Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[Jan Ardena]

:shrug:James R,

Here are just a few particular examples from a particular batch of people - serial killers.

David Berkowitz (Son of Sam), murdered more than 10 women: "I was searching the bible and soul searching and I decided God wanted me to do that."

2 points. Show the ''actual religion'', and, prove that that was his actual motive.

The Yorkshire Ripper murdered 11 girls. He "was on a divine mission and felt he had been chosen to hear the word of GOD" (Flint Journal).

Same as above.

Sampson Kanderayi, a mass murderer called The Ax Killer, killed more than 30 people. The newspaper reported "he did it to appease evil spirits." He was a Christian.

Which part of the teaching of Jesus inspires his followers to axe folks to appease evil spirits?

Watts (the Sunday Morning Slasher) killed 11 women. He reportedly did it "to eliminate evil spirits".

Now you're just plain boring.

Has anybody mentioned Exodus 22:18 yet, and what it inspired and continues to inspire in some places? "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

Now you have to account for religious people who don't kill witches, and perhaps take a closer look at the few who do.

Perhaps lightgigantic ought to learn something about the persecution of witches and the Inquisition.

Perhaps you should explain why religious people killing, kill because of their religion, or just kill for the same reason atheists kill.


jan.

 

[AlexG]

At this point, (and quite a while ago), this is simple denial.

 

[Gustav]

Models of parenting

Developmental psychologist Diana Baumrind identified three main parenting styles in early child development: authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive. Maccoby and Martin expanded the styles to four: authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent and neglectful. These four styles of parenting involve combinations of acceptance and responsiveness on the one hand and demand and control on the other.

Styles

Each parenting style has a different impact on children. Although Diana Baumrind identified three main parenting styles and Maccoby and Martin added the fourth, the following authors talk indepth about each style and its impact.

* Authoritarian parenting style can be very rigid and strict. It is mostly patriarchical in nature and everything is often decided by the father. Parents who use this style have a strict set of rules and expectations; if rules are not followed it ends up with punishment. There is usually no explanation of giving the punishment just that the children are in trouble and should listen accordingly. This parenting style and parents who use a more authoritarian approach with power assertion and the involvement of physical punishment with little emotions of comfort and affection are more likely to produce a child with deviant tendencies. According to this style is subject to producing children that can internalize and externalize undesired behaviours as well as developing problems in social situations. Also the punishment aspect of this parenting style also contributed to problems in school for the youth, their behaviours were often deemed undesirable. This contributed to the youth conducting themselves in a deviant manner in the school as well as toward other children.

* The authoritative style consists of following the same rules as the authoritarian parents. With having strict rules and expectations however there is more open communication with parents and children in the authoritative style. They listen more to the child and how they are [19]When children have problems with rules and they are broken these parents tend to be more receptive. They monitor instead of trying to rule the child’s life they are less restrictive parents but still assertive.

* Permissive parenting is often the style parents try to stay away from. There is not much structure here for children, and parents often do not set rules or have guidelines for the child. They do not have many expectations for the children; they avoid conflict and are more nurturing to the child. They are more lenient when it comes to misbehaviour and often do not punish the children for wrongdoing. However, parents adapted to this style also end up with their children having a hard time communicating with them about things their children find important. Children with less communication with parents tended to have more negative behaviours at school than those who have had some open communication with their parents

* Uninvolved parenting style is exactly how uninvolved is defined, parents are often absent emotionally and sometimes even They have no expectations of the child and regularly do not have communication or a nurturing feature to them. They provide everything the child needs for survival with little to no engagement.They are not interested in their schooling other than making sure they go and they are not interested in extracurricular activities they may be involved in. There is often a large gap between parents and children with this parenting style. Children with little or no communication with parents tended to more often be the victims of other children’s deviant behaviour and involved in some deviance themselves​

​

 

[Gustav]

All Your Base Are Belong To Us


LG, I just want to say that I understand why
you and Wynn are doing this:
you don't like to think that violence might be inspired by religion,
because it's not the way you see your own religion.

The problem, of course, is that others
are not so kindly or even-handed.​

 

[Gustav]

David Berkowitz (Son of Sam), murdered more than 10 women: "I was searching the bible and soul searching and I decided God wanted me to do that."

yeah
god's word through a dog
still tho it is good that our legal system does not give much credence to this sort of bogus insanity pleas

you on the other hand..........

