Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[James R]

So if a killer says they were inspired to murder by something or other, religious text or not, you would refuse to accept it because it does not fit into your pre-conceived notion of what you think it should be?

A 28 year-old Philadelphia-area man admitted he stoned to death a 70 year-old man because the Bible says to stone homosexuals.​

The religious apologists here will tell you that this is not religiously motivated violence at all.

For example, Jan Ardena is adamant that this is an example of "biblically-motivated violence", and as we all know the bible has nothing to do with religion.

lightgigantic or wynn will tell you that this stoning was politically motivated, or motivated by money or something else, because a religious motivation for something is just not possible. lightgigantic will tell you that every time somebody tells you they are religiously motivated, they are lying and there really is some other underlying motivation.

I think that's a fair summary of the case being put by these guys.

Stands up well, doesn't it?

 

[GeoffP]

Because it engineers a stereotype for the sake of driving home a conclusion

I'm sorry, but I simply don't agree with your calling this a stereotype. In what way is it like a stereotype? Am I implying that all religious people are violent, or rather that there exists a religious motivation for some violence? (Hint: it's the latter.)

- much like if a black person commits a crime and if one can somehow trace the cause to black communities it then becomes "its an example of blacks being criminals" ... meanwhile the actionable cause remains unchecked

Heh - noo, rather that some cases of violence have religious motivation. I think you're trying to turn this into a blanket condemnation for some reason, which it isn't. Using your example above, you might make a case for some crimes being racially motivated against the victim, but it would be absurd to say that all crimes against a person are done so on the basis of race or what have you. The counter you're proposing here would be to refute all sources of motivation, because they must be something else.

when you freely ignore the context and communities they appear in of course

I freely do this? I wasn't aware I was doing it at all. In what context is it all right to stone homosexuals to death, or hang adulterous women? In what context is it all right to harass religious minorities?

because if we are prepared to accept personal testimony as the sole aspect in isolating a cause for misdemeanor we are left with an absurd legal system for a start ... presenting multiple causes from the same individual simply highlights the inconsistencies in your argument

Well, no. In point of fact what I said was that at least where a person makes a religious claim about an act of violence and support for their argument can be found in a religious text, it would be reasonable to conclude that it was religious violence. It would be pretty hard to call this the beginning and end of an entire legal system though. I suspect that law, generally, is more concerned with outcomes.

when a murderer says they did it for any reason, for the purposes of isolating the cause (and hopefully avoiding future recurrences) they certainly look further abroad than his statements

Which is precisely what I said should be done. :shrug: Now, having done this, is there any situation in which you would consider it permissible to make the conclusion of religiously-motivated violence?

 

[scifes]

little detour, but i couldn't help it..

In what context is it all right to stone homosexuals to death, or hang adulterous women?

in the context of "god exists"+"god said so"... hmm, that sums up to "religion"..

but that's not the only context, if a society is built on high moral and trust values in families/marriage, then adultery would be an impeccable crime maybe overwhelming the punishment of death, there are things worse than death, otherwise people wouldn't've committed suicide or carried out acts of martyrdom in wars or literally sacrificed their lives for others.

i can even imagine(and have read but am not sure if it's true or not) an intelligent animal community exterminating some of its members for crossing certain lines or committing taboos of some sort. that is a context you can view stoning a homosexual or hanging an adulterer in as correct.

the westren(or modern) world values life the most(or so they say) and so the death penalty is issued for homicide usually, imagine a society where money is the most important, it logically follows that they'd issue the death penalty for one who steals, and so on.

 

[wynn]

The religious apologists here will tell you that this is not religiously motivated violence at all.

I am not a "religious apologist."

In your generalization, I may seem to be in the same camp with some other posters here, but I assure you I am not.

Some people, including some posters, have been repeatedly making the claim that there exists "religiously motivated violence," yet so far have not shown what exactly is religious about the examples they give, other than the name/category ascribed to them or the fact that the perpetrator was a member of a religious organization or otherwise affiliated with it.


