Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[lightgigantic]

Interestingly, my one friend who has read all the major religious texts from cover to cover disdains organized religion. I agree that there are various explanations about why they don't do the things they are commanded to do, but it's a matter of interpretation. That's the whole problem, there are perfectly valid interpretations that would teach otherwise, and that's the danger.

Interpreting anything in any way is certainly not valid

I don't care.

Witchcraft is a term that could apply to any number of non Christian practices. It's a way of literally demonizing the opposition.

and that's my point - one doesn't require religion to "demonize" the opposition, since, as history shows, having opposition alone is sufficient

Source was wikipedia and common knowledge. I also don't care if they decided to demonize their political enemies. That's irrelevant.

I certainly don't think its irrelevant that they decided to demonize their political enemies .. since its the nature of having "political" enemies that catalyzes violence in the first place

There are so many obvious cases of religious violence even into modern times that are clearly motivated by religion. Another example is child abuse. People are using the Bible to justify beating their children. Several have died as a result. As far as I'm concerned there is no way you can explain this away. Religion has a lot to answer for.

There are also many more cases where child abuse has occurred without any sort of religious underpinnings.

IOW what you are clearly talking about are scenarios where certain types of violence are likely in a religious background. Removing religion still gives you the same scenario but in a different background (even an atheist one)
:shrug:

 

[spidergoat]

I agree that even without religion, there would be reasons and justifications for violence, but religion is one source of it, and proving that was the purpose of this thread. Your slight of hand in separating political and religious reasons certainly does not apply to all situations, and indeed when Christianity dominated Europe, the Church was the main political power.

As far as interpretation, it's clear what the Jewish laws are talking about, it's not so clear that the command to follow them has been rescinded. I could point to passages in the Bible that say that they have not been rescinded. The fact that this is so means that the old laws are still dangerous in the hands of the faithful.

 

[spidergoat]

I was just watching Iceman, confessions of a Mafia Hitman. Richard Kuklinski explained that he felt nothing when he killed people because when he was growing up, his mother and father were strict Catholics, so they believed in beating their children. Certainly Kuklinski's violence wasn't directly religious in nature, but it was the indirect result of religion. It's not too surprising when your religious savior got that way thanks to a severe beating. Basically, Christians go to church every week and worship the image of a man being tortured to death.

 

[lightgigantic]

I was just watching Iceman, confessions of a Mafia Hitman. Richard Kuklinski explained that he felt nothing when he killed people because when he was growing up, his mother and father were strict Catholics, so they believed in beating their children.

Then I guess you have to explain why other children who were beaten buy their parents don't feel remorseless about killing others as a consequence.

IOW its a caricature of religion to play it as an underlying cause since we are certainly dealing with aspects of a specific (unbalanced) individual and not the community he grew up in (unless you have some link to show similarly treated kids in the area grew up to be hitmen and the like)

I mean straight off the cuff, I think getting involved with the mafia is more of a cultural icon of violence than what ever you can hope to dress up religion as (just waiting for you to start depicting the mafia as a theistic society now ...)

 

[spidergoat]

I have to explain no such thing. He wasn't insane, he just felt nothing, all the empathy was beaten out of him, and the church was an accessory to the crime. His brother was the same way, and in fact they kept him in the same prison.

 

[lightgigantic]

I agree that even without religion, there would be reasons and justifications for violence, but religion is one source of it, and proving that was the purpose of this thread. Your slight of hand in separating political and religious reasons certainly does not apply to all situations, and indeed when Christianity dominated Europe, the Church was the main political power.

Its hardly slight of hand.
Its quite clear that the real sources of violence have different sources than religion ... mainly because one can take the same religion in the same community with the same people and indicate an era where this is no violence

As far as interpretation, it's clear what the Jewish laws are talking about, it's not so clear that the command to follow them has been rescinded.

You see jews/christians busy acquiring slaves just so they can apply the 3000 yr old + civic rights program of exodus?

