Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[lightgigantic]

@revisionists, apologists, denialists, and defenders of religious idealism:

No one arguing with you denies the sanctity of religious purpose that seeks peace and forgiveness in the imitation of a noble supernatural being.

What is argued is that the pursuit of these goals has, in times of crisis, driven the faithful to abandon the higher ground, believing that their system of doctrinal values was about to perish. Once this ideation takes root, the faithful take on a persona of last resort, one which sanctions violence during emergencies of war. One persona remains deeply and firmly entrenched in the doctrines of faith while at the same time a dual persona girds the loins and trods off into battle. It is this duality we are speaking of that constitutes religiously motivated violence. Both personas are necessarily present to create the seeming paradox. To claim that a human being is single-threaded is, or that the wrapped strands do touch one another, seems to be the central difference between the two camps of debate. These interlaced realms of the mind of medieval man are revealed in the artifacts of history. Some inferences are required to fully appreciate the depth of the psychological phenomenon that was unfolding. Nevertheless, the artifacts do trace a clear path to making the best inferences conceivable.

hence you find people who die for justice, freedom,love, peace, money, property,atheism or any other ideal under the sun you care to mention
:shrug:

Consider the massacre of he Jews at Mainz by Crusaders in 1096, who found it pleasing to the Lord to eliminate "those who hanged him" (on the tree):


While the men were being decapitated in the courtyard outside the building where the weak folks hid:

The women there girded their loins with strength and slew their sons and their daughters and then themselves. Many men, too, plucked up courage and killed their wives, their sons, their infants. The tender and delicate mother slaughtered the babe she had played with, all of them, men and women arose and slaughtered one another. The maidens and the young brides and grooms looked out of the Windows and in a loud voice cried: "Look and see, O our God, what w e do for the sanctification of Thy great name in order not to exchange you for a hanged and crucified one...."

-Solomon bar Samson, The Massacre of the Jews at Mainz, ca. 1140.

​

this is all post crusades stuff

The preaching of the First Crusade inspired an outbreak of anti-Jewish violence. In parts of France and Germany, Jews were perceived as just as much an enemy as Muslims: they were held responsible for the crucifixion, and they were more immediately visible than the distant Muslims. Many people wondered why they should travel thousands of miles to fight non-believers when there were already non-believers closer to home[citation needed].

It is also likely that the crusaders were motivated by their need for money. The Rhineland communities were relatively wealthy, both due to their isolation, and because they were not restricted as Christians were against moneylending. Many crusaders had to go into debt in order to purchase weaponry and equipment for the expedition; as Western Christianity strictly forbade usury (unlike Orthodox Christianity, which merely regulated it), many crusaders inevitably found themselves indebted to Jewish moneylenders. Having armed themselves by assuming the debt, the crusaders conveniently rationalized the killing of Jews as an extension of their Christian mission

:shrug:

 

[Bells]

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

/curious

Yes.

You provided one yourself with the Son of Sam.

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.

Certainly, because it pays to discount the existence of a religion because it does not suit one's argument to recognise it as a religion.

But you know what? This thread has brought up something very interesting for me. Your stance, and that of LG's and Jan has been very interesting. The absolute denial that one cannot be motivated by their religious beliefs to commit a crime or to be violent. That there is always another factor that motivates someone to act. Which stands to reason that a theist or believer can never feel motivated by their religious beliefs to do something good for another or to another, or to be charitable. After all, since motivation applies both ways, good and bad, if it does not exist for the bad, it cannot really exist for the good. Which means that there is no such thing as religious motivation.

Which would mean that when a theist performs an act of charity, or if one's religious teachings promote or require acts of charity, such as Christ's teachings for example, or the central tenet of Islam to be charitable, it is not through religious motivation, nor can it be inspired by one's religious beliefs, if your argument in this thread is to be applied. The charitable act will always be motivated by something else, such as greed for example, as you claimed yourself earlier in this thread. It therefore stands that theists are entirely selfish and believe in God and do 'good' or perform acts of charity for purely selfish reasons. Not because they are religiously motivated to do so, not because their religion requires it and certainly not because that is what Christ taught and motivated people to do (since there is no religious motivation). But simply because they are selfish and self-serving. As it is the theist's beliefs that doing something good for another means that they will be repaid by their deity.