Your criteria for considering something "religious violence" seem to be, already one of them considered sufficient:

1. nominal relation to scripture,
2. the perpetrator's formal membership in or affiliation with a religious organization,
3. definition of the act as "religious" by the perpetrator of violence,
4. definition of the act as "religious" by a second or third party, such as the victim of the violence, the media, or any other third party.

Do you really believe that this kind of criteria are adequate to consider something "religious violence"?


That kind of criteria have the quality of nothing but hearsay.
I want to see a better analysis.

 

[Enmos]

Wynn, what would your criteria be?

 

[GeoffP]

little detour, but i couldn't help it..

And I thank you for it.

in the context of "god exists"+"god said so"... hmm, that sums up to "religion"..

but that's not the only context, if a society is built on high moral and trust values in families/marriage, then adultery would be an impeccable crime maybe overwhelming the punishment of death, there are things worse than death, otherwise people wouldn't've committed suicide or carried out acts of martyrdom in wars or literally sacrificed their lives for others.

In other words: yes, a religious motivation for violence can exist.

i can even imagine(and have read but am not sure if it's true or not) an intelligent animal community exterminating some of its members for crossing certain lines or committing taboos of some sort. that is a context you can view stoning a homosexual or hanging an adulterer in as correct.

the westren(or modern) world values life the most(or so they say) and so the death penalty is issued for homicide usually, imagine a society where money is the most important, it logically follows that they'd issue the death penalty for one who steals, and so on.

This does kind of support my contention that there is such a thing as religiously-motivated violence pretty strongly. Wynn, care to rebut your colleague?

 

[wynn]

Wynn, what would your criteria be?

As far as I can see, the minimum criteria for something to be religious, and all three must be fulfilled:

1. that which is done with the intention to serve God,
2. that which is in line with all three: 1. scriptures, 2. the discernment of saintly people and 3. the discernment of a saintly person immediately in the position of instructing the person who commits an action,
3. that which indeed pleases God.

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic or wynn will tell you that this stoning was politically motivated, or motivated by money or something else, because a religious motivation for something is just not possible. lightgigantic will tell you that every time somebody tells you they are religiously motivated, they are lying and there really is some other underlying motivation.

I think that's a fair summary of the case being put by these guys.

Stands up well, doesn't it?

actually I will tell you that the real causes are something else since if you remove religion from the so called illustration of religious violence, you still see the same act occurring.

IOW I expect that if you are going to nominate a factor as a cause for violence, you see an absence of it when you remove the cause.

 

[Enmos]

As far as I can see, the minimum criteria for something to be religious, and all three must be fulfilled:

1. that which is done with the intention to serve God,
2. that which is in line with all three: 1. scriptures, 2. the discernment of saintly people and 3. the discernment of a saintly person immediately in the position of instructing the person who commits an action,
3. that which indeed pleases God.

3. is unknowable to begin with.
2c. is a bit of a stretch don't you think?

According to you nothing religious can ever happen if their is no 'saintly person' present to instruct and then comment on the religiousness of the act.
On top of that, even if above criterion is met, it can still never be known if the act was indeed a religious one short of god appearing on site to approve of it.

How about this?
That which is done with the intention to serve God while supported by scripture.
Seems to suffice to me.

 

[wynn]

actually I will tell you that the real causes are something else since if you remove religion from the so called illustration of religious violence, you still see the same act occurring.

IOW I expect that if you are going to nominate a factor as a cause for violence, you see an absence of it when you remove the cause.

Some here have been arguing that a violent act may have multiple causes, and that therefore, the test with removing one cause doesn't necessarily illustrate what may be the cause and what not.

 

[wynn]

3. is unknowable to begin with.
2c. is a bit of a stretch don't you think?

According to you nothing religious can ever happen if their is no 'saintly person' present to instruct and then comment on the religiousness of the act.
On top of that, even if above criterion is met, it can still never be known if the act was indeed a religious one short of god appearing on site to approve of it.

