Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[Big Chiller]

@aaqucnaona

About the picture of the animal sacrifice I don't really know which religion that represents but at least in Islam for example one is supposed to take great care in the act of sacrificing animal but the picture shows only barbarism it's almost as if they don't care at all or care about religion.

Just pointing out.​

I'm not naive I know this subforum is here so people can make fun of religion for probably no reason.​

 

[wynn]

You do not think that individuals can find motivation in anything (including their religious beliefs) to commit acts of violence?

People can claim all kinds of things, but that doesn't mean they are true.

"The little grey men made me do it" -
If we go by your reasoning, that what someone claims to have been motivated by, indeed has motivated them, then we have to believe that the little grey men exist and can make people do things.

Each religious person will view their religious beliefs in a certain way. No one can invalidate that because it is their personal beliefs. How they interpret their religious scripture or belief is personal and some will interpret it differently and yes, some will commit gross acts of violence based on their interpretation.

It does not make their motivation any less religious as a result.

Yes, it does.

So what is the point of this thread exactly?

For those who believe that there exists religiously motivated violence, to show that religion can motivate to violence.

So his saying his religious beliefs led him to act as he did is invalid in your opinion?

Potentially, yes.
See the example with motivation by the little grey men.

So if someone walks into a church, shoots a doctor who performs abortions and kills him and states that his religious beliefs motivated him to do it, you would say that there is no "religiously motivated violence"?

There is no religiously motivated violence.

Some people are motivated by whatever it is they believe in to commit violence. Whether people like it or not.

An example:
The US officially claims that they invaded Iraq for the purpose of helping them become a democratic country.

Do you really believe that what the US did in Iraq is a representative example of helping a country become democratic?

If a person in modern ordinary circumstances shoots another claiming it is in the name of Jesus - do you really believe that this action is representative of faith in Jesus?

 

[wynn]

Precisely. Hence: religious. Unless you and Wynn now think that Islam is not religious, Jan?

Is Islam that which Geoff says Islam is.

 

[wynn]

Thank you for clarifying your position - it is so much easier to spot your logical fallacies.

First: You are committing a category error in your arguments involving atheism and religion. Arguments against religion can be applied equally to atheist RELIGIONS as well as theist RELIGIONS. I'm assuming you do understand the difference between theism itself and even a theistic religion? And you are aware of atheist religions, I trust?
But, given that you seem to define Man by the clothes he wears... :shrug:

Second: I have not argued that theism in and of itself is a motivator for violence (which it is not, in my view, any more than atheism can be), and thus your efforts to mirror such claims against atheism are moot - as there are none to mirror. If I ever do claim that "theism motivates violence" then your arguments would be reasonable. But I haven't - therefore your arguments are irrelevant.

Third: I have not argued that religion objectively motivates to violence, so your efforts to say that religion lacks such an objective core value sufficient to motivate violence is, again, moot.

Perhaps, when you stop with the strawmen and other logical fallacies, you will actually understand the core arguments in play and come to the table with something of value?

Do you subscribe to the distinction of religion vs. spirituality?

 

[wynn]

Your only means of trying to claim that there has never been religiously motivated violence is to show how every single person who has committed violence was not, even in some small way, motivated by religion.

Not at all.

For something to motivate to something, it has to have the capacity to do so.
So the task of this thread is to show that religion has the capacity to motivate violent actions.


Again:

People can claim all kinds of things, but that doesn't mean they are true.

"The little grey men made me do it" -
If we go by your reasoning, that what someone claims to have been motivated by, indeed has motivated them, then we have to believe that the little grey men exist and can make people do things.

 

[Sarkus]

So the task of this thread is to show that religion has the capacity to motivate violent actions.

And you do not find religious texts that dictate the use of violence to be sufficient to demonstrate capacity? :shrug:

People can claim all kinds of things, but that doesn't mean they are true.

"The little grey men made me do it" -
If we go by your reasoning, that what someone claims to have been motivated by, indeed has motivated them, then we have to believe that the little grey men exist and can make people do things.

You misunderstand my position then, or deliberately use poor analogies.

With the case of "little grey men" we have an overwhelming absence of evidence to support the claim / belief.

With religion there is not only the capacity for the scriptures to be interepreted as encouraging violence, but a wealth of historical anecdotes to support that religion, in some way, motivated violence.

I don't envy you the task of trying to demonstrate that religion is incapable of motivating to violence, but thus far you haven't done so.

 

[Sarkus]

Do you subscribe to the distinction of religion vs. spirituality?

I would say there is a difference but only in the way that there is a difference between, say, a candle and a flame: you don't need a candle to produce a flame, but if candles are to be more than decorative, they need to be lit.

 

[lightgigantic]

But if I were a theist, well:

Religion promoting violence, you were saying?