Since one cannot be motivated to commit an act of violence by their religious beliefs and such a motivation to be violent can only stem from something else, such as greed (as you stated yourself), the same rule would apply to theists who can obviously not be motivated by their beliefs in God or by Christ's teachings to do good for others. Because your argument in this thread has been tantamount to saying that there can be no religious motivation. So it does mean that all theists would have to be purely selfish and self-serving. Which would mean that Hitchens was right about Mother Theresa after all.

I have to thank you for clearing that up.

 

[lightgigantic]

The incident can be malpractice as much as you want it to be. It still does not take away from the fact that the priests motivation was based solely on his religious beliefs. Whether you agree with his religious beliefs is irrelevant. What is relevant is the priest's motivation in beating the individual to death while trying to remove the evil spirits from the person's body while praising the powers that be and probably saying 'by the power invested in me by God, etc'..

Malpractice involves bringing the wrong treatment to the wrong problem.
IOW its not just about one man's religious beliefs (he is not beating the crap out of just anyone).
Its about assessing a problem and taking a course of action eg "the operation was a success but the patient died"

Of course. And if a religious individual sees you walking down the street and believes you are satan and must be killed and kills you, I am sure your love one's will comfort themselves in saying that it was just like any other "incident of malpractice".

Depends what "problems" I am exhibiting to warrant being satan ...

*Sigh*

Sacrificing people to appease one's god's is religiously motivated violence Lightgigantic.

In voodoo cults there is not a great deal of difference between appeasing gods and appeasing one's avarice, etc (often works out that the one's who get sacrificed are mother in laws, ex-lover's and the like)

Knowingly playing dim is tantamount to trolling.

Cease and desist.

If an individual is motivated by their religious beliefs to do anything, then that is their individual motivation. Be it for something good or bad.

But that's precisely the point : religious beliefs don't motivate an individual to do (absolutely) anything ... rather its individuals that are motivated to (absolutely) anything on account of their desire, so all talk of religion or whatever motivating something that stands out as irregular (by the given community) is simply bringing the cart after the horse has bolted.

Good for you.

Reality, however, is not how you believe it to be.

On the contrary the reality is that you are simply talking about provincial politics advocated as the absolute truth ... this is easily revealed by a cursory examination of the political events leading up to the so called "violence motivated by absolute belief"

Notice how the author comments that one cannot discount religion as an individual motivator, especially when the criminal states themselves that they were motivated by whatever deity they believe in or whatever their religious beliefs happen to be, to commit the crime?

I did notice that they did say that but I also noticed that they didn't say why they think that

Really?

I have to ask, do you troll to attempt to get an angry response that you actually deserve? I am curious as to why you are such a serial pest on this forum?

To reiterate, just for you, since you appear to be in a mentally special place:

it would be similarly inappropriate to deny the obvious religious connection.​

I am aware that they made that conclusion but I am pointing it doesn't fit in with what they are writing about.

IOW there is no mention why , amongst a host of causes that frame violence, that suddenly religion becomes the culprit but that it also becomes "irrational"

Frankly I think the author did a poor job a thinly veiling their bias

Says you?

A criminal admits their motivation is religious and you come out and say 'err no, it is obviously "a superficial dressing of more telling factors"..

We used to have a resident vagrant in the locality. He used to talk of issues relating to the molecules and atoms that were splitting right before his eyes. While he didn't murder anyone, this "scientific" vision of his did lead to him doing a few zany things (like attempting to synthesize amphetamines from toothpaste and a cigarette lighter for example).

Do you think that his actions were motivated by science?
or do you think its a bit of a misdemeanour to categorize it like that since there are far more pressing motivational aspects to his actions?

There have been numerous quotes and links provided where violent criminals have claimed their motivation was religious. Who are you to tell them that it is obviously not because you apparently have some insider knowledge of all criminal acts that it is "a superficial dressing of more telling factors"? Is there something you are not sharing with the class LG?

The very fact that they are designated as "criminal" should be a bit of a clue.

IOW irregular behavior, so much so that it warrants criminal investigation should be a bit of a clue that there just perhaps might be a slight case of replacing major for minor virtues or something, no?

