Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[spidergoat]

People commit crimes; regardless of the level of technological development of the society they live in.

A member of a rainforest tribe murders another member; a US citizen murders another US citizen. Etc.
People steal, rape, assault, murder, destroy property, regardless of the level of technological development of the society they live in.
The objects and methods of the crimes vary, but the nature of the crimes is the same across history and geography.

And human societies have always tried to deal with crime and criminals somehow.
Either by excommunicating them, killing them, sending them to prison, etc.

So in a modern Western country, for example, a thief may have to pay a fine or is put to prison; a rainforest tribe may lash a thief. Either way, society has acknowledged that a crime was committed and punished the thief for the crime committed.

So when we read in old scriptures instructions for punishment, and we consider that this was intended for a society that didn't have the kind of judicial or penal facilities that modern Western countries usually do, it is reasonable to think that this was simply their way of dealing with criminals, and not something "religious."

Nevertheless, it has become religious law, that makes it religious. The whole problem with religion is that it fails to change with the times. Even when it's believers do change which parts of the bible they take seriously in modern times, when you get someone who really believes everything it says, that's dangerous. That's what fundamentalism is.

 

[lightgigantic]

To the extent that's true, I attribute it to the influence of the last hundred years or so of secular government, science, and humanism.

I am talking about the several hundred years before the crusades.

Aside from tramping on the political toes of ecclesiastical bodies that orchestrate religious institutions, what else turned lucrative trade partners into enemies?

But when you look at some areas of Africa, violence is still being committed due to the direct influence of Christianity and other native religions.

why is only "some" areas of africa?

what are the christians in the other parts doing/not doing that prevents them from performing acts of violence (whatever they are)?

or are they too just ticking time bombs waiting to plummet into the violence afforded by all religious persons?

 

[Aqueous Id]

Are the two of you saying that given the opportunity, true Christians would maim or kill every non-Christian, just like that?

That true Christians are essentially ticking time-bombs?

Ireland, Serbia come to mind.

 

[Aqueous Id]

The Inquisition, the witch hunts, these were all heinous crimes carried out in the name of Almighty God.

 

[lightgigantic]

Ireland, Serbia come to mind.

then I guess you have to explain why these conflicts were concluded through political discourse (as opposed to some sort of religious conclusion about conflicting theologies or whatever)

 

[lightgigantic]

The Inquisition,

Actually the notion of the spanish inquisition being some sort of peak body of religious persecution is a myth ... mainly because they didn't really have the opportunity to persecute anyone

"One of the first books to challenge the classical view was The Spanish Inquisition (1965) by Henry Kamen. Kamen established that the Inquisition was not nearly as cruel or as powerful as commonly believed. The book was very influential and largely responsible for subsequent studies in the 1970s to try to quantify (from archival records) the Inquisition's activities from 1480 to 1834.[108] Those studies showed there was an initial burst of activity against conversos suspected of relapsing into Judaism, and a mid-16th century pursuit of Protestants, but the Inquisition served principally as a forum Spaniards occasionally used to humiliate and punish people they did not like: blasphemers, bigamists, foreigners and, in Aragon, homosexuals and horse smugglers.[105] There were so few Protestants in Spain that widespread persecution of Protestantism was not physically possible."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_inquisition#Revision_after_1960

IOW they are clearly a body working in the national interests of spain

the witch hunts, these were all heinous crimes carried out in the name of Almighty God.

Once again, one has to look at at how this practice faded away - I mean we still have christians in society but we don't have witch burning.
What happened?
Did they run out of witches?
:shrug:

 

[spidergoat]

The Saudis just beheaded someone for witchcraft.

 

[spidergoat]

I am talking about the several hundred years before the crusades.

Aside from tramping on the political toes of ecclesiastical bodies that orchestrate religious institutions, what else turned lucrative trade partners into enemies?

why is only "some" areas of africa?

what are the christians in the other parts doing/not doing that prevents them from performing acts of violence (whatever they are)?

or are they too just ticking time bombs waiting to plummet into the violence afforded by all religious persons?

It's not my problem to figure out why Christians don't follow their holy book. And yes, I think moderate Christians pave the way for religious extremism.