No more than this guy

 

[GeoffP]

This passage should be stamped in gold, heated to a burning pitch, and then stamped across the heads of several of the debaters in this thread. I apologize if someone's already said the same thing before, which they probably have. Apparently, it bears repeating:

Each religious person will view their religious beliefs in a certain way. No one can invalidate that because it is their personal beliefs. How they interpret their religious scripture or belief is personal and some will interpret it differently and yes, some will commit gross acts of violence based on their interpretation. It does not make their motivation any less religious as a result.

But if I were a theist, well:

Religion promoting violence, you were saying?

Don't be stupid. That man was clearly stretching his hamstrings with some vigorous sword exercise when that depressed atheist calf leaped in front of the action. What happened next is just sheer accident.

Is Islam that which Geoff says Islam is.

Normally we put a "?" at the end of a pointless inquiry, but never mind that. So are you attempting to say that Islam is not religious? How about Catholicism? Orthodox Judaism?

No more than this guy

Well, that clearly explains the inhumane trappings that that guy is forced to employ to satisfy that that-which-Geoff-says-is-religious-imperative, like cutting off the head instead of stunning them. Oh: he doesn't? Oh, well my bad then.

 

[Big Chiller]

This passage should be stamped in gold, heated to a burning pitch, and then stamped across the heads of several of the debaters in this thread. I apologize if someone's already said the same thing before, which they probably have. Apparently, it bears repeating:

You can prove your point all you have to do is show a "violent religion" with all it's adherents agreeing upon it's tenets on general, last long and still remain a religion not turn into some evil cult. Or do you think that a general consensus is the same as an individual's opinion or worse.

 

[Socratic Spelunker]

So the term "religious" means - pretty much whatever you want it to mean?



Humpty Dumpty!

No, it is religious because it stems directly from their religion.

 

[AlexG]

On Christmas Day an Islamic group called Boko Haram carried out a wave of church bombings that killed dozens of Nigerians, adding to a growing death toll.

Nothing of a religious nature about this attack, is there?

 

[GeoffP]

You can prove your point all you have to do is show a "violent religion" with all it's adherents agreeing upon it's tenets on general, last long and still remain a religion not turn into some evil cult. Or do you think that a general consensus is the same as an individual's opinion or worse.

I think a plurality is a plurality, let alone the fact of motivation and interpretation.

So my point is proven.

G'day.

 

[Bells]

People can claim all kinds of things, but that doesn't mean they are true.

"The little grey men made me do it" -
If we go by your reasoning, that what someone claims to have been motivated by, indeed has motivated them, then we have to believe that the little grey men exist and can make people do things.

And if we use your reasoning, then no one can ever be motivated by anything to commit an act of violence.

You fail to notice that while someone can be motivated by their religious beliefs or even by their beliefs that "the little grey men" told them to do it, it is not an excuse.

A man blowing up a family planning clinic and killing doctors, nurses and patients and saying that his religious beliefs motivated him to act in such a fashion will not be given a lesser sentence because of that belief or motivation. But it does not make his motivation any less religious.

Yes, it does.

Really..

A Humansdorp priest and five of the African Gospel Church congregation have been accused of murdering a seven-year-old girl during a bizarre exorcism ritual, believing that her epilepsy was caused by demons.

_______________________________________

Mihlali was apparently sent from her home in Keiskammahoek to the church by her mother, Nomaxabiso Mazantsi, to be cured of epilepsy with a “healing miracle”.

Mazantsi told the Cape Times on Sunday that her daughter started having epileptic fits in May.

“The fits stopped but started up again in September. We took her to the doctor and the traditional healer, but nothing helped.”

The church in Humansdorp was recommended by friends.

“We were told that other people were healed there. I put my faith in God. I wanted them to heal Mihlali.” Mazantsi said her father took Mihlali to Humansdorp and left her in the care of the church.

“They told us the fits were caused by demons which had to be removed through prayer.”

She travelled to Humansdorp a few days later to find her child vomiting and suffering from diarrhoea. She slept overnight in the same house as her child, but was initially not allowed close to her.

“They told me she was getting better. The pastor said she was vomiting because the demons were leaving Mihlali.”

Mazantsi said she was encouraged to attend a church service in a marquee tent set up by the church near the house where her daughter was being kept, and was later allowed to go to her bedside.

“Her face was swollen and her left eye was closed. There was a bruise over her eye. I tried to lift her up to me to hug her, but she said her body was sore. Then she coughed and started to vomit again.”

[Source]
​

You don't think that pastor and the others were religiously motivated to beat that child to death while they tried to perform an exorcism on her?

How about the brother and sister in Bolivia who drowned their sister in the bathtub during an exorcism? You don't think that was religiously motivated violence?

For those who believe that there exists religiously motivated violence, to show that religion can motivate to violence.

Anything can motivate someone to violence. Religion is not exempt.