Gustav has already given us a few accounts of how "devoted" these so called "religious" criminals are

So a priest beating a parishioner to death to remove evil spirits from them is motivated by what exactly?

inappropriate problem solving and a poor fund of knowledge, much like a doctor prescribing medication for morning sickness that causes the baby to be born with severe birth defects

When a Christian extremist goes out of his way to bomb an abortion clinic or shoot a doctor who performs abortions, what other telling factor is there, even after he clearly states that his motivation is religious?

at a guess, a few key issues of severe misanthropy probably no doubt coupled by a desire to make strong political statements outside of regular forums

I have to ask, do you often make excuses for criminals and put words in their mouths to make yourself more comfortable with your personal beliefs?

What motivates you to behave as you do?

I could ask you the same question although its pretty obvious "Because religion motivates violence we should ......"

What motivates anyone to make excuses for criminals? How selfish are you LG?

The problem with your analysis of violence is that if one accepts what you are activating as the underlying cause, there is no solution for it.

IOW the violence remains unchecked because the very factors that establish it remain unchecked while you latch on to superficial characteristics.

Even prior to the occupation. I mean obviously, the love and adoration between the two religions is strong.

As far as I recall its always been about land

One could say for both.

then I think you have to be clear on what grounds malpractice is violence

Let me know when you will be finished making excuses for criminals to fulfill your own selfish desires to protect your own religious beliefs.

let me know when you are ready to properly address the wider context of violence and abandon your personal crusade to view religion through shit stained glasses.

IOW even if your wish is granted to remove religion from the face of the planet you will still be left with the same (if not greater) volume of violence since the very things you are attributing to religion have causes well above and beyond what you are superficially adhering to

And it is still religious...

but is it mostly about being religious or about being under the sway of nefarious charsimatic personalities?
IOW are persons who are religious but not under the sway of nefarious charismatic in just as much danger?

Just like I think your motivation to troll this forum and this thread is based purely on your religious idealogy and your religious desire to protect your own religious beliefs.

Just like I think you accept dumb-downed terms to bolster your own ideology with the added irony that it exacerbates the very violence you claim to protest (since any conflict established and maintained by core political issues can only really hope to be solved by the same sort of thinking that went into it and not by chasing the red herrings in a Bush'esque "axis of evil" monologue )

Now, in your bag of excuses for criminals, tell me what the proper cause is for a priest/pastor to beat someone to death during an exorcism? What motivates a priest to even perform exorcisms?

malpractice is still a criminal offense, isn't it?

And we know that for hundreds of years, there has been religious conflict. Abrahamic religions especially is rife with religious conflict. Unless you wish to deny history as well?

You don't even have to scratch the surface of the history books to see its all about land, resources and keeping/removing particular persons in power
:shrug:

 

[wynn]

None of that matters if we are inquiring into the mind of the population who engaged in war and the ancillary violence against Jews. This is what I mean by revisionism. It erases the realities of the players in the context of the stage on which they acted.

And you claim to have the ability to read minds, even of people who have since passed away?

 

[wynn]

Of course we do.

But in my society, we also look at the individual's motives to attempt to determine why they committed the crime in the first place.

And if the motive stems from their religious belief 'ie, a priest saying 'I beat her to death to remove the evil spirits from her soul', then it would be a fair and reasonable assumption to describe that motive as being based on his religious beliefs.

So how does ascertaining motive affect the punishment?

Do those who claim they had religious motivation get harsher sentences than those who don't?

But apparently, in Wynn land, there is no such thing as motive and everyone who is religious is good and holy, because religion can only ever promote good things (we'll forget of course the wars waged in God's name and God himself murdering and slaughtering across the countryside as recounted in the Bible)..

This is your twisted interpretation.

The incident can be malpractice as much as you want it to be. It still does not take away from the fact that the priests motivation was based solely on his religious beliefs.

Bells, you previously acknowledged that you cannot read people's minds.

So why do you insist and keep making statements that only someone who can read people's minds can make?

Of course. And if a religious individual sees you walking down the street and believes you are satan and must be killed and kills you, I am sure your love one's will comfort themselves in saying that it was just like any other "incident of malpractice".

And believing that he was killed "for religious reasons" would comfort them?

Now, in your bag of excuses for criminals, tell me what the proper cause is for a priest/pastor to beat someone to death during an exorcism? What motivates a priest to even perform exorcisms?

Perhaps you should try it yourself.
With your ability to read minds, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out what actually goes on at an exorcism.

