Tackling Violence Committed in the Name of Religion

When you say "religious violence", you've got to stand back and look at what is actually fueling the violence. It's easy to pin it on a religion as a whole, rather than a specific ideology (political or religious, usually in opposition to religious norms) and the way an ideology spreads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Cino said:
Ok. How does this work out in the context of the catholic pope's address?
Click to expand...

If I see someone being hurt unfairly I believe it is my religious obligation to help them, this may require me to use violence. I understand that he may have had more specific cases in mind with this speech.. but then he should be more specific, especially when your words hold such weight to so many.
 
OrtaYol said:
Abrahamic religions this is demonstrably false
Click to expand...

Hi OrtaYol, i'm new here. Forgive me for joining this discussion late?

Without going into specifics, i feel like i share your concerns and your noble intentions. Regarding your comment about "Abrahamic religions" above, i think i know what u are referring to, and i struggle on my own with this. I am jewish, born jewish, and my understanding is, i will always be jewish regardless of what i do or what i believe. Further, my understanding is that i belong to the Torah just as much as the Torah belongs to me, and there's nothing i can do to change that. And that is relevant to this discussion because: i recognise the parts in the Torah that ,if i accept them literally, will lead me to condone a machevellian approach when i see someone being bullied and abused. And i struggle with this. Because: there's something inside me that rejects these battlefield tactics. And i don't know why. Lately i have started to wonder? "Does the Torah sometimes use negative role modeling to teach? And how do i tell when i should accept the words at face value; when should i read it literally? And when should i do the opposite? and listen to my internal moral sensetivities?" i am still trying to figure this out. I guess i am echoing a previous comment in this thread that speaks of caution towards a "black and white" approach. I find myself falling into this mindset in times of high-stress and high-emotion. And i'm trying to find new ways to counter this seemingly automatic response. Just sharing... Thank u for the facinating discussion, your participation, and everything u do.

With much love and great respect,

-DF-
 
Welcome DustyFeet I'm pretty new here myself and also have a habbit of joining discussions late or not replying for long periods of time so don't feel bad about it.. not for me anyway :D

Personally, if there were something in the Quran I could not accept I would not be a follower of it.

So if you were to read another religious text and then thought to yourself "this seems more in line with my reality" and lived your life in the way of this new text, would you still consider yourself a follower of Judaism? I believe we have a will that is free and therefor you can change your relationship with the Torah(whether you should is an entirely different matter).


"Does the Torah sometimes use negative role modeling to teach? And how do i tell when i should accept the words at face value; when should i read it literally? And when should i do the opposite? and listen to my internal moral sensetivities?"
Click to expand...

I have not read the Torah so it is not something I can comment on too much, personally I don't think it would ever be Gods intention that you do the opposite of what He is telling you to do. Any religious text needs at least some study and thought when it comes to telling what is and is not allegorical. I think the Quran does a good job here and it usually doesn't take too much reflection or research to separate them.

Thanks for joining the discussion and peace :)
 
Last edited:
Human nature and not religion is the cause of violence in the World. If religion did not exist at all there would be just as many senseless acts of violence, murders, and wars. This is a psychological problem not a social problem with religion.
 
dfnj2019 said:
Human nature and not religion is the cause of violence in the World. If religion did not exist at all there would be just as many senseless acts of violence, murders, and wars. This is a psychological problem not a social problem with religion.
Click to expand...
Maybe it pops up so often because of the stark contrast (in many cases) between the teachings of a religion and any violence justified in the name of the religion.

Also, again because of the often lofty ethical ideals contained in religious teachings, a disappointed reverse-hero-worship can set in when those ideals are not upheld by exponents if a religion in real life.

I know both of these affect my attitude towards religions. I try to counter them when I notice them, but for decades, they guided me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Cino said:
Maybe it pops up so often because of the stark contrast (in many cases) between the teachings of a religion and any violence justified in the name of the religion.
Click to expand...
Well until fairly recently, all cultures were religious cultures ... there were also a fair few bloody wars that weren't 'religious' in that sense, but they tend to get overlooked.

Cino said:
Also, again because of the often lofty ethical ideals contained in religious teachings, a disappointed reverse-hero-worship can set in when those ideals are not upheld by exponents if a religion in real life.
Click to expand...
Again, another case of human nature. Think of the cult of Stalin that allowed the most dreadful purges; the cult of Chairman Mao, the cult of Pol Pot ... and their ideals weren't always necessarily 'lofty'.

The rise of the virulent right in global politics is in direct correlation to disappointed and disaffected elements in society unhappy with their governments, and resorting to tribalism — Islamophobia is obvious, but so to is the fear of foreigners generally ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Thomas said:
Again, another case of human nature. Think of the cult of Stalin that allowed the most dreadful purges; the cult of Chairman Mao, the cult of Pol Pot ... and their ideals weren't always necessarily 'lofty'.
Click to expand...
When you generalize enough, anything can be equivalent in some superficial sense. Blind elephants, and all that. Socialism is a human endeavour, religion is a human endeavour, therefore socialism is religion. To the elephants blind from birth, all humans appear flat...

So what remains if we take human nature out of religion and irreligion?
 
The more powerful over others that a person becomes, the more the devil works to use that person, imo
 
Cino said:
When you generalize enough, anything can be equivalent in some superficial sense.
Click to expand...
True. Just kicking the old trope that religion has been the cause of the bloodiest wars in history into the long grass.
 
Thomas said:
True. Just kicking the old trope that religion has been the cause of the bloodiest wars in history into the long grass.
Click to expand...
Old trope? Is that what the kids are calling the old testament these days? I got no clue where anyone would get that religions and violence have any correlation, they must be on some kind of atheistic crusade some jihad lead by the devil for sure. Religions have always got along and been well known for their nonviolence.
 
wil said:
Religions have always got along and been well known for their nonviolence.
Click to expand...
So have people, families, tribes, races, states, nations -- all quite sweet and loving to one another, until that evil ole' God thing comes along to stir them up against each other and spoil all their harmony and contentment ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top