Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[wynn]

Which is the only perspective available, regrettably.

I don't think so.

Yet, I do. I don't see the value in claiming another doesn't understand your argument merely because they puncture it effectively.

Do you really believe that you are the one to decide whether your understanding of another 's position is adequate, regardless of what the other person may think and say about your understanding?

Given your fascination with the subject, I rather doubt it, but I suppose it is possible.
/.../
But, since you are no theist, you will forgive me if I point out that, without a God to refer guilt on the subject of religiously-motivated violence to, we must defer to the secular definition of religion. Since you are no theist, this should be, similarly, no problem.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - attributed to Aristotle

 

[Sarkus]

Then you are either God Himself, you have complete certainty that God doesn't exist, or complete certainty that God exists.

Or religion is merely a matter of human practice and human faith/belief.
In the absence of proof, the belief and the practice remain whether God exists or not.
I.e. religion currently exists whether God ultimately exists or not.

I think that "set" is an artificial abstract.

I'm sure you do, but it still has an existing meaning even as an "artificial abstract".

Given the definition of God, it makes sense to define religion that way.

No, it doesn't, for the reasons already given in abundance.

You're not charitable.

Apologies, do you feel you are in need of charity, or even deserving of charity? Should I concede an argument to you out of pity, perhaps?
And what specifically is there in my arguments that is demonstrably uncharitable?

Get back to us once you can control the weather and such.

Until then, some humility is in place.

WTF has the ability to control weather got to do with the argument or comment posted???
And crying out for some humility merely because someone has criticised your position, with reasoning, is somewhat disappointing.

 

[scifes]

i absolutely have NO idea why this thread is going for so long nor why people still bother posting in it, religion doesn't encourage violence but it acknowledges it as a last resort, does it motivate you to go berserk on people? of course not. when you do what you religion tells you and you're met with resistance which ends with you having to be violent was your violence for a religious cause? yes.

what the hell is everybody's problem? and why is this thread still running?(no offence to op)

 

[scifes]

and by the way, religion is similar to the law (or is actually a type of law, if we're talking about a theocracy) in regards to usage of violence, what you say about one applies to the other.

 

[Aqueous Id]

religion doesn't encourage violence but it acknowledges it as a last resort,

and by the way, religion is similar to the law in regards to usage of violence, what you say about one applies to the other.

Good point, but also illustrating a fallacy.

This requires us to test whether there is *legally* motivated violence:

(1) wars and conflicts of every description

(2) prisoner executions, torture (esp. to extort confession), prisoner abuse, institutional abuse, patient abuse (e.g. "dumping")

(3) killing of suspects fleeing from police

(4) injury and destruction of any kind arising from any police action

and so on.

Just as there is legally motivated violence, so it goes that there is religiously motivated violence.

My question is: why do you wish to shield the perpetrators? That alone justifies this thread staying open.

 

[Aqueous Id]

I had hoped that everyone participating in this thread, as well as in Sciforums in general, would be able to easily switch between different conceptions of a phenomenon.

I had thought that everyone here would be able to fluently switch between a secular understanding of religion and a non-secular understanding of religion.

Normally we use common speech, except when the connotation drives us to a higher academic usage. Some of your speech moves beyond that. Here I am left to search for your meaning of secular vs. non-secular understanding, and what you mean by switching between them.

My point had to do with the lampooning of anyone who would defend a perpetrator's religiously motivated violence, by exculpating the religious element of the offense.

Charges of revisionism can go both ways. Another's reality may be unaltered by one's analysis of it; but this doesn't mean that one knows what precisely another's reality is. In fact, one quite likely never know what precisely another's reality is.

You have best evidence - a preponderance of evidence. To say otherwise is something more than mere revisionism.

To infer that history can not be known, because both sides will employ revisionism, is to minimize the weight of historical scholarship that would set the benchmark for revisionism and give us the foundation to answer the question posed in the OP.

This is why I prefer to focus on religion as such, apart from specific examples of violence,...

