Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

I would dearly love to see an answer by Wynn, LG, or other apologist to Bells' post #882. After all, if there can be no religious motivation, there can be no religious motivation for mercy, decency or charity, either. Or, indeed, for anything at all.
 
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].
never encountered a scriptural commentary or henolgical discussion I take it ....

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.
perhaps if it was 'all or nothing"

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.
What are you talking about.

Contextualizing social issues that surround religion is all about questioning who is representative of leading it

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.
where from does this change come from then if you say its by and large not questioned?
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.
terrorism is simply the new front of war fare since having large standing armies orchestrated on a battle field is not an option.

Ironically it was a product of communism not religion (german autumn, vietnam etc)

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.
you might as well say mousatches motivate violence and talk about hitler and stalin
:shrug:
 
lightgigantic:

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?

What did he say motivated him? If he said he was motivated by science, then yes, I think his actions were motivated by science.

Then again, this guy sounds like he had some mental issues. Are you trying to draw an analogy by saying that all religious people who commit acts of violence in the name of their religion have mental issues?

A lot of this has already been touched on, but in brief ...
exodus is a cutting edge civil program ... circa 1400 BC (not like you see people busy running around trying to acquire slaves just so they can apply the other injunctions of exodus)

It is a historical fact that people did persecute witches, though. In fact, it is still happening right now in some parts of the world.

In any case, I take it that you concede that those at the "cutting edge" in 1400 BC were motivated to kill witches by religion.

These things have already been touched on but in brief ... witches, apart from appearing 1000 years after exodus, were granted a sort of terrorist like class (with ideas of them plotting to over throw the state) and the spanish inquisition were more of a national body to further Spanish interests (read the wiki page about them for info about how they were popularly misrepresented by classical writers of the 19th/20th century

Why was the Church instrumental in the persecution of witches?

And how does the Spanish Inquisition account for other persecutions, such as the current ones and the Salem witch trials?
 
never encountered a scriptural commentary or henolgical discussion I take it ....

They never question the truth of the scripture, do they? Like, does a commentary or discussion by theologians ever question - Is this guy really our Lord? Is this really the word of god? No, they assume it to all be true, and wonder why is there evil in the word, when god is all loving. The parts assumed by them are the central dogmas of their religion, something only a non-theistic philosopher can question.

perhaps if it was 'all or nothing"

What do you mean?

What are you talking about.

Contextualizing social issues that surround religion is all about questioning who is representative of leading it

Yes, but if the representative leader is given his power due to his religion, than religion [in its claims about revelation, the clergy/priests, divine will, etc] is indeed what should be examined.

where from does this change come from then if you say its by and large not questioned?

It comes from interpretation. Such changes come when people make versions of a scripture or pick and choose from it or when they choose a different interpretation of it. Such changes have created sects and different levels of beliefs within a single religion - christianity. Many religions are similiar in their current state.

terrorism is simply the new front of war fare since having large standing armies orchestrated on a battle field is not an option
.

Yes it is radical unconvential warfare.

Ironically it was a product of communism not religion (german autumn, vietnam etc)

Terrorism has always been around in human societies. Barbarians living outside the early citystates created the product of terrorism.

you might as well say mousatches motivate violence and talk about hitler and stalin
:shrug:

No, only some people with mustaches are violent. But a much greater proportion of people with religion are violent and an even larger portion is prone to violence if their religion is insulted. In both cases, religion is one of the central reasons for their violent behaviour.
 
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?

Moving the goal post to try to fit in punishment, Wynn?

Who said anything about punishment? This thread is about what an motivates an individual to act, remember?

You are violently imposing it on me.
I am violently imposing your own argument on you?

Running out of straws to clutch?

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.
Which really speaks nothing about what motivates one individual to be violent, does it? You are the one who asked if it would bring comfort to them.

Really Wynn, you can do better than this..

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"?
Nope.

It does not, however, make his motivation any less valid to him. If someone says they were motivated by their religious beliefs to commit a crime, it is not for me to say 'well you're wrong! You must be motivated by something else', and then tick off as many boxes as I can because I am selfish and self-serving.