 

[Bells]

Malpractice involves bringing the wrong treatment to the wrong problem.
IOW its not just about one man's religious beliefs (he is not beating the crap out of just anyone).
Its about assessing a problem and taking a course of action

Which should have been what?

How does one rid one's self of evil spirits?

Isn't the very act of an exorcism violent towards the evil spirit in the first place, by forcing it to vacate it's lodgings under threat of smiting by God?

Depends what "problems" I am exhibiting to warrant being satan ...

Heaven forbid we actually try to determine's someone's motives. If it is even remotely religious, it is best to just blame the victim and be done with it.

In voodoo cults there is not a great deal of difference between appeasing gods and appeasing one's avarice, etc (often works out that the one's who get sacrificed are mother in laws, ex-lover's and the like)

And in some South American tribes in history, it was one's children.

In fact, it was deemed an honour to have one's child sacrificed.

But that's precisely the point : religious beliefs don't motivate an individual to do (absolutely) anything ... rather its individuals that are motivated to (absolutely) anything on account of their desire, so all talk of religion or whatever motivating something that stands out as irregular (by the given community) is simply bringing the cart after the horse has bolted.

So you are motivated to believe in God because you are a selfish and self serving individual hoping for eternal happiness in heaven?

You know, since religious beliefs "don't motivate an individual to do anything"?

On the contrary the reality is that you are simply talking about provincial politics advocated as the absolute truth ... this is easily revealed by a cursory examination of the political events leading up to the so called "violence motivated by absolute belief"

Still making excuses?

I did notice that they did say that but I also noticed that they didn't say why they think that

I would say it is kind of obvious.

Then again, the author probably did not imagine that individuals such as yourself would be so intent on protecting theism that they would actually deny everything and make excuses for the criminal..

I am aware that they made that conclusion but I am pointing it doesn't fit in with what they are writing about.

IOW there is no mention why , amongst a host of causes that frame violence, that suddenly religion becomes the culprit but that it also becomes "irrational"

Frankly I think the author did a poor job a thinly veiling their bias

Well compared to your brilliant job of not veiling your theistic bias....

His article reflects the actual truth.

But hey, your religious belief's must be protected, so it is best to deny.

Keep going on this way and I am going to start calling you the Pope soon.

We used to have a resident vagrant in the locality. He used to talk of issues relating to the molecules and atoms that were splitting right before his eyes. While he didn't murder anyone, this "scientific" vision of his did lead to him doing a few zany things (like attempting to synthesize amphetamines from toothpaste and a cigarette lighter for example).

Do you think that his actions were motivated by science?
or do you think its a bit of a misdemeanour to categorize it like that since there are far more pressing motivational aspects to his actions?

Are you claiming that his beliefs are false and wrong because you say so? That they could not be right to him or for him?

He was obviously motivated by what he deemed to be his scientific knowledge. Is there something wrong with feeling motivated about anything?

Oh wait, that's right. If I am to apply your argument, you, the theist, are obviously selfish and any motivation you might have to do anything, even something good for another or something religious can only mean that you are motivated by your own selfishness and greed so you score brownie points for heaven..

The very fact that they are designated as "criminal" should be a bit of a clue.

IOW irregular behavior, so much so that it warrants criminal investigation should be a bit of a clue that there just perhaps might be a slight case of replacing major for minor virtues or something, no?

Gustav has already given us a few accounts of how "devoted" these so called "religious" criminals are

Of course, because to be religious means that one cannot also commit criminal acts or be criminal.

And if someone commits a crime, we ignore the motives completely, especially if that motive has anything to do with religion.

inappropriate problem solving and a poor fund of knowledge, much like a doctor prescribing medication for morning sickness that causes the baby to be born with severe birth defects

Which is the action.. In other words, his actions were not knowledgeable. But his motivation was religious. Unless of course you are saying that exorcisms have no religious motive or support?

But let me know when you finish making excuses for your fellow theists and criminals..

let me know when you are ready to properly address the wider context of violence and abandon your personal crusade to view religion through shit stained glasses.

IOW even if your wish is granted to remove religion from the face of the planet you will still be left with the same (if not greater) volume of violence since the very things you are attributing to religion have causes well above and beyond what you are superficially adhering to

You are the one who claims that religion cannot motivate anyone to do anything... good or bad. So are you a theist for selfish and self serving reasons? I mean, you keep making excuses for criminals to protect your religious beliefs. You keep lying and trolling, solely to protect your theistic beliefs. I have to wonder, what's in it for you? After all, you surely cannot feel motivated to defend religions or God, since religion cannot motivate anyone apparently.

