Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

1. How would religiousness or a belief in God be exhibited?

I don't understand the question.

2. Throughout the thread, quotes from scriptures have been listed that instruct the commission of violent acts. How are those instructions to be understood?

You'd have to quote some, as the thread is too big to go trapesing through.
I would say they have to be understood in the context the time, place, and circumstances it nartates.

3. When a person commits an act that is perceived as harmful by others,
an act that may be to the extent of a legally prosecutable crime (such as aggravted assault or homicide), or an absence of reasonably expected common decency (such as shutting the door to someone in a public space, as when several customers entering a store, and one shuts the door on another),
and they justify that act by naming some religion-related justification (such as "God told me to do so," "the Bible Koran says so," hissing "You worthless atheist!" at someone),
how can people who are not religious make sense of that?

Sounds as it that person is pissed about something. Again, context is king.


jan.

 

[GeoffP]

Bells -

The issue under discussion was - as you no doubt realize full well - was unfounded assertion. I'm sorry you now present this as a plan to humiliate you or force you to emit a public apology, and that you now see this as 'gloating'. It was not gloating, although it was certainly 'gleeful' (I actually would have said 'very pleasantly surprised'). I was hugely impressed with the equanimity of the decision, and I still am.

Now, as to the why: you've made comments on the issue of the French law of the burkha which could - using the same biased filters you employed, and then ran away from - be used to implicate you as having some kind of discriminatory opinion. Did that seem fair? Of course not. And the issue is now clear.

So I'm sorry you don't accept the apology, but ultimately that's your problem. I have not criticized your poor-faith apology; it was patently clear that you were implying my support for religious violence. There were no "ifs" to it. I thank you for your apology, but since you accept mine in such poor faith, no further will in all probability be forthcoming.

Let us now return the thread to its intent. I fully intend to do so.

Best regards,

Geoff

 

[GeoffP]

Then you seem to understand religion in terms of politics - as if religion would be yet another brand of politics, nothing more.

Rather, a philosophy. Politics - at least in part - is another form of philosophies.

I take for granted that the American constitution doesn't permit or encourange vigilante justice.

As do I, Second Amendment notwithstanding. But if it did, then vigilante justice arising from it could be said to be based in constitutional law; that is, 'political'. It would spring from that source.

And some people have baser intellects, so baser things appeal to them.

This is true, but some people are taught baser things, and retain them. In any event, the motivation for such religious violence would be religious. Hence, religious violence.

We're not.

So you're calling religiously-inspired generosity irreligious?

Again, this speaks of a mundane, political understanding of religion.

I think it more mundane to assume that. Religion, like politics, is merely philosophy.

I am beginning to think that the problem arises simply from the fact that people who have committed a crime can name justifications for it that the secular (!) law cannot prove or disprove. Such named justifications can be an appeal to aliens, conspiracy, temporary insanity, or religion.

And other crimes are committed explicitly in the name of religion. I could add that the secular law uses many religious concepts in its application.

 

[Bells]

Bells -

The issue under discussion was - as you no doubt realize full well - was unfounded assertion. I'm sorry you now present this as a plan to humiliate you or force you to emit a public apology, and that you now see this as 'gloating'. It was not gloating, although it was certainly 'gleeful' (I actually would have said 'very pleasantly surprised'). I was hugely impressed with the equanimity of the decision, and I still am.

Now, as to the why: you've made comments on the issue of the French law of the burkha which could - using the same biased filters you employed, and then ran away from - be used to implicate you as having some kind of discriminatory opinion. Did that seem fair? Of course not. And the issue is now clear.

So I'm sorry you don't accept the apology, but ultimately that's your problem. I have not criticized your poor-faith apology; it was patently clear that you were implying my support for religious violence. There were no "ifs" to it. I thank you for your apology, but since you accept mine in such poor faith, no further will in all probability be forthcoming.

Let us now return the thread to its intent. I fully intend to do so.

Best regards,

Geoff

The request was that you apologise and retract. You did neither on that issue.

You accused me of approving of violence towards women, and then had to go and search for what you could possibly find when challenged on the issue. What you used as so called evidence was my saying that forcing women to not dress a certain way is just as bad as forcing them to dress a certain way... You attempted to lie through your teeth about it and you failed. You also falsely accused me of banning a member I have never banned, questioned and criticised my moderating that member's post (by linking the post I made in regards to that action - in other words, it was my moderation and supposedly banning LeBlanc you were criticising me for... when I never even banned him or issued him with an infraction) and called me a hypocrite for it. You also haven't apologised for that particular lie either.

So no, it is not my problem. But yours.

Since you have failed to apologise and retract for your accusation (all blatant lies) that you made against me that I approve of violence against women, I really do not see how or why I should accept what you have failed to provide or give.

 

[GeoffP]

Actually, I did apologize for all the particulars above. I wish you the best of luck in locating them: written in basic English, they should not be indiscernible to the naked eye. I didn't specifically retract them, but I would have assumed that was implicit: nonetheless, I further add that I retract those statements.

Let me know how you make out: or actually, don't.

