for a vaisnirian. lol

Yes the Gospel of the Messiah Jesus.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

Well apart from the fact that i have replied. Most people by their very nature don't like being lampooned, ridiculed and denigrated. And these things are standard operating procedure in this place.

So there are not many theists on this site, is there any wonder why?


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

Violence can be religiously motivated!

In the Bible, James said in 1:27 that christians (the true ones) practice "PURE" religion. Therefore, in their time, there were impure religious practices.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

My unofficial motto? "People are complicated."

There are reasons political, economic, intertribal/ethnic, and religious for people to kill each other, and they are all going to intertwine in practice.

Basically, people are psychologically predisposed to apply a filter: "Us," and "Them."

ANYTHING can make someone a "them," an outgroup.

Outgroups can be scapegoated and attacked for supposed crimes, attacked for something one member of that outgroup has done, attacked for practical reasons-because the outgroup has stuff the other group wants...and probably for other reasons I'm failing to think of offhand.

Hell, people beat the living crap out of each other over commercial sport teams. So it doesn't take much for people to whip out the us/them filter.

 

Perhaps it will help if we can analyze a real event.

Is this politically motivated murder with a politician taking advantage of religion or religiously motivated murder, with the religious taking advantage of a political puppet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMw2Zg_BVzw&feature=related

Personally, I cannot see how, if a person is religious or spiritual, he can leave that out of his thinking when he is on a political issue. You cannot just forget what you have learned or believe.

IOW, all political decisions made by most are also religious decisions.

Regards
DL

 

One look at the Israeli conflicts tells me yes they can be and very much are.

Jews: "This is our land gentiles get out or I will start executing Talmudic style ass whoopings"


peace,

 

Have any of you guys actualy read the Talmud?, if that's not religiously aggrivated violence and persecution then feel free to open debate with me about the contents of the Talmud.


peace.

 

Before invading Iraq, President Bush consulted with "a higher father".

 

He tried to convince Chirac that Gog and Magog was at work in in the mid east, when trying to convince him to go into Iraq.