/chortle

In 1987, Berkowitz became a born again Christian in prison. According to his personal testimony, his moment of conversion occurred after reading Psalm 34:6 from a Gideon's Pocket Testament Bible given to him by a fellow inmate.[39] In the same testimony, he stated that his obsession with and heavy involvement in the occult played a major role in the Son of Sam murders.

 

[Bells]

yeah
god's word through a dog
still tho it is good that our legal system does not give much credence to this sort of bogus insanity pleas

you on the other hand..........

/chortle

In 1987, Berkowitz became a born again Christian in prison. According to his personal testimony, his moment of conversion occurred after reading Psalm 34:6 from a Gideon's Pocket Testament Bible given to him by a fellow inmate.[39] In the same testimony, he stated that his obsession with and heavy involvement in the occult played a major role in the Son of Sam murders.

You mean his "obsession with and heavy involvement" in an alternative religion played a major part in the murders?

"Satanism is a group of religions that is composed of a diverse number of ideological and philosophical beliefs and social phenomena."​

Chortle indeed..

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena,

2 points. Show the ''actual religion'', and, prove that that was his actual motive.

You seem to be suggesting that whenever we find somebody who says they are motivated by religion to do evil acts, we should ignore that and look for some other motivation instead.

What is not good enough about taking suicide bombers etc. at their word? They say God wants them to do it to be matyrs etc. They believe they are religiously motivated.

Who are you to tell them that what they believe is wrong? "Oh, you're not really religiously motivated at all. It must be politics, or something psychological. It can't be religion really. We can rule that out a priori."

Problem is, you can't. The prima facie conclusion is that people who say they are religiously motivated are religiously motivated. To claim otherwise is obtuse, especially without any further evidence.

Which part of the teaching of Jesus inspires his followers to axe folks to appease evil spirits?

I don't know. I guess you'd have to ask them.

Now you have to account for religious people who don't kill witches, and perhaps take a closer look at the few who do.

No. The only burden in this thread is to show that there is some religiously-motivated violence. There's no requirement to prove that all violence is religiously motivated, or that all religious people are violent etc.

Obviously, the burden of proof has already been amply met over and over in this silly thread. It's only a few die-hard apologists for religion like yourself who continue to deny the bleeding obvious.

Perhaps you should explain why religious people killing, kill because of their religion, or just kill for the same reason atheists kill.

Because they believe that God/gods/the spirits/the ancestors/insert religious motivator wants them to kill.

 

[Trooper]

Holy shit! I bet you that they were all little innocent alter boys before they were jumped into a gang?

Priests Gang Violence

 

[wynn]

What is not good enough about taking suicide bombers etc. at their word?

Taking anyone at their word is problematic.

If we are to believe anything anyone says, we will be very confused, and our outlook on humans as such and the world will be one of chaos.
Surely we want to avoid that, and instead make sense of things.

 

[wynn]

If you ignore rebuttals when they are offered, and stick your head further in the sand, how can one even go about trying to have a reasonable discussion with you, regardless of any intention to convince you or not?

Not any more.
If the evidence and explanations thus far have not convinced you, and you are unwilling to discuss differences, or even acknowledge your position (as argued by you) as being limited to the Buddhist view/definitions (or counter the claims that it is), then there is little point.

But let me know when you want actually want to discuss things.

You (and Bells) seem to think that simply because there exist other ideas about religion, motivation and violence, people who don't hold them are obligated to just accept them.

As if simply the fact that there exists a different understanding or a disagreement would necessitate the doxastic revision of one's stance.


Of course, you appear to hold this only when it comes to others, not when it comes to yourself.

 

[Gustav]

You mean his "obsession with and heavy involvement" in an alternative religion played a major part in the murders?

yeah well
i rather not give much weight to what psychopaths have to say about anything.
but thats just me i guess
i am sure berkowitz was a man of his word and whatnot despite a few short failings

/snigger

 

[wynn]

indeed
are these people compelled to post here? what is it they want?

It appears they want the upper hand - at all costs.

there is *religiously* motivated violence

seems trivially true to me. rigor might show otherwise

Of course there exists "religiously motivated violence" - if we operate with what is popularly known as a "pharisean" outlook on religion - namely, the subversion of religion by a hypocritically self-righteous person.


Such a pharisean outlook on religion is shared both by some people who are members of some religious organizations, as well as by those who are not.

 

[wynn]

That's not what I said.
I am trying to get LG to establish how "parenthood" is analogous to a religion.
Then, if he can do that, he might want to provide examples of people claiming to commit child abuse because "parenthood motivated them".