 

[lightgigantic]

The Saudis just beheaded someone for witchcraft.

Then you have to ask yourself why it doesn't happen elsewhere

(nb - might require a bit of investigative journalism)

Philip Luther, the interim direct of Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa program, condemned Nassar's killing, calling it "deeply shocking."

"The charges of 'witchcraft and sorcery' are not defined as crimes in Saudi Arabia and to use them to subject someone to the cruel and extreme penalty of execution is truly appalling," Luther said.

Luther said that a charge of sorcery is often used by the Saudi government as a smokescreen under which they punish people for exercising freedom of speech.

No more religious than Abu Ghraib .... more politics it seems ....

 

[lightgigantic]

It's not my problem to figure out why Christians don't follow their holy book.

So religious integrity can be gradated in terms of individuals willing to kill and offer it as covered by scriptural authority (at the top) and those who don't at the bottom?

And yes, I think moderate Christians pave the way for religious extremism.

why use "extremism"?

 

[spidergoat]

Then you have to ask yourself why it doesn't happen elsewhere

Atheists.

 

[spidergoat]

So religious integrity can be gradated in terms of individuals willing to kill and offer it as covered by scriptural authority (at the top) and those who don't at the bottom?

I would call it following the rules of the religion, and not simply concentrate of killing. It's perfectly reasonable and of sound moral character to question the appropriateness of such a course.

why use "extremism"?

Indeed, it's only following your religion after all. :shrug:

 

[kx000]

Revelation is about Jesus coming to the conclusion that he must kill the world for his saints to live free. Just saying.

 

[Jan Ardena]

To the extent that's true, I attribute it to the influence of the last hundred years or so of secular government, science, and humanism. But when you look at some areas of Africa, violence is still being committed due to the direct influence of Christianity and other native religions.

How about sunny, atheist, North Korea? Violence is still being commited due to the influence of atheism.


jan.

 

[kx000]

Im pretty sure violence is being committed by a evil government.

 

[wynn]

Two ways to respond to this...
First, when those same punishments are continued despite an otherwise progressive society, are they continued for any reason other than religious?

Practitioners of religions aren't necessarily perfect, and can fall for anachronisms, decontextualizations and similar. People make mistakes.

It takes a lot of wisdom and experience to be able to apply any principle, religious or not, into daily life anyway.

Second, if you propose that instructions for punishments are merely "of their time", why can we not hold that true also of the laws to which those punishments apply? Why should religions adhere to those same laws if not adhere to the same punishments?

Let's take the example of stoning unbelievers:

The principle is that one should refrain from closely associating with those who do not hold the same beliefs and practices as oneself.

Most people, eventually possibly everyone, religious or not, theist or not, lives by this principle or believes it to be a good guiding principle.

In a more simple society, acting on this principle may manifest as stoning a person who doesn't hold the same beliefs and practices as oneself or the group one belongs to.
Although I am sure that even in simple societies, there are stages in this process: ie. they probably first try to discuss the issue with the person who doesn't fit in, and when the person continually refuses to fit in, they take further steps; the stages likely also depend on whether the person has been a long-term member, is relatively new, or a stranger/intruder.

In a more complex society, it may manifest as breaking all ties (ie. deleting phone and email address, not answering their calls etc.) with someone who doesn't hold the same beliefs and practices as oneself or the group one belongs to.

People do this all the time.

 

[wynn]

Er...because it comes from God?

If you believe it comes from God, then you're not an atheist.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

Let's take the example of stoning unbelievers:


The principle is that one should refrain from closely associating with those who do not hold the same beliefs as oneself.

I don't think it is as simple as that.
I think it is more a way of keeping the satanic/demonic influence we see more readily today, at bay.

jan.

 

[wynn]

I think it is more a way of keeping the satanic/demonic influence we see more readily today, at bay.

This is the purpose of the principle that one should refrain from closely associating with those who do not hold the same beliefs and practices as oneself or the group one belongs to.

One refrains from associating with particular people because of the negative influence they have on one (or one's loved ones).

 

[wynn]

The Inquisition, the witch hunts, these were all heinous crimes carried out in the name of Almighty God.

As I have noted many times in this thread:
Comission in the name of is not the same as comission because of or motivated by.