An example:
The US officially claims that they invaded Iraq for the purpose of helping them become a democratic country.

Do you really believe that what the US did in Iraq is a representative example of helping a country become democratic?

If a person in modern ordinary circumstances shoots another claiming it is in the name of Jesus - do you really believe that this action is representative of faith in Jesus?

The US and my own country believe that they are helping Iraq become democratic. It does not make their motivation less real for them.

If a person shoots another in the name of Jesus, then yes, I would say that individual felt motivated by his religious beliefs to act as he did. It does not excuse his behaviour or actions. But it does not mean that he was not motivated by his personal beliefs.

 

[lightgigantic]

Well, that clearly explains the inhumane trappings that that guy is forced to employ to satisfy that that-which-Geoff-says-is-religious-imperative, like cutting off the head instead of stunning them. Oh: he doesn't? Oh, well my bad then.

You don't understand - its not the violence of religion but meat eating : You certainly won't find vegetarians at such "religious conferences".

Also not sure what you are drawing upon to paint industrial slaughterhouses as being less violent but you are certainly not looking at issues of production vs demand
(I especially like the quote from the worker ".... sometimes they are fucking hard to kill" ... also you might find it illuminating to learn about the reliability of electrical stunning )

 

[GeoffP]

People can claim all kinds of things, but that doesn't mean they are true.

"The little grey men made me do it" -
If we go by your reasoning, that what someone claims to have been motivated by, indeed has motivated them, then we have to believe that the little grey men exist and can make people do things.

I believe I have located part of the problem.

You're assuming that the existence of deities is a necessary component for the existence of religious violence: that the deity must exist and pass on instructions. It isn't. It is entirely as possible to commit religious violence for a non-existent deity as it is for a real one. This is sort of a false dilemma fallacy.

You don't understand - its not the violence of religion but meat eating : You certainly won't find vegetarians at such "religious conferences".

What we're discussing is the relative violence in kosher and halal slaughter, among other religious slaughter, compared to stunning. I've read on stunning and there's little doubt it is far more humane. Animal slaughter of its own right is also such violence.

 

[lightgigantic]

What we're discussing is the relative violence in kosher and halal slaughter, among other religious slaughter, compared to stunning.

Those injunctions simply regulate a habit for violence (ie : meat eating) ... unless you have a good argument for the violence of vegetarian kosher's

I've read on stunning and there's little doubt it is far more humane. Animal slaughter of its own right is also such violence.

Now put it in an industrial context (ie a person doing it day in day out as a job) to begin to understand how industrial slaughter houses are far far more violent than a person swinging an axe or what not

IOW its the very factor of production vs demand (along with practices that are for the most part unmonitored) that makes the industrial model of slaughter outstandingly violent

 

[Bells]

You don't understand - its not the violence of religion but meat eating : You certainly won't find vegetarians at such "religious conferences".

Aren't you Catholic?

So when the priest stands at the altar and holds up the wine and says 'blood of Christ', you tell yourself he is lying and it's only wine?

What about religions [eg Santería] that actually have or had animal sacrifice? Would you deem those religiously motivated violence, but towards animals?

What about self flagellation (Catholic, Jewish and Muslim sects are known to practice it)? Would you view that as religiously motivated violence? Would you view whipping yourself until you bleed to be violent? And if you do it because of your religious beliefs?

 

[lightgigantic]

Aren't you Catholic?

Not at all.

So when the priest stands at the altar and holds up the wine and says 'blood of Christ', you tell yourself he is lying and it's only wine?

for your edification

What about religions [eg Santería] that actually have or had animal sacrifice? Would you deem those religiously motivated violence, but towards animals?

but a pale glimmer of violence compared to the marvel of contemporary industrial models.

IOW if all meat eaters adopted Sanetria practices to meet their violent needs animals, as a whole would have a less violent existence

What about self flagellation (Catholic, Jewish and Muslim sects are known to practice it)? Would you view that as religiously motivated violence? Would you view whipping yourself until you bleed to be violent? And if you do it because of your religious beliefs?

Given that its difficult to find an example of such that doesn't warrant extensive critiques from the very traditions that they appear in, its difficult to approach it as anything but deviant or extreme fringe behaviour
IOW if a vast majority of practitioners of the said tradition, what to speak of being motivated to perform it, are extremely critical of it, it certainly doesn't appear like a strong example for religiously motivated violence.

Kind of like calling upon the examples of person who sexually molest their children to exemplify "parenthood motivates one to have sex with their children"

 

[GeoffP]

Those injunctions simply regulate a habit for violence (ie : meat eating) ... unless you have a good argument for the violence of vegetarian kosher's

The slaughter of the animal in kosher and halal systems is necessarily more violent than in regulated commercial production, I'm afraid. If the slaughterhouses were designed towards halal or kosher production specifically, they would be more violent still.