After all, if there is no such thing as religious motivation (bad or good), it would mean that all theists and believers are only motivated by greed and are selfish and self-serving.

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.
Who says it is malpractice?

So, forcing someone to be rid of an evil spirit that has taken up residence in their body, against that demon's wishes and without the individual's consent is not violent to you? Tormenting the individual, even without "excessive force", while performing this exorcism, which as you claim "may be for religious reasons" to make the person functional, according to the religious beliefs of others, and all this done without the consent of the 'victim' or the evil spirit, with some force involved, just so long according to you, it is not excessive, is not violent?

By providing them a service for their benefit.
According to whom?

Who determines that it is for their benefit? The possessed? The religious leaders? How about preachers and Christians who believe homosexuals are possessed and need to be exorcised?

Last June a video of a preacher performing an exorcism on a gay teenager in Bridgeport, Connecticut, appeared on YouTube. In it, the pastor and at least three church members press the boy's stomach—sometimes with their hands, sometimes with a foot, sometimes in a bear hug from behind—until the boy begins to vomit.

[source]

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).

Religiously motivated or not, Wynn?

How about these, Wynn?

A Romanian nun has died after being bound to a cross, gagged and left alone for three days in a cold room in a convent, Romanian police have said.

Members of the convent in north-east Romania claim Maricica Irina Cornici was possessed and that the crucifixion had been part of an exorcism ritual.

Cornici was found dead on the cross on Wednesday after fellow nuns called an ambulance, according to police.

________________________________________________

Father Daniel who is accused of orchestrating the crime is said to be unrepentant.

"God has performed a miracle for her, finally Irina is delivered from evil," AFP quoted the priest as saying.

"I don't understand why journalists are making such a fuss about this. Exorcism is a common practice in the heart of the Romanian Orthodox church and my methods are not at all unknown to other priests," Father Daniel added.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4107524.stm


Mohammed Bashir's 20-year-old daughter, Kousar Bashir, died in June 1991 after enduring systematic beatings during a horrific eight-day ritual after Mr Bashir paid two holy men £200 to rid an "evil spirit" people believed had taken over her body.
Kousar, who had a history of mental illness and had descended into depression after failing her driving test, was diagnosed by holy men Mohammed Bashir (no relation) and Nourani Sayeed as being possessed. They proceeded to beat her to death using a heavy glass ashtray, a walking stick, and Bashir's fists.
Kousar was also starved of food and sleep for eight days, made to eat chilli powder, suffered 17 broken ribs, a broken breastbone and was cut three times between her breasts.

http://menmedia.co.uk/asiannews/news/s/510955_human_torch_dad_devastated_by_daughters_death


He told police on the night of August 22, 2003 that he had been holding a series of special prayer services, described by some as "exorcisms", during the previous three weeks to remove "evil spirits" of autism from the boy. Hemphill described how he would sit or lay on "Junior's" chest for up to two hours at a time, whispering into his ear for the "demons" to leave his body.

Three women -- including the child's mother, Patricia Cooper -- described to police how they sat on the boy's arms and legs while Hemphill sat on his chest. One woman said she pushed down on Junior's diaphragm several times during the service.

At some point during the service, he stopped struggling and breathing.

An autopsy later determined that Cottrell suffocated.

"All he could do was struggle and you interpreted that as demonic," Judge DiMotto told Hemphill. "It was your unreasonable and reckless conduct that caused this child to die."

"The community cannot risk another child being hurt, much less being killed, in a religious ritual," she said.

http://www.mnddc.state.mn.us/news/inclusion-daily/2004/08/082004wiabusecottrell.htm


In a grotesque incident, three educated sons of a UP Power Corporation engineer, along with a cousin, punched, kicked and beat their mother to death with a rod late on Saturday night believing that she had been possessed by the spirit of a dead relative.