But if we avoid the evidence of such violence, we avoid the thread topic. To do so seems to vindicate the perpetrators.

...since we cannot read people's minds nor make sure that we understand what exactly they mean by the words they use, ...

This leads to the general denial of all evidence. To do so appears to shield the criminals.

and to instead focus on whether religion has the capacity to motivate violence or not.

The capacity to act is rendered moot once the crime is committed. We are at an excellent vantage point to reflect on mountains of evidence of past crimes. A focus on evidence is the best way to detect crime. To do otherwise is to let the bad guys off the hook.

For this, we of course need to define "religion," which turns out to be a very complex, multi-layered endeavor.

Only if you want to extend the common meaning of the term. I didn't think that was the point of the thread. I thought we were exploring the plain meaning of the topic. To do otherwise seems to give the crooks a loophole for being vindicated.

 

[wynn]

But if we avoid the evidence of such violence, we avoid the thread topic. To do so seems to vindicate the perpetrators.

This leads to the general denial of all evidence. To do so appears to shield the criminals.

The capacity to act is rendered moot once the crime is committed. We are at an excellent vantage point to reflect on mountains of evidence of past crimes. A focus on evidence is the best way to detect crime. To do otherwise is to let the bad guys off the hook.

There is evidence of violence, but it is not clear what exactly motivated it. For that, we would have to be able to read minds, even of people who have long since died.

Only if you want to extend the common meaning of the term. I didn't think that was the point of the thread. I thought we were exploring the plain meaning of the topic.

To do otherwise seems to give the crooks a loophole for being vindicated.

Not at all.
Unless you are referring to countries that have a state religion and are non-secular.

 

[wynn]

Good point, but also illustrating a fallacy.

This requires us to test whether there is *legally* motivated violence:

(1) wars and conflicts of every description

(2) prisoner executions, torture (esp. to extort confession), prisoner abuse, institutional abuse, patient abuse (e.g. "dumping")

(3) killing of suspects fleeing from police

(4) injury and destruction of any kind arising from any police action

and so on.

Just as there is legally motivated violence, so it goes that there is religiously motivated violence.

My question is: why do you wish to shield the perpetrators? That alone justifies this thread staying open.

If you posit that any use of force constitutes violence, then you seem to be in favor of a social organization in which the law-enforcement system is powerless: people can commit crimes, but nobody is supposed to do anything about that, as any such action can involve use of force, which, per you, seems to automatically constitute violence.

 

[Sock puppet path]

i absolutely have NO idea why this thread is going for so long nor why people still bother posting in it, religion doesn't encourage violence but it acknowledges it as a last resort, does it motivate you to go berserk on people? of course not. when you do what you religion tells you and you're met with resistance which ends with you having to be violent was your violence for a religious cause? yes.

what the hell is everybody's problem? and why is this thread still running?(no offence to op)

Can you not answer wynn when he asked where you get "homosexuals should be burned alive" from?

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

And you replied:

Why would you regard this as ''religiously motivated'' as opposed to Biblically motivated? And if it is Biblically motivated, why would one have to be religious to use it as a reason to kill?

I didn't say it WAS ''biblically motivate'', I merely created a hypothetical situation in the form of a couple of questions (which you never addressed by the way). You, like Bells, have yet to show how the laws in the Bible, are religious, and to be practised by the everyday person, as opposed to a pertinent law, meant for the the government of that time, place, and circumstance. Why instruct ''thou shall not kill/murder'' only to tell them to kill/murder homosexuals?

Yes, and as Bells said he may equally conclude that he has nothing to lose by calling on Santa Claus or the pixies that might live at the bottom of his garden. Either call is equally likely, I'd say.

So you and Bells KNOW, God does NOT exist, do you?
How do you know this?

In post number #1159. Don't you remember?

Religion is a discipline. You may not like to think so. But it is.
All discipline require conviction, sacrifice, and understanding.
Your idea of religion just being whatever one feels, is not supported by any
scripture.

your original point...

But you told me the bible is the basis of your own religion, didn't you? Haven't you been telling us all how important the scripture is?