You view the recognition that someone could be motivated by their religious beliefs to act in a violent manner.

but is it mostly about being religious or about being under the sway of nefarious charsimatic personalities?
IOW are persons who are religious but not under the sway of nefarious charismatic in just as much danger?

Does not make the religious aspect of their motivation any less religious..

Just like I think you accept dumb-downed terms to bolster your own ideology with the added irony that it exacerbates the very violence you claim to protest (since any conflict established and maintained by core political issues can only really hope to be solved by the same sort of thinking that went into it and not by chasing the red herrings in a Bush'esque "axis of evil" monologue )

Not at all.

I am not the one claiming that no one can be motivated by their religion to be or do anything. That is you. Therefore, you would claim that Bush's 'god told me to attack Iraq' was not religious at all. I am also not the one claiming that politics cancels out any religious motivation, etc.

malpractice is still a criminal offense, isn't it?

No, it's murder.

You are going so far as to claim malpractice now, for a priest murdering a young woman? Could you make any more excuses? What's in it for you?

You don't even have to scratch the surface of the history books to see its all about land, resources and keeping/removing particular persons in power

Which would mean that religion and religious belief and theism in general is based solely of selfishness and being self-serving.

 

[Arioch]

@wynn --

Here's a nice list of incidents of religious violence for you to argue your way out of, not that you'll be able to as you still haven't shown that the various examples already given were motivated by anything other than religion. All you've done is quibble over definitions so that you could pick definitions which exclude nearly everyone in the world, thereby making such definitions useless.

Still, feel free to try though.

 

[Bells]

So how does ascertaining motive affect the punishment?

Do those who claim they had religious motivation get harsher sentences than those who don't?

What religious motivation?

Apparently there is no such thing. Did you forget your own memo?

This is your twisted interpretation.

No. It is actually yours.

Bells, you previously acknowledged that you cannot read people's minds.

So why do you insist and keep making statements that only someone who can read people's minds can make?

I am applying your standard, Wynn.

Your standard has been to claim that there is no religious motivation, even when the criminal admits it themselves that their motivation was religious.

That has been your standard in this whole debate.

And believing that he was killed "for religious reasons" would comfort them?

Do you think any motivation for a killing would bring comfort to the victim's family?

Or is this your latest tact?

Perhaps you should try it yourself.
With your ability to read minds, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out what actually goes on at an exorcism.

Hey, I'm not the one claiming that criminals who openly admit to being religiously motivated to commit their crimes are wrong, that they are not and cannot be religiously motivated. You are.

So suck it up Princess.

Answer the question please.

what the proper cause is for a priest/pastor to beat someone to death during an exorcism? What motivates a priest to even perform exorcisms? ​

You claimed it was not religiously motivated. So what was it?

 

[wynn]

You don't even have to scratch the surface of the history books to see its all about land, resources and keeping/removing particular persons in power

Actually, I think it is those people who claim that religion can motivate violence who are the actual idealists.

They directly or indirectly believe that life should be easy and unfold the way one wants; there shouldn't be disappointment or struggle, or at least they or those they appreciate should always win.
They hold that if God existed, there would be no evil, no war, no disease, no natural catastrophes.


It seems to me that as long as someone (theist or atheist) hasn't at least theoretically resolved the problem of theodicy, they will have difficulty discussing any topic that relates to the problem of theodicy (such topics are often aging, illness, death, violence, crime).

 

[wynn]

What religious motivation?

Apparently there is no such thing. Did you forget your own memo?

Uh. Please explain:

How does ascertaining motive affect the punishment?

Do those who claim they had religious motivation get harsher sentences than those who don't?

No. It is actually yours.

You are violently imposing it on me.

Do you think any motivation for a killing would bring comfort to the victim's family?

Not acknowledging and facing the problems of aging, illness and death, in their various forms, is immature.

Refusal to be comforted and refusal to move on with one's life is immature.

This is the sometimes hard truth of life on earth: we have to move on. Blame and grief eventually do not help us. They may be necessary for some time, but eventually, one must move on, as the blame and grief become counterproductive.



