It depends on what the fear is that they are born out of.
Pakistan mob burns man to death for 'blasphemy'
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
It depends on what the fear is that they are born out of.
The problem is, too, that it also didn't violate Islamic tradition, nor Quranic tradition. There is plenty of room in literalist Islam - even from restricted sources - for the murder of apostates.
Bells
Staff member
The same could be said of Christianity as well though. Old and New Testament discusses about killing apostates.
So you have to wonder, if somewhere out there, there aren't literalist Christians who would support murdering apostates or gays for example (*cough* look at the 'God hates fags' brigade *cough*)..
But we don't listen to them, do we? Because they are batshit insane and we say 'they aren't true Christians'..
And yet...
The point, Geoff, is that there are some who take their religion very very seriously. The mob of Hindus who murdered an Australian Christian missionary and his two young sons by burning them in their car took their religion as seriously as the Muslims who decided to burn this poor man to death for blasphemy. Just as the Westboro Baptists take their religious beliefs seriously when they prance around funerals of dead soldiers, celebrities and homosexuals.
At the end of the day, you have to wonder about what kind of God could condone such behaviour and supposedly partake in quite a bit of murder and mayhem himself if the old biblical stories are to be believed...? At any rate, he (God) isn't exactly a shining example, is he?
Yup. And those should be laid on the head of Christian theology.
Socially, it doesn't matter whether they're 'true Christians' or not. Their acts are morally evil. If Christian theology permits such expressions, then it is that which is to blame along with the reactionaries who conspire at them.
I don't know how you got that out of anything that I said. I only said they hold a different morality. I didn't say I agreed with it. As for those saying god is not a good source of morality, well I can't disagree. But God didn't make religion, people did and they injected what they believed a god reflecting their morality would demand. After all religion and god are made in man's image. So it is man who creates and dictates what is moral, writes it into religion in order to scare others into following suit. No I do not believe morality born of fear is good. I am only saying that it is how religious based morality is formed and religion is made by humans so humans are to blame for the morality we consider immoral. People burned that man alive, not a religion. People and their brand of morality did it. And in Islam killing someone by fire is against Islam, even according to hadith. Killing for disbelieving is contrary to the Qur'an.
Think about this. How many people cherry pick their religion? Most. Why? because they are able to think and choose for themselves what to believe, regardless of what the religion actually states in its entirety. You are painting humans to being mindless drones incapable of any free thought whatsoever once they choose a faith path. If that were the case they would all practice their religion in uniform fashion. No two Christians would ever disagree on doctrine, there would be no denominations or sects within a faith. Those are things born of the human ability and will to disagree with their religion as is and make changes accordingly. No human being is a slave to their religion unless they choose to be. And then they choose what version to be a slave to. They are responsible for their choices. Religion is just there.
Personally, I think those who choose to blame religion rather than humans for their atrocious acts, do so because it gives them further separation from those who commit monstrous acts. To say it is religion, something far removed from what we are, is easy. But to say that human beings are to blame, well hell we are all human. Does that mean that any one of us could be reduced to murderous acts? Yes it does. In the right circumstances any one of us may kill another human being in cold blood. And we will find a way to justify it. So blame religion if it makes you feel good. Just like theists like to blame the devil for their evil acts. But that won't change the reality that human beings can be vile creatures with a taste for blood. And we are all human. To blame religion is to give it strength. You have to somewhat have faith in it in order to believe that religion has that much power.
Bells
Staff member
True.
It should. But it won't be. You know that, and I know that. For example, Christian pastors calling for gays to be killed or rounded up, etc.. And using their bibles to justify their rabid calls for violence.. And yet, we don't look at the religions or the holy books preaching about such acts, but when it comes to certain individuals, we look at them as individuals. But others do not fare as well. And it is that hypocrisy that I have some issues with when we have these debates, as you well know. And we are all guilty of it.
Whether Christian theology permits it or not is beside the point.
People will always be able to find some form of religious justifications to further their own hateful means and beliefs. In saying that, we need to keep in mind that holy texts such as the bible and the quran are hardly peaceful and loving books. A fair chunk of it is quite violent and the actions of some of the characters would be deemed "morally evil" by any standards in today's society.
I think it will be, or some of it. There's plenty of political expression and protest against the deficiencies of Christian systems, and of the theology that binds or promotes them, both here and in the world at large. Have a look around the site - numerous posters condemn Christianity (and/or several other theologies) in explicit, uncompromising ways without reference to diversity of opinion. Atheists at large are free to do the same, and they do. Some individuals are so extreme that some people don't make connections between them and their founding ideologies (such as Westboro), but others do. They have free expression to do so and are using it. I agree and disagree with such individuals in complicated ways.
Indeed. But you yourself seem to admit in the above section that these philosophies are, in many ways, violent and not peaceful. Do not these philosophies themselves bear responsibility for the actions of their adherents? Would there be any such hate, if not for the arbitrary rules that these books often promote?
Bells
Staff member
I think there is a fear of making that connection, because it would require some to actually look at their own religious texts and question its validity in today's society.