Examples of "parenthood motivating people to commit violence against their children":

"He is my son, therefore, he must obey me, come what may."
"I am his father, I know what is best for him."


Some people have the same outlook when it comes to religion:

"They are not religious, I am, they must obey me, come what may."
"I am religious, I know what is best for them."

Note that in generally in religions, much attention is given to the issue of identifying oneself as religious: it should not be done lightly, one ought not to make a point of calling oneself "religious."



Note though that the above examples are not to be confused with when people who are religious use force in order to defend themselves.

If an angry atheist comes to piss on a theist's lawn, calling out anti-religious slogans and the theist chases them away in a manner common for the area (such as by calling the police or by threatening the atheist with a gun), this is not religiously motivated violence.

 

[Bells]

yeah well
i rather not give much weight to what psychopaths have to say about anything.
but thats just me i guess
i am sure berkowitz was a man of his word and whatnot despite a few short failings

/snigger

So you post what he says as proof because of...? Not to mention adding the "/Chortle", just so we know..

Regardless, he felt he was motivated by his religious beliefs. The man is a psychopath, but he still felt personally motivated by his beliefs to do what he did.

Just because he is a psychopath does not make his religious motivation any less real for him, does it?

Examples of "parenthood motivating people to commit violence against their children":

Not to mention the Bible also tells 'parents' of when it is acceptable to beat and kill one's own children. Hell, God went through and slaughtered the first born son's of how many Egyptians? 'Oh holy and loving father'...

And girls who dare to have pre-marital sex:

she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.​

Thankfully the Holy Bible is not on the 'must read' list for prospective and new parents..


Yes Wynn, one really has to wonder where or how anyone could be inspired by their religious beliefs to be violent towards another.

 

[Gustav]

wasn't it resolved at one point that honor killings and such were mere custom that found its way into scripture?

So you post what he says as proof because of...? Not to mention adding the "/Chortle", just so we know..

as far as anecdotes go, a conversion to christianty in jail has a better chance of attestation than..."I was searching the bible and soul searching and I decided God wanted me to do that." ....that which appears to have a single source (the flint journal) and is most likely a fabrication.

i rather not classify satanism as a religion. at the most, it is a cult

 

[Bells]

wasn't it resolved at one point that honor killings and such were mere custom that found its way into scripture?

Yes. And seeing that honor killings were suspect to date back to 1200BC, one would be hard pressed to imagine how in today's society, modern societies where honor killings are actually illegal, people can still find it acceptable. In the case of honor killing in Islam in Jordan, for example:

Some of us know “honor” killings pre-date Islam by centuries and, in fact, are un-Islamic…

When I recently conducted a nationwide survey on “honor” killings in Jordan, over 20% of my representative sample of respondents told me they believe Islam tells them they must avenge affronts to family honor by killing. So there is a dire need for mosque education if we want to prevent even a fraction of these people from acting on this belief.

[Source] - Book cited: "Reclaiming Honor in Jordan: A National Public Opinion Survey on "Honor" Killings"
​

Custom and religion has merged.

And there are some who believe that their religion sanctions it. Christians need only to turn to the bible for said permission, for example.

 

[Bells]

wasn't it resolved at one point that honor killings and such were mere custom that found its way into scripture?




as far as anecdotes go, a conversion to christianty in jail has a better chance of attestation than..."I was searching the bible and soul searching and I decided God wanted me to do that." ....that which appears to have a single source (the flint journal) and is most likely a fabrication.

i rather not classify satanism as a religion. at the most, it is a cult

Sorry Gustav, but whether you wish to classify Satanism as a religion is beside the point, Satanism is actually a range of religions grouped together under the banner of Satanism, just as Christianity covers a broad range of religions. Even recognised by a variety of Governments around the world as a form of religion and religious belief.

As for calling it a "cult"..

cult

noun
1.
a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2.
an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3.
the object of such devotion.
4.
a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5.
Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.​

 

[Gustav]

i suppose
were any incidents of satanism offered up as proof of "religiously" motivated violence in this thread?

/curious

 

[wynn]

i rather not classify satanism as a religion. at the most, it is a cult

To be clear, there are many different ways to understand "religion." Similar with the terms "motivation" and "violence."
Not everyone in this thread (and in general) understands them the same way.

 

[wynn]

Yes Wynn, one really has to wonder where or how anyone could be inspired by their religious beliefs to be violent towards another.

Does the society in which you live not have rules the transgression of which is punishable by law?

Do you personally not have rules the transgression of which you punish in some way?