The bizarre violence didn't end there. The foursome then tried to "sacrifice" a sister-in-law in an attempt to bring their dead mother back to life. They also beat up and injured their sister, her husband, the husband's father and two sisters, when they tried to intervene. All except their brother-in-law, Rohit Kumar, had to be hospitalized. The gruesome drama lasted from 9pm to 10.30pm.

The eldest of the three brothers, Rohit Gautam, 28, is an engineer in a multinational production unit at Greater Noida. Another brother, Navneet, 26, recently completed his MBA. The youngest, Ashwini, 24, is doing a course in electrical work from a polytechnic. The "exorcism" took place in a respectable, middle class locality in the city.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Ghaziabad_3_men_beat_mother_to_death/articleshow/2989248.cms


Religiously motivated violence Wynn? Do you think those who committed these acts were motivated by their religious beliefs to 'drive out the evil spirits'?
 
Last edited:
suit yourself
there is a clear conflict of interest here. you participate and attempt to moderate. if shit goes down i will beat you with the biggest stick i can find

okay?
And what shit do you expect to go down? I mean look at you, participating and threatening violence against others because you don't like what is being said. How can I put this..?

As a member, I do not particularly appreciate little whelps such as yourself threatening me or anyone else with violence. And as a moderator, I am going to advise you that you are walking a very fine line. Capiche?



not from where i stand

It is best to not hang from the ledge.
 
And what shit do you expect to go down? I mean look at you, participating and threatening violence against others because you don't like what is being said. How can I put this..?

As a member, I do not particularly appreciate little whelps such as yourself threatening me or anyone else with violence. And as a moderator, I am going to advise you that you are walking a very fine line. Capiche?


so the fact that you are a few thousand miles away does not indicate that i was speaking metaphorically?

you actually imagine i am threatening to physically fly over there and beat you with a big stick because of this thread? are you fucking insane?
 
you are a hypocrite
when hype was moderating a thread that we were participating in, you were up in arms at the conflict of interest

what make you think you can flout convention and warn people in a thread you are participating in?
 
so the fact that you are a few thousand miles away does not indicate that i was speaking metaphorically?

you actually imagine i am threatening to physically fly over there and beat you with a big stick because of this thread? are you fucking insane?

And I know where you live how?

Gustav, I advised someone to not troll, when it was clear they were. I did not threaten them with moderation. I asked them to not troll.

It really was not something that concerned you at all.

You should know full well by now that I rarely, if ever, moderate outside of Human Science and I almost NEVER moderate in a thread I am actively participating in, certainly not against someone I am having a disagreement with. So to have you accuse me of intimidating members, as though I am telling members that they either do as I believe they should or be moderated is so far off the mark, it's not even funny. I would suggest you remove your head from your anal cavity and get off your 'must monitor moderator' shetland pony and realise what exactly I, as a member, asked of another member. The exact same thing several other members requested from LG, that he stop trolling in the instances where he was trolling. Was my request with a 'mod note'? No. Was it distinct and in a different colour, as I always, ALWAYS do when I moderate anyone? No.

I do not particularly appreciate having individuals, such as yourself, always on the look out for some sort of confrontation, threaten and attempt to browbeat and intimidate me to do as you desire because you have some warped perception of actual reality.

In short, shut the fuck up and stop getting so "carried away".
 
you are a hypocrite
when hype was moderating a thread that we were participating in, you were up in arms at the conflict of interest

what make you think you can flout convention and warn people in a thread you are participating in?

And you are acting like a moronic fanboy.

Show me where exactly, did I moderate anyone in this thread? Show me where I put in "Mod Note" in this god damn thread?

Give me a fucking link of where I openly moderated someone, anyone, in his thread!
 
And I know where you live how?


stop lying. you had my goddamn ip address for over 10 years. you all know i live in los angeles

in all that time i have never physically threatened anyone with violence
it should be obvious to you lot that it was a goddamn figure of speech

yet you decided on a literal interpretation because you know you then have me over a barrel

a really despicable troll. why? because you are the big whelp hell bent on asserting your authority?

go fuck yourself
 
stop lying. you had my goddamn ip address for over 10 years. you all know i live in los angeles

I have never even looked up your IP address. Do you think I have nothing better to do?