Westboro and those individuals of their ilk, and this applies to any religious belief, are a pox on society. I don't think they serve a purpose, or provide any positive influence on society. The only benefit organisations of their ilk provide are to the cranks and the crazies who hold similar personal beliefs. The terrifying prospect, of course is when any individuals who hold steadfast to the violent teachings of their religious books then attempt or manage to gain a foothold of power (ie. enters the political arena). And we have seen a disturbing amount of that happen in many countries, from Egypt to even the US and countries like Australia, where that strongly religious right group is somehow managing to gain political power. And that is the terrifying and immoral prospect.. The erosion in the separation of Church and State.
I would say in many, many ways.
And unfortunately, that kind of ideology is quite pervasive. Regardless of the religious beliefs behind it.
Of course they do.
But followers should bear a greater responsibility. There are few things that are generally accepted as being 'immoral' and setting someone on fire and murdering would rank quite high on that list. Is Islam to blame? I would say it shares some responsibility, but the greater responsibility are the people who took those meanings and ran with it and killed a man.
There would be hatred even without such books. One only has to look at the horrors of the past to know that. There were no books preaching the Nazi final solution, just as there were no books that promoted the hatred that led to over 800,000 Rwandan's being slaughtered in a matter of weeks.
Hater's gonna hate..
We already had that discussion back in 1787.
The problem comes when people don't live in a free society where they can make up their own minds about religion. Mostly, this happens due to religion. When a particular religion gains political power, it can become hegemonic and totalitarian. I can give you numerous examples of violent acts which would not have happened if not for religion.
Agreed, naturally.
Okay - but is not such a movement the goal of philosophical thought in at least one major religion today?
Paraphyletic or polyphyletic in origin, I feel those religions are to blame for those failures, to some extent. I don't think you can sue, lest a particular faith or organization itself is complicit in crime, but in some cases this is so.
Agreed. I don't know to what extent a theology bears this burden. Certainly it is possible to say that a given collection of ideas may be a bad idea, based on content. This is not to exclude application.
The Final Solution of the Nazis was the outgrowth of Mein Kampf. I remember this from reading it ages ago. There was anti-Semitism in Europe before this, but it had no organization and no common liturgy. Hate may never be eradicated - probably never will be. But organized hate can be interdicted, cut off and eventually destroyed.
Don't get it twisted - WBC is simply a lawsuit troll. It isn't even about the actual "beliefs" (which nobody at all appears to actually hold sincerely). It's a way of baiting authorities into doing things that violate the First Amendment, so that WBC can sue them for a profit.
Sure there were. In addition to Mein Kampf, there was the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I'm sure you could find many other less noted texts in the long history of European anti-Semitism.
There was an extensive Hutu Power media campaign leading up to that genocide, employing newsletters and radio. Considering that Rwanda has less than universal literacy and a less-than-developed book publishing and distribution economy, the reliance on radio seems a straightforward adaptation of the same techniques.
Right, and they're also gonna use various media as propaganda tools to amplify and spread their message, and attempt to enlist the wider polity. We may not ever be able to get rid of the haters themselves, but we can sure as hell prevent them from co-opting enough of the polity to gain control and act out their impulses on a wide scale. And we do that by monitoring and resisting their propaganda efforts and efforts to co-opt public spaces like the media, church, state and public square.
I don't believe that, I think they are sincere.
Note that the lawsuit troll strategy requires convincing outsiders of the sincerity of the beliefs.
Not that I think the leadership of that "church" aren't rabidly homophobic, but all of the specious crap about how God allows IEDs to kill US troops because America doesn't persecute gays sufficiently has "pretext to stage attention-grabbing protests at military funerals" written all over it. There are any number of rabidly homophobic religions that don't compare to those guys - including most major denominations, in fact.
That doesn't make sense, since going through a lawsuit sucks and costs lots of money.
Gee, that must be why nobody ever files lawsuits.
Being the target of a lawsuit is unpleasant and expensive. Being a lawyer who targets others with lawsuits for profit is a different story.
Phelps himself is a lawyer - now disbarred - and so is his daughter (who just so happens to be the "church" lawyer). They started out as a family law practice (as in, a family of lawyers who work together, not lawyers active in family law), and later created the WBC as a scam. Wikipedia explains how they're funded by proceeds from successful lawsuits from this strategy.
If you are a lawyer - and a tax-free organization - and manage to scam up a legal pretect to sue, then lawsuits are not costly. They are profitable.
That doesn't mean they don't believe what they say. Plenty of people have to defend their speech in court, Randi Rhodes the talk show host, for instance.
You seem to be missing the point of how the lawsuit troll works. They are not trolling for people to file lawsuits against themselves. They are trolling for cities and municipalities to prevent them from speaking publicly, and then they sue those entities for violating their First Amendment rights and collect settlement checks. If that is your business plan, you have every incentive to dream up some preposterously offensive and inane "beliefs," and then spend a lot of energy convincing people that you are serious about them.