Please explain how my quote relates to your point. :shrug:

Have you changed your mind since then? Is scripture no longer important to your religion?

Or is it that you have a memory problem?

Or perhaps an honesty problem?

I have none of these problems, your just trying to stereo-type me because you cannot truly respond to my posts without admitting your lack of understanding. The quotes before this prove my point.

What exactly is the issue with your recall of past posts you have made?

The issue is, your trying to exert some kind of control, in these discussions, trying to make it seem as though we're contradicting ourselves, because you cannot bring yourself to admitting you cannot explain what IS ''religiously'' motivated violence. You don't even know what ''religion'' IS, outside of the proffesional, secular definition, which actually does nothing to explain what it actually is.

How can you know what ''religiously motivated violence'', when you don't know what religion is?

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

Why instruct ''thou shall not kill/murder'' only to tell them to kill/murder homosexuals?

Because ideologies often subvert general principle for the sake of specifics.

 

[Bells]

I didn't say it WAS ''biblically motivate'', I merely created a hypothetical situation in the form of a couple of questions (which you never addressed by the way). You, like Bells, have yet to show how the laws in the Bible, are religious, and to be practised by the everyday person, as opposed to a pertinent law, meant for the the government of that time, place, and circumstance. Why instruct ''thou shall not kill/murder'' only to tell them to kill/murder homosexuals?

Wait.. so now you are claiming that the rules and the laws set down in the Bible are not religious?

I think a more pertinent question you should answer is thy the Bible even has anything about killing homosexuals?

So you and Bells KNOW, God does NOT exist, do you?
How do you know this?

Of course God exists. So do fairies and goblins at the bottom of my garden. Or are you saying fairies and goblins do not exist? How do you know this?

I have none of these problems, your just trying to stereo-type me because you cannot truly respond to my posts without admitting your lack of understanding. The quotes before this prove my point.

Well since you are twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to redefine religion and religious beliefs... He has answered your qosts and showed quite a bit of understanding. If you choose to play dumb and say 'I don't understand', it's not his fault but your own.

The issue is, your trying to exert some kind of control, in these discussions, trying to make it seem as though we're contradicting ourselves, because you cannot bring yourself to admitting you cannot explain what IS ''religiously'' motivated violence. You don't even know what ''religion'' IS, outside of the proffesional, secular definition, which actually does nothing to explain what it actually is.

How can you know what ''religiously motivated violence'', when you don't know what religion is?

At this point, you are on the verge of arguing that there is no such thing as religion or religious belief in desperation....

The definitions have been provided, repeatedly. Just because you refuse to accept them is not our problem.

 

[Aqueous Id]

There is evidence of violence, but it is not clear what exactly motivated it. For that, we would have to be able to read minds, even of people who have long since died.

The Catholic Encyclopedia gives this account for the launching of the Crusades:

Thousands of nobles and knights had met together for the council [of Claremont]. It was decided that an army of horse and foot should march to rescue Jerusalem and the Churches of Asia from the Saracens. A plenary indulgence was granted to all who should undertake the journey pro sola devotione, and further to help the movement, the Truce of God was extended, and the property of those who had taken the cross was to be looked upon as sacred. Those who were unfitted for the expedition were forbidden to undertake it, and the faithful were exhorted to take the advice of their bishops and priests before starting. Coming forth from the church the pope addressed the immense multitude. He used his wonderful gifts of eloquence to the utmost, depicting the captivity of the Sacred City where Christ had suffered and died--"Let them turn their weapons dripping with the blood of their brothers against the enemy of the Christian Faith. Let them--oppressors of orphans and widows, murderers and violaters of churches, robbers of the property of others, vultures drawn by the scent of battle--let them hasten, if they love their souls, under their captain Christ to the rescue of Sion." When the pope ceased to speak a mighty shout of Deus lo volt rose from the throng.

Is such evidence is insufficient to establish motive?

... I didn't think that was the point of the thread. I thought we were exploring the plain meaning of the topic. To do otherwise seems to give the crooks a loophole for being vindicated.