Does it make any difference to you whether a perpetrator justifies his crime by claiming it was "religiously motivated" or whether he claims he "did it because he was poor" or that he "did it because he was angry"?

what the proper cause is for a priest/pastor to beat someone to death during an exorcism? What motivates a priest to even perform exorcisms? ​

An exorcism as such may be for religious reasons. An exorcism is intended to drive out the demons and to make the person functional (again).

Using excessive force during an exorcism is malpractice.

 

[aaqucnaona]

I cannot believe 45 pages of debate on whether the sun is yellow or purple.
But, well:
Religion relies upon one central concept - It is not to be questioned [only interpreted - theologians dont question religion, atheistic phiolosophers do].
Even if there were a true religion, even if there might be a god who took the trouble of letting a single species on a rock in a corner of His universe, no current religion can make that claim.
Not questioning religion helps create an environment of absolute authority of the religious leaders. They, being human, can surely use this excellent opportunity for causing violence. Since they are the leaders, they can, of course, do away with the good, moral teaching that get in the way of their goals.
So we can say that religiously motivated violence is a easy possiblity, given that the religion and its books are subject to change, interpretation, declaration and the believers are answerable to middlemen between man and god.
And thats exactly what you find in almost all religions today. The possiblity now becomes a very probable condition indeed.
The final supporting evidence is the terrorism is mainly fundamentalist jihadist islam in its origin - by no means is it limited to that, but it shows that religion can and is a source of violence towards other humans, assuming sacrifices arent considered to be violent.

Btw, this is not a value judgement. Religion may always be such that it motivates atleast some degree of violence. It may be something beautiful and wonderful.... and true. That isnt the central question here.

So there, I said religiously motivated violence is as obvious as the sun being yellow.

 

[wynn]

How does one rid one's self of evil spirits?

By providing them a service for their benefit.

Isn't the very act of an exorcism violent towards the evil spirit in the first place, by forcing it to vacate it's lodgings under threat of smiting by God?

No, that is a rather immature view of it.

For example, the standard advice in Buddhism is that if one sees a ghost during one's meditation, one should dedicate the merit of one's meditation to the ghost, or direct the ghost to someone whom one thinks will be capable of helping the ghost (such as a great teacher or saint).

 

[wynn]

I cannot believe 45 pages of debate on whether the sun is yellow or purple.
But, well:
Religion relies upon one central concept - It is not to be questioned [only interpreted - theologians dont question religion, atheistic phiolosophers do].
Even if there were a true religion, even if there might be a god who took the trouble of letting a single species on a rock in a corner of His universe, no current religion can make that claim.
Not questioning religion helps create an environment of absolute authority of the religious leaders. They, being human, can surely use this excellent opportunity for causing violence. Since they are the leaders, they can, of course, do away with the good, moral teaching that get in the way of their goals.
So we can say that religiously motivated violence is a easy possiblity, given that the religion and its books are subject to change, interpretation, declaration and the believers are answerable to middlemen between man and god.
And thats exactly what you find in almost all religions today. The possiblity now becomes a very probable condition indeed.
The final supporting evidence is the terrorism is mainly fundamentalist jihadist islam in its origin - by no means is it limited to that, but it shows that religion can and is a source of violence towards other humans, assuming sacrifices arent considered to be violent.

Btw, this is not a value judgement. Religion may always be such that it motivates atleast some degree of violence. It may be something beautiful and wonderful.... and true. That isnt the central question here.

So there, I said religiously motivated violence is as obvious as the sun being yellow.

Tell me something -

Do you believe that if God existed, there would be no war, no disease and no strife?



(I have to go now, will come back later.)

 

[aaqucnaona]

Tell me something -

Do you believe that if God existed, there would be no war, no disease and no strife?



(I have to go now, will come back later.)

No, regardless of whether god existed or not, if humans were to be not so damned certain of their beliefs, there surely would be much less war and strife. Disease, well, thats a problem of medicine and science, its a part of the problem of evil but its not a part of the objective truth of a god and its effect on human behaviour [like, for example, the truth claims of religion motivating violence].

 

[Gustav]

Yes.

You provided one yourself with the Son of Sam.

that would be james and the quote in question referenced god not satan
i questioned the utility of offering up psychopaths as examples of *religiously* motivated violence

also please can the accusations of trolling and whatnot.

Knowingly playing dim is tantamount to trolling.