I could point to passages in the Bible that say that they have not been rescinded.

feel free

The fact that this is so means that the old laws are still dangerous in the hands of the faithful.

The fact that over 99.9% of the faithful are not dangerous seems to throw the psychological microscope on yourself as to why you have these incredible hang ups about religion

 

[lightgigantic]

I have to explain no such thing.

You certainly do

At the moment all you have is an anecdotal example

He wasn't insane, he just felt nothing, all the empathy was beaten out of him, and the church was an accessory to the crime.
His brother was the same way, and in fact they kept him in the same prison.

even if you want to argue that feeling a lack of remorse for killing others for money and underworld business ethics is a trait of the psychological balanced person, you still have to explain how this is inherently a religious cause .. especially in light of ...

Kuklinski was born in a housing project in Jersey City, New Jersey, to a family of mixed Polish and Irish-American descent. His father, Stanley Kuklinski, was an alcoholic who frequently abused his wife and children. He had a brother, Joseph Kuklinski (1944–2003) who was convicted of raping and murdering a 12-year-old girl.[3][4]

Kuklinski spent the remainder of his life fantasizing about murdering his father. When asked about his brother Joseph's crimes, he replied: "We come from the same father."[5] His mother, Anna McNally Kuklinski, was also abusive to Richard, hitting him with broom handles and other household objects to stop him from stealing.

In 1940, Stanley Kuklinski beat his son, Florian, to death. In the aftermath, the Kuklinski family lied to the police, saying that Florian had fallen down a flight of steps.[6]

By the age of 10, Richard Kuklinski began acting out against the priests and nuns at the Roman Catholic parochial school that he attended.

Having an abusive alcoholic father who has beaten one of your siblings to death seems to be more of an issue than whatever his particular religious leanings are, don't you think?

 

[spidergoat]

It's certainly a contributing factor, but consider that along with the recent deaths of children who's parents were influenced by a certain Christian book that encourages corporal punishment (following the Bible's teaching), the evidence adds up.

 

[spidergoat]

If many people are killed riding motorcycles, I don't have to explain why the rest of the motorcycle riding population isn't killed to know that motorcycle riding is dangerous.

 

[lightgigantic]

It's certainly a contributing factor, but consider that along with the recent deaths of children who's parents were influenced by a certain Christian book that encourages corporal punishment (following the Bible's teaching), the evidence adds up.

If one is literally beating their children to death as a means to teach them good manners or whatever, I think it's quite clear that they have issues much like the mafia hitmen you mentioned before

If many people are killed riding motorcycles, I don't have to explain why the rest of the motorcycle riding population isn't killed to know that motorcycle riding is dangerous.

the problem is that you haven't explained why the rest of the non-religious population are not caught up in the same societal factors of violence you are (fallaciously) attributing solely to religion ... so its a dud comparison.

You might as well say that Christianity encourages theft since there are quite a few stories floating around about persons who had a christian upbringing who have since been convicted
:shrug:

 

[spidergoat]

I'm not sure they aren't. The Christian evangelical population in the US is very militant and right-wing.

 

[lightgigantic]

I'm not sure they aren't. The Christian evangelical population in the US is very militant and right-wing.

Then, much like all your other claims about religion being the cause of violence, you just have to offer an explanation why the other 99.9% of the (so-called0 religious are not convicted for crime
:shrug:

 

[Jan Ardena]

I know they can have a mindset like any other person, but it cannot be derived from the belief that there is no God.

Oh! ''It cannot''? Is that so?

How is it that you are privy to this knowledge you claim?

And can you provide evidence that you are indeed, correct?


jaln.

 

[spidergoat]

I claim no special knowledge.

 

[James R]

GeoffP

I am deeply, deeply impressed. I thank you.

I accept Bells' frank and abject apology for her assertion. Most kind.