Not at all. Unless you are referring to countries that have a state religion and are non-secular.

"Crooks" here was a reference to perpetrators of religiously motivated violence.

Nevertheless, in the case of the Crusades, Christianity was the state religion of the Holy Roman Empire, and Muhammedism was the state religion of the Arab Caliphates (and later, the Ottoman Empire).

If you posit that any use of force constitutes violence, then you seem to be in favor of a social organization in which the law-enforcement system is powerless: people can commit crimes, but nobody is supposed to do anything about that, as any such action can involve use of force, which, per you, seems to automatically constitute violence.

Yes, any use of force by definition is violent. In other words, if you were to perpetrate such an act as a civilian, you would be charged with aggravated assault, and you would be listed as a violent person for the rest of your life.

No, I did not advocate for or against the police. That would take us into anoher topic for which I would bring a different set of facts and evidence. Here I am just addressing the topic of religiously motivated violence.

The conundrum you address about rendering law enforcement powerless is more appropriately one arising out of your model for sufficiency of evidence: that we must read the mind of the perpetrator to know for sure his motive. Thus, for every person ever convicted on the basis of motive, you would have to advocate overturning those convictions, which would seem to render law enforcement powerless.

To say otherwise would set a double standard, favoring the religious faithful over the population at large.

Do you favor a modern version of the plenary indulgence for religiously violent offenders?

 

[wynn]

The definitions have been provided, repeatedly. Just because you refuse to accept them is not our problem.

I get it. This is not a discussion, this is a power play ...

 

[wynn]

The Catholic Encyclopedia gives this account for the launching of the Crusades:

Is such evidence is insufficient to establish motive?

Is such motive sufficient to establish it as religious, other than in a secular sense of religiousness?
Show that.

Yes, any use of force by definition is violent.

So when you move around furniture before repainting and you use force, you are being violent?
And when the doctor puts back a dislocated shoulder and he is using force to do so, he is being violent?

The connundrum you address about rendering law enforcement powerless is more appropriately one arising out of your model for sufficiency of evidence: that we must read the mind of the perpetrator to know for sure his motive. Thus, for every person ever convicted on the basis of motive, you would have to advocate overturning those convictions, which would seem to render law enforcement powerless.

To say otherwise would set a double standard, favoring the religious faithful over the population at large.

Do you favor a modern version of the plenary indulgence for religiously violent offenders?

To be clear, I don't advocate any of that.

The legal system functions on the principle of whether the charges made can be proven or not.

In the court of law (at least in secular countries), it is generally only necessary to prove that there was measurable damage and that the accused person caused it. Motive is ascertained either indirectly (such as by observing the damage done and what could possibly have been the motive for it), or directly (such as by providing recorded evidence of the accused stating their motive or by testifying), and plays a role in what kind of verdict is made.


But, as noted, there is a difference between countries with a state religion and those without.
The legal system and its principles is somewhat different in secular countries in comparison to countries with a state religion.
Neither system approves of vigilante justice, but they have differing ideas as to what vigilante justice is.

 

[wynn]

To say otherwise would set a double standard, favoring the religious faithful over the population at large.

Do you favor a modern version of the plenary indulgence for religiously violent offenders?

Perhaps I may understand your concern:

You seem to be concerned that to say there is no religiously motivated violence, is to say that all that violence perpetrated in the name of religion is to be considered non-existent, excused, and instead considered as "right action."

So, for example, some people may say
"We have killed all those people in the name of Jesus. We have done the right thing. We should be commended."
you seem to be concerned that to say there is no religiously motivated violence is to agree with those people and to commend them.

Such agreement may indeed take place according to the laws in a country where (a particular brand of) Christianity is the state religion.

But not necessarily outside that country and its jurisdiction.


The laws vary over time and place; what is legal in one country may not be legal in another; what is legal at one time may not be legal at another time; what is illegal at one time may be legal at another time.

If we are talking about legality, we can only focus on a particular country and its laws.