Cease and desist.

since you are a moderator, this can been construed as intimidation

 

[Gustav]

DARWIN, Australia -- Four people convicted in the beating death of a woman during what they said was an exorcism ritual on a remote Australian island were sentenced Friday to several years in jail.

Sarah Bara was beaten to death with sticks last year on Groote Eylandt off the northern Australian coast. Last month, Glenys Wurrawilya, Susie Wurrawilya, Paul Wurramara and Roderick Mamarika pleaded guilty to negligent manslaughter in connection with the beating, which several children witnessed.

Some of the accused had originally claimed that they beat Bara as part of an exorcism intended to cleanse her of the devil. But on Friday, Northern Territory Supreme Court Justice Peter Barr said the accused attacked Bara simply to cause her pain and humiliation.

"I am not satisfied that any of the accused thought she had the devil in her," he said.

On the day she was killed, Bara had been asked to find a bag containing medication for Susie Wurrawilya. When she couldn't find it, both Glenys and Susie Wurrawilya began to hit her. Bara was then forced to sit on the ground while a circle of fire was lit around her and was again struck with sticks. An autopsy found she had been hit with extreme force more than two dozen times.

Mamarika and Wurramara did not participate in the beating, but watched and did nothing to stop it, Barr said.

The four received sentences ranging from five years to seven-and-a-half years in jail.

Groote Eylandt, home to an Aboriginal and mining community of around 1,500, is about 30 miles (50 kilometers) from the northern Australia mainland.
​

"I am not satisfied that any of the accused thought she had the devil in her," he said.

but what if he was? does that mean they walk? here in the states we have
Reynolds v. United States where..."religious duty was not a suitable defense to a criminal indictment"

---------------------------

The Rituale Romanum: This is a priest's service manual containing the only formal exorcism rite sanctioned the Roman Catholic Church. It was first written in 1614 under Pope Paul V, and was left untouched until 1952 when two minor revisions were included in the language of the ritual.

there is nothing about beatings in there however the practice appears to be fairly widespread amongst the laity. if it is not officially sanctioned, the malpractice angle hardly applies

I'll beat the devil out of you! = Te le suono.

self-flagellation probably serves as an example of the concept.

 

[Gustav]

The Pennsylvania parents who turned to prayer instead of medicine as their son died of bacteria pneumonia were found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and child endangerment Friday. Herbert and Catherine Schaible could face five to 10 years in prison for the manslaughter charge and 3-1/2 to seven years for endangering the welfare of a child in the 2009 death of their 2-year-old son.

The couple, who have six other children, must await until Feb. 2 to be sentenced by Common Pleas Judge Carolyn Engel Temin. Bail was set at $150,000 pending that hearing, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. During the trial, defense attorneys argued that faith played no part in the parents' decision to forgo medical care for their son, Kent Schaible. They said the couple thought their son was suffering from a severe cold and was not very sick.

According to the Inquirer, the prosecution argued that Kent's death could have been prevented if the couple had sought medical help instead of relying on their beliefs in faith healing. A statement made by Herbert Schaible to homicide detectives was read during the trial, in which he said, "We tried to fight the devil, but in the end the devil won."

Herbert, 42, teaches at a school run by the couple's church, First Century Gospel Church, and Catherine, 41, is a stay-at-home mother. The church states on its website that it does not believe God permits sickness or diseases but instead that anything bad is caused by sin and the devil.​

much better than taking utterances by serial killers at face value, ja?

 

[UncleChrist]

 

[lightgigantic]

Good example of using political issues of national identity as a prop for religious dialogue

 

[Bells]

that would be james and the quote in question referenced god not satan
i questioned the utility of offering up psychopaths as examples of *religiously* motivated violence

Regardless of whether someone is a psychopath or not, if they are motivated by their personal religious beliefs to do something, be it good or bad, then one could say that that was their personal motivation, their religious motivation. But apparently, it only applies if you do something good, not bad. So being motivated by one's religious beliefs or religious festival to whip one's back until it bleeds or smack one's head with a knife or sword is not religiously motivated violence. The variety of excuses provided in this thread have been astounding.

There have been several instances of trolling in this thread. Their denial isn't trolling. So please, do not tell me how to do my job by telling me the following:

also please can the accusations of trolling and whatnot.

Okay?

since you are a moderator, this can been construed as intimidation

Intimidation? No. Warning? Yes. There is a difference between the two.