And naturally I apologize in turn. My objective was to illustrate an issue, and it has done. I didn't expect quite such a reaction, but I'm glad in its way that it has, and I think something genuinely positive has come from this. I can't tell SF how incredibly impressed I am by this decision. Was this a general thing or a single supermod's call? It's brilliant.

As for the 'threat to my family', the implication was legal, not physical, and the situation sounded as though it was becoming litigious. I've already made my mea culpas for that above; I'm a family man and when people start using heightened language of doom on the forum I think "nuisance suit?".

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. I suppose it's to that system I should apologize, which is an incredulous sort of turn of events.

So... strangely enough - I apologize to the SF system - and those that run her, too - for my suspicions. They were, most impressively, unfounded. I have to admit to a certain suspicion that this post might come back to haunt me if later I again criticize "the system" , but, too, it could hardly be otherwise after this wonderful decision. :shrug: There you have it.

Sincerest thanks again.

The consensus among the moderators is that this is really more of a form of gloating than a sincere apology.

Moreover, it appears to be directed not to the party who was offended (i.e. Bells) but to impersonal "the SF system" or something.

Here is a list of the things that Bells wanted an apology for:

He then went on and accused me of the following, all unfounded and without any basis whatsoever:

1) Approving religious violence towards women.

2) Being weakened mentally, crazy and immoral.

3) Apparently I pose a threat to his wife and children that he has to protect them (I don't even know where to begin with this one, nor can I actually envisage how or why he could accuse me of such a thing.

4) That I apparently routinely ban people for not providing evidence and that I apparently just banned LeBlanc (there was no ban, but a public warning about posting material and direct quotes from reports without any citation whatsoever and not providing any evidence to claims such as the moon affecting the human body's water content as it does the tide). The warning can be seen in the action notes.

References to specific posts of yours where these things appear can be provided if necessary.

So, do you want to try again and apologise properly?

 

[GeoffP]

Well, if it wasn't clear, then I re-apologize for accusing Bells of supporting violence towards women and being immoral and crazy. I didn't actually accuse her of being a threat other than possibly legally towards my family, but if Bells believes this, then I apologize. I already retracted my accusing her of banning someone for not providing evidence; she had only threatened to do so rather than actually done so. Would you like a link to that too?

As for gloating: sow your heads back on, you consensus of moderators. This, too, is partisan? For fuck's sake.

 

[Bells]

Well, if it wasn't clear, then I re-apologize for accusing Bells of supporting violence towards women and being immoral and crazy. I didn't actually accuse her of being a threat other than possibly legally towards my family, but if Bells believes this, then I apologize.

Thank you.

I already retracted my accusing her of banning someone for not providing evidence; she had only threatened to do so rather than actually done so. Would you like a link to that too?

Pst. I actually hadn't threatened to ban him. Just moderate his threads if he continued posting in such a manner.

But thank you. That was all that was asked for.

As for gloating: sow your heads back on, you consensus of moderators. This, too, is partisan? For fuck's sake.

Yes, it actually was.

Consider it that we are all responsible and accountable for what we say. No one is exempt from that. Including you and me.

The matter is now closed.

 

[Arioch]

Oh for the love of all that is filled with bacon, are we still going on about this even after I cited(and linked to one of them) two examples of religiously motivated violence. It's quite obvious that LG, Wynn, and Jan are doing nothing but playing meaningless semantics games in order to troll the rest of us, why isn't this thread closed yet?

 

[GeoffP]

Yes, it actually was.

Sadly, actually, no, it was not. It was anything but.

Which is more ironic than one could have expected, really. Oh well.

 

[GeoffP]

Oh for the love of all that is filled with bacon, are we still going on about this even after I cited(and linked to one of them) two examples of religiously motivated violence. It's quite obvious that LG, Wynn, and Jan are doing nothing but playing meaningless semantics games in order to troll the rest of us, why isn't this thread closed yet?

Seconded, regrettably.