Geoff

 

[Bells]

Actually, I did apologize for all the particulars above. I wish you the best of luck in locating them: written in basic English, they should not be indiscernible to the naked eye. I didn't specifically retract them, but I would have assumed that was implicit: nonetheless, I further add that I retract those statements.

Let me know how you make out: or actually, don't.

Geoff

Oh you mean after you edited your post? Again, sneaky and lies.. Really, how much lower can you actually go? Lets see your words, shall we? Let us look at your "apology" about what you said about my moderation..

Lastly, and almost most importantly, I don't think I actually implied that Bells would use her mod status; rather, I was implicating the system itself.

Hmmm.. lovely sentiments. However, here is what you had actually said:

You have made assertions without evidence and, when evidence was requested, refused to provide it. There are several instances above. And yet you have banned individuals - just did, in fact - for precisely this offense. Can I be more clear? Either you are not aware of this personal hypocrisy, or you simply don't care.

With a direct link to a mod note I did about LeBlanc and what he had done. So this is you not implying that I use my mod status? So which individuals have I banned for 'this'? You also failed to provide evidence for that lie you tried to push about me as well. How about when after I pointed out your lies, you then edited your next post to say this:

Actually, there's a lot of space left there. Yet, you are indeed correct in this fact: you have indeed not banned him - yet. But you do make the point that he will be banned for failing to support, which is what you've been doing with me.

This is you not implying that I use my moderator status? Not to mention all this while you commented that I am a "moderator", you know, just to be clear. Show me where in that link you provided after you accused me of using my moderator status to 'ban' people for failing to provide evidence or cite their sources, did I threaten or point out that he would have been banned?

Your instructions were clear. Apologise and retract. Do it properly and I might take you seriously.

 

[spidergoat]

I'm not a theist. I just want to understand how there can be religiously motivated violence.

I certainly think that there can be violence that is motivated by a mundane/incomplete understanding of religion.

I think your opinion is based on an incomplete understanding of religion.

 

[spidergoat]

There is indeed a considerable legal problem that ensues from the status that religion is ascribed by the law.
So questions arise like: Are those who are in some way religious or believe in God, delusional, or are they sane?

If a person commits a crime and then claims e.g. "God told me to do it" or "The Bible/Koran says so" - how should that crime be prosecuted?
Under the plea of insanity?

So I suppose one motivation for positing that violence can indeed be religiously motivated is legal.

People who have committed crimes and who justify them claiming e.g. "God told me to do it" or "The Bible/Koran says so," otherwise do not necessarily exhibit any beliefs and behaviors that would suggest they are insane.

But if we posit that there is no God, then it follows that those who believe in God are necessarily delusional, and if they commit a crime which they claim is justified in the name of God somehow, they are to be prosecuted as insane.

Delusional is not the same thing as insane.

 

[GeoffP]

Look, enough already. Is this necessary now?

Oh you mean after you edited your post? Again, sneaky and lies.. Really, how much lower can you actually go? Lets see your words, shall we? Let us look at your "apology" about what you said about my moderation..

Very well: in what sense was my edit "sneaky" or "lying"? I'd be only to happy to discuss it, if only you can figure out what post you're talking about. Bon chance.

Hmmm.. lovely sentiments. However, here is what you had actually said:

Very good. You have mastered the art of posting a link. Could you point out where in that post I said you personally would abuse your mod status? Do you understand yet?

With a direct link to a mod note I did about LeBlanc and what he had done. So this is you not implying that I use my mod status?

'Use your mod status'? What in hell are you trying to say here? Please specify.

So which individuals have I banned for 'this'? You also failed to provide evidence for that lie you tried to push about me as well. How about when after I pointed out your lies, you then edited your next post to say this:

Actually, in that post I pointed out that you were correct and that you had not banned him, but that your calls were hypocritical given your behaviour. And?

What is the edit to which you are referring? What is that post supposed to have said originally? I seem to recall adding some italics and a "-". I think I even added "whoever he might be". And? What is this post-hoc meant to have changed or implied? If you're accusing me of deception, you should probably have a care about it. Proof is good.

Your instructions were clear. Apologise and retract. Do it properly and I might take you seriously.

I've done so already. Are you going to be done this anytime soon?

 

[wynn]

I think your opinion is based on an incomplete understanding of religion.

What am I missing then?

 

[wynn]

This is true, but some people are taught baser things, and retain them. In any event, the motivation for such religious violence would be religious. Hence, religious violence.

So you're calling religiously-inspired generosity irreligious?

Mundane things - whether it is mundane violence or mundane generosity or anything else mundane - are simply mundane, not a matter of religion per se.

Religion, like politics, is merely philosophy.

This then seems to be the core of your stance.

 

[GeoffP]

Mundane things - whether it is mundane violence or mundane generosity or anything else mundane - are simply mundane, not a matter of religion per se.

No, elements of religion may also be mundane. This is a value judgement you are applying to motivation; as motivation spans the range of the exciting to the deadly dull, elements of religion may be mundane also. Or do you mean in the material world? In that case, there is nothing religious or irreligious in real space-time, and thus no rationale for your distinction about religiously motivated violence. There can then really be nothing religious at all.

This then seems to be the core of your stance.