But this discussion seems to be about objective morality, not legality. This is a different matter.
To discuss objective morality, we have to rise above the particularities of the various legal systems, and also rise above the particularities of the various religious traditions.

In other words, we have to concern ourselves with a pure understanding of religion, not a secular or particularist.

 

[GeoffP]

Get back to us once you can control the weather and such.

Until then, some humility is in place.

Back to the deific again.

I don't think so.

Well, I disagree with that. If you disagree with me, present your deity for inspection. No Chthulean types, please.

Do you really believe that you are the one to decide whether your understanding of another 's position is adequate, regardless of what the other person may think and say about your understanding?

Of course. Logic deduces it; my faculties inform me that it is so. Perhaps it is - forgive me - merely that your understanding of my understanding of your understanding is inadequate, surely? You are free to disagree with the above... but perhaps that, too, is misunderstood.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - attributed to Aristotle

Back to the point of the segment you quoted: without some God peering directly over one's shoulder, we must, again, defer to the secular definition, for the reason of conventional definition and since you have no evidence of the former being. :shrug:

 

[wynn]

Back to the point of the segment you quoted: without some God peering directly over one's shoulder, we must, again, defer to the secular definition, for the reason of conventional definition and since you have no evidence of the former being.

I suppose your intention isn't to find out the truth about God.
The lack of such intention shapes your contributions here ...

 

[wynn]

Do you really believe that you are the one to decide whether your understanding of another 's position is adequate, regardless of what the other person may think and say about your understanding?

Of course. Logic deduces it; my faculties inform me that it is so. Perhaps it is - forgive me - merely that your understanding of my understanding of your understanding is inadequate, surely? You are free to disagree with the above... but perhaps that, too, is misunderstood.

Do you believe that other people owe it to you to accept your judgment of their stance?

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

I didn't say it WAS ''biblically motivate'', I merely created a hypothetical situation....

So, what is your explanation for the guy who says "I murdered that man because he was homosexual and the bible told me that homosexuality is an abomination against God"?

Obviously, this is not biblically motivated or religiously motivated. So, what is the most likely motivation, according to you if it can't be what the killer says it was? And how do you know it isn't religiously motivated?

You, like Bells, have yet to show how the laws in the Bible, are religious, and to be practised by the everyday person, as opposed to a pertinent law, meant for the the government of that time, place, and circumstance. Why instruct ''thou shall not kill/murder'' only to tell them to kill/murder homosexuals?

Because the bible is woefully inconsistent in its messages. Haven't you noticed that? It if full of self-contradiction and cases of God saying one thing and doing, ordering or condoning something else.

How do you pick andchoose which parts of the Bible are religious and which are specific to time and place? How do you choose which parts of the bible to follow and which to ignore?

So you and Bells KNOW, God does NOT exist, do you?

No, and I can't be absolutely sure about pixies or Santa Claus either.

What's your view on pixies?

Please explain how my quote relates to your point.

You say that we have to follow scripture to be truly religious. Although, we're yet to hear from you how one is to select which scripture one follows. But, at the same time, you claim that when one follows scripture, one is only "biblically motivated" and not "religiously motivated".

So, again I ask you: what is the difference? Whence cometh religious motivation?

I have none of these problems, your just trying to stereo-type me because you cannot truly respond to my posts without admitting your lack of understanding.

Maybe you're bad at explaining your position in a coherent way.

The issue is, your trying to exert some kind of control, in these discussions, trying to make it seem as though we're contradicting ourselves, because you cannot bring yourself to admitting you cannot explain what IS ''religiously'' motivated violence. You don't even know what ''religion'' IS, outside of the proffesional, secular definition, which actually does nothing to explain what it actually is.

How can you know what ''religiously motivated violence'', when you don't know what religion is?

I defined religion in an earlier post in this thread. If you disagree with my definition, why don't you give us all the benefit of your insight and learning, and supply us with your definition?

What is religion, Jan? And why can't there be religiously motivated violence?

There you go: two straightforward questions. Can you give straightforward answers?