The criteria are so high because religion is not something to go around and brag with.
"I did it!" does not enter a religious person's mind.

How about this?
That which is done with the intention to serve God while supported by scripture.
Seems to suffice to me.

Ordinarily, this is what people tend to do, yes, but it is not sufficient, notably because it exempts the intended recipient of the action (ie. God) from the equation.

Don't you care whether the one you intend to please, indeed is pleased with what you've done?

 

[Enmos]

"I did it!" does not enter a religious person's mind.

As a generalization that is obviously utter bullshit. Excuse the term.
And I would be very surprised if it were true for more than a few if any.

Ordinarily, this is what people tend to do, yes, but it is not sufficient, notably because it exempts the intended recipient of the action (ie. God) from the equation.

Didn't God guide the ones that wrote the scriptures? After all, the bible is supposed to be gods word, isn't it?
More over, what if the scripture involved is something Jesus said?

Don't you care whether the one you intend to please, indeed is pleased with what you've done?

Sure, and the only way to know whether or not god would like something is to consult scripture.

 

[scifes]

And I thank you for it.



In other words: yes, a religious motivation for violence can exist.



This does kind of support my contention that there is such a thing as religiously-motivated violence pretty strongly. Wynn, care to rebut your colleague?

i've agreed from the beginning that there is religiously motivated violence, i just don't see it bad, not all violence is bad after all.

wynn is my colleague as much as he is yours, we're all queer theists in this god forsaken place.

IOW I expect that if you are going to nominate a factor as a cause for violence, you see an absence of it when you remove the cause.

that's a very good point, a person who is ready to be violent for his religion, would be violent for any other principle he someday would replace religion with.

 

[gmilam]

The criteria are so high because religion is not something to go around and brag with.
"I did it!" does not enter a religious person's mind.




Ordinarily, this is what people tend to do, yes, but it is not sufficient, notably because it exempts the intended recipient of the action (ie. God) from the equation.

Don't you care whether the one you intend to please, indeed is pleased with what you've done?

As an atheist, I believe god is already out of the equation. I don't hold religion to a different standard as it is obviously an invention of the human mind.

 

[lightgigantic]

Some here have been arguing that a violent act may have multiple causes, and that therefore, the test with removing one cause doesn't necessarily illustrate what may be the cause and what not.

then they are dealing with secondary causes or not acknowledging the distinction of primary ones

 

[wynn]

As an atheist, I believe god is already out of the equation. I don't hold religion to a different standard as it is obviously an invention of the human mind.

Have you ever wondered what it is that makes you sure you are right?

 

[wynn]

"I did it!" does not enter a religious person's mind.

As a generalization that is obviously utter bullshit. Excuse the term.
And I would be very surprised if it were true for more than a few if any.

What I said is perfectly aligned with what I above defined as "religious."

Didn't God guide the ones that wrote the scriptures? After all, the bible is supposed to be gods word, isn't it?
More over, what if the scripture involved is something Jesus said?

The issue is how to carry out scriptural instructions in actual situations.

Scriptures give many instructions; it is the task of proper religious discernment to know when to apply which instruction.

Don't you care whether the one you intend to please, indeed is pleased with what you've done?

Sure, and the only way to know whether or not god would like something is to consult scripture.

See above.

 

[wynn]

i've agreed from the beginning that there is religiously motivated violence, i just don't see it bad, not all violence is bad after all.

Are you talking about violence, or use of force?

 

[Enmos]

The issue is how to carry out scriptural instructions in actual situations.

Scriptures give many instructions; it is the task of proper religious discernment to know when to apply which instruction.

Which is carried out by who? The ones you appear to refer to might just be a tad biased on the topic of religious violence.

 

[GeoffP]

The issue is how to carry out scriptural instructions in actual situations.

Scriptures give many instructions; it is the task of proper religious discernment to know when to apply which instruction.

How can you call that discernment religious? Maybe it comes from some other source.

Anyway, the admission that one must "carry out scriptural instructions" again establishes a very realistic space for the use of religiously-motivated violence. Again.