And it is, unless you believe the God-hand is in all things. In which case there is nothing irreligious, and so the existence of religious violence is indisputable. :shrug:

But what about those crimes committed that spring directly from religious sources; i.e. anti-Semitism (or at least obliquely via some of the NT language), or the execution of apostates from Islam under Islamic law?

 

[wynn]

1. How would religiousness or a belief in God be exhibited?

I don't understand the question.

IOW: How can a human external observer recognize whether someone is religious or believes in God, or not?

2. Throughout the thread, quotes from scriptures have been listed that instruct the commission of violent acts. How are those instructions to be understood?

You'd have to quote some, as the thread is too big to go trapesing through.
I would say they have to be understood in the context the time, place, and circumstances it nartates.

E.g.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2873480&postcount=325

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2873511&postcount=329


The argument can be made that to apply those instructions from the Bible literally nowadays, would be an anachronism.

Back then, they simply didn't have the infrastructure to organize systematic education of children or imprisonment of criminals, so they had to resort to simpler means.

If someone nowadays would want to be true to the letter of the Bible, they would have to refrain from using any modern technology, and also become illiterate.

 

[wynn]

No, elements of religion may also be mundane.
This is a value judgement you are applying to motivation; as motivation spans the range of the exciting to the deadly dull, elements of religion may be mundane also. Or do you mean in the material world? In that case, there is nothing religious or irreligious in real space-time, and thus no rationale for your distinction about religiously motivated violence. There can then really be nothing religious at all.

There may be religious, or irreligious intentions/motivations for doing things.

For example, to eat in order to please one's senses is irreligious.
To eat in order to keep the body going so that one can perform one's duties, one of them being to acknowledge God in a favorable manner, is religious.
Externally, two people may be performing the same action, but the type and quality of their respective intentions may vary.

But what about those crimes committed that spring directly from religious sources; i.e. anti-Semitism (or at least obliquely via some of the NT language), or the execution of apostates from Islam under Islamic law?

Every social group deals with intruders, enemies and misfits somehow.

If the group can afford it, they put them in fancy prison facilities and try to rehabilitate them.
If the group is poor, they'll just excommunicate, lash or stone the misfits and be done with it.

 

[wynn]

If you claim, for example, that Catholics killed Protestants for religious reasons, then you believe that the Catholics were divinely ordained to do so, not that the Catholics believed they were divinely ordained so.

Logic fail.

Since I do not believe in god, I can't possibly believe that they were divinely ordained by god.

Then you also cannot justly claim that they committed religiously motivated violence.

To justly make the claim that an act is religiously motivated, you'd have to be religious, at least that.
To justly make the claim that an act is religiously motivated, you'd have to belive that that particular person in that particular situation was divinely ordained by God to do what they did.

All that is required is that THEY believe they are divinely ordained by god.

But that doesn't make them so.

The notion of "religiously motivated violence" assumes that a particular person in a particular situation has been divinely ordained to commit a violent act with the intention to cause harm to another living being.

Since I cannot read minds all I have to go on is their own words.

Do you take for granted that someone is a nuclear physicist simply because they claim to be a nuclear physicist ...

 

[GeoffP]

There may be religious, or irreligious intentions/motivations for doing things.

Aha! Then there is such a thing as religiously-motivated violence, which was your original point and the title of the thread. You can't separate by outcome.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

IOW: How can a human external observer recognize whether someone is religious or believes in God, or not?

If the observer understands what it means to believe in God, then yes.
Being ''religious'' can mean anything, and not necessarily mean one is actually a theist. Religion is the application of ones belief system, or world view, and if one believes in the material world, Charles Darwin, or oneself, and lives according to those principles. One is, in my view, religious.

E.g.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2873480&postcount=325

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. As well the stranger as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.

I would understand that to be the rules of the day.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2873511&postcount=329


Proverbs 22:15 Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

Proverbs 23:13 Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.

A ''rod of correction'' need not be ''violence''.

The argument can be made that to apply those instructions from the Bible literally nowadays, would be an anachronism.

I suppose it could, in some western countries.
Back in the day the soldiers went away to fight wars, and didn't kill and mame innocent people, unlike nowadays.

Back then, they simply didn't have the infrastructure to organize systematic education of children or imprisonment of criminals, so they had to resort to simpler means.

Says who?

If someone nowadays would want to be true to the letter of the Bible, they would have to refrain from using any modern technology, and also become illiterate.

No they wouldn't.
They only need to follow the 10 commandments. That IS the religion in the Bible.

jan.

 

[wynn]

There may be religious, or irreligious intentions/motivations for doing things.

Aha! Then there is such a thing as religiously-motivated violence, which was your original point and the title of the thread. You can't separate by outcome.

The intention to harm someone just to make them suffer is not a religious intention.

 

[GeoffP]

The intention to harm someone just to make them suffer is not a religious intention.

The intention to harm someone because they live in violation of religious laws certainly is a religious intention.

 

[wynn]

The intention to harm someone because they live in violation of religious laws certainly is a religious intention.

No. That would be an attempt to impersonate God (which one should not do) or considering oneself to be the agent of another person's karma (which is a mistake).