Why would I look up your IP address? I don't know where you live or what you even do for a living, if you even do anything for a living. You live in LA? Great. Congratulations. Unfortunately it seems the smog has killed off some of your brain cells.

in all that time i have never physically threatened anyone with violence
it should be obvious to you lot that it was a goddamn figure of speech
"You lot"? Which lot?

And the irony of you getting angry at a "figure of speech" while accusing me of intimidating and threatening people in this thread with moderation because I said 'don't troll'..

I know you are trying to play the victim here, but that is laughable at best, considering you have gone out of your way to push for a confrontation with me, even when I have explained everything to you numerous times now.

yet you decided on a literal interpretation because you know you then have me over a barrel
What in the fuck are you on about now?

Oh wait, are you saying that I am trying to get you banned?

HAHAHAHAAA!!

I have spent the better of my time in the back room fighting for you to not be banned and you think that I am looking for this to get rid of you? Don't believe me? Ask James and Tiassa..

Dumbarse.

a really despicable troll. why? because you are the big whelp hell bent on asserting your authority?
Yes you are a troll..

Now, show me the exact link of where I put in a "Mod Note" in this thread and asserted my authority in this thread?

go fuck yourself
Always the charmer..
 
And you are acting like a moronic fanboy.

Show me where exactly, did I moderate anyone in this thread? Show me where I put in "Mod Note" in this god damn thread?

Give me a fucking link of where I openly moderated someone, anyone, in his thread!

disingenuous and trollish strawman
i said "attempt to moderate". that does not necessitate the standard protocol.



that's page 36. and you were sufficiently enraged by lg to highlight the warning in goddamn italics. it is definitely intimidation by abusing your mod status
i had even commented on that......

Now I am going to warn you to stop trolling.


unofficially of course :)

..only to see you continue to "warn"
 
Please take your moderator issues to an appropriate forum, Gustav.

This thread is for discussion of the topic "Show that there is religiously motivated violence".
 
I know you are trying to play the victim here, but that is laughable at best, considering you have gone out of your way to push for a confrontation with me, even when I have explained everything to you numerous times now.

are you referring to the on topic posts as confrontational or this episode?
i am playing the victim? how? by trying to ensure that lg and wynn get their say sans the wild eyed accusations of trolling and warnings?
Oh wait, are you saying that I am trying to get you banned?

i would be surprised if you did but......

And as a moderator, I am going to advise you that you are walking a very fine line. Capiche?

It is best to not hang from the ledge.


..there is really no other way to interpret that bit of dick wagging other than a threat to ban
 
disingenuous and trollish strawman
i said "attempt to moderate". that does not necessitate the standard protocol.



that's page 36. and you were sufficiently enraged by lg to highlight the warning in goddamn italics. it is definitely intimidation by abusing your mod status
i had even commented on that......



..only to see you continue to "warn"
Again, to make it clear for you. When I moderate anyone, it is always in purple text. Always. But you should know that, shouldn't you? You seem to monitor moderators more than anything else on this forum. So you would obviously know that I never moderate and not have it in purple text.

Whether you approve of how I post on here or not is nothing to me.

So show me where exactly is the purple text in this thread, where I was apparently asserting my authority and intimidating people?

What I do have is you attempting to browbeat and bully me, insult me, threaten me (even figuratively) because you do not approve of my argument in this thread. I know how you operate Gustav.

Now, you have gone out of your way to pick a fight with me. What? Slow week in Open Government and Site Feedback? Are you bored? No moderators to harrass, so you decided to pick a fight with me in here instead?

You have a problem with how I post? Take it to the senior management (Plazma, James R, Tiassa and Stryder). Stop derailing this thread with your pathetic posturing and brow beating and bullying. In other words, get the fuck out of my face. I don't appreciate you being there and completely misrepresenting what I actually said.
 
Oh my. Gustav and Bells are engaging in religiously motivated threats of violence on a thread that asks whether religion motivates violence!

Wynn, you wanted 46 pages of proof? Here they are.
 
Back
Top