![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
luzribeiro.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThere's a persistent narrative that we've been hearing here and there, which claims that those advocating for a religiously motivated war are not "true adherents" to said religion, and have somehow twisted and perverted the initial intention of that religion. Because at its core, religion does not support violence against other human beings.
Well, if we're to look more closely at the history and the canons of the major religions (especially the Abrahamic ones), we'd notice that violence is actually a central part of religion - because, being a set of rules governing a particular community of people, religions inevitably tend to come across external rivals/enemies (note: the concept of "infidels/heathens" that permeates Abrahamic religions), which they often have to deal with the "hard way". Respectively, they tend to infuse the notion that using violence to deal with rivals and external threats is justifiable, as long as it's done for the good of the particular religion itself, and for protecting the community.
True, while some religions may've made violence for expansionist/conversion/imperialist purposes unjustifiable according to their original canon, and others have explicitly made expansion and conversion by the sword a central tenet of their doctrine, in reality history shows that the former have adopted that aspect of the latter just as easily and soon after their inception.
The "loving thy neighbor" principle does seem to be inherent to religions that claim to govern ethics, hence the notion that religion is non-violent and respectful to the next human being, therefore inherently good. That's a humanist view that may've been ascribed to religions from a more recent, modernist/humanist standpoint, whereas most mainstream religions, having been used by the governing authorities as a natural tool for societal control, have embraced institutionalized oppression as a norm rather than an exception almost from the beginning. Power does corrupt indeed, as innumerable examples in that respect seem to suggest - and religion is often used as a tool to justify the treating of fellow humans as inferiors, a pattern which gradually tends to be codified into canon.
We've been hearing comparative arguments lately that "this religion is violent and ours is not", but that rather reveals a short-sightedness and short memory span, as the history of Christianity for example shows that this religion has also gone through similar phases of development to the ones that Islam is passing as we speak - and violence has been an inseparable part of that process.
Granted, the social construct of religion does tend to assume the narrative that said religion is non-violent - and yet, when pressed against a wall and put in dire circumstances, when facing a threat, it inevitably turns to violence to protect itself, or sustain its expansion. And thus, a problem emerges when we try to justify the "freedom of religion" for its own sake, whereas religion has an inherently violent side to itself, and should therefore probably be treated as a potential source of societal disruption rather than bringer of social coherence. The thing is, we're prone to stop tolerating violence only as long as we're not in control of it. Once we've made sure we can direct it and manage it, it ceases being such a morality-eroding factor. So the narrative is conveniently pushed forward that the violent manifestations of religious zeal are "not really true religion". Which is rather naive, because religion does not exist and has never existed in a vacuum. Your thoughts?
Well, if we're to look more closely at the history and the canons of the major religions (especially the Abrahamic ones), we'd notice that violence is actually a central part of religion - because, being a set of rules governing a particular community of people, religions inevitably tend to come across external rivals/enemies (note: the concept of "infidels/heathens" that permeates Abrahamic religions), which they often have to deal with the "hard way". Respectively, they tend to infuse the notion that using violence to deal with rivals and external threats is justifiable, as long as it's done for the good of the particular religion itself, and for protecting the community.
True, while some religions may've made violence for expansionist/conversion/imperialist purposes unjustifiable according to their original canon, and others have explicitly made expansion and conversion by the sword a central tenet of their doctrine, in reality history shows that the former have adopted that aspect of the latter just as easily and soon after their inception.
The "loving thy neighbor" principle does seem to be inherent to religions that claim to govern ethics, hence the notion that religion is non-violent and respectful to the next human being, therefore inherently good. That's a humanist view that may've been ascribed to religions from a more recent, modernist/humanist standpoint, whereas most mainstream religions, having been used by the governing authorities as a natural tool for societal control, have embraced institutionalized oppression as a norm rather than an exception almost from the beginning. Power does corrupt indeed, as innumerable examples in that respect seem to suggest - and religion is often used as a tool to justify the treating of fellow humans as inferiors, a pattern which gradually tends to be codified into canon.
We've been hearing comparative arguments lately that "this religion is violent and ours is not", but that rather reveals a short-sightedness and short memory span, as the history of Christianity for example shows that this religion has also gone through similar phases of development to the ones that Islam is passing as we speak - and violence has been an inseparable part of that process.
Granted, the social construct of religion does tend to assume the narrative that said religion is non-violent - and yet, when pressed against a wall and put in dire circumstances, when facing a threat, it inevitably turns to violence to protect itself, or sustain its expansion. And thus, a problem emerges when we try to justify the "freedom of religion" for its own sake, whereas religion has an inherently violent side to itself, and should therefore probably be treated as a potential source of societal disruption rather than bringer of social coherence. The thing is, we're prone to stop tolerating violence only as long as we're not in control of it. Once we've made sure we can direct it and manage it, it ceases being such a morality-eroding factor. So the narrative is conveniently pushed forward that the violent manifestations of religious zeal are "not really true religion". Which is rather naive, because religion does not exist and has never existed in a vacuum. Your thoughts?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2/6/15 14:32 (UTC)Which I hope, in itself, is not enough to undermine your thesis.
(no subject)
Date: 2/6/15 21:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/6/15 22:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/6/15 14:49 (UTC)Reminds me of the rationalist argument that not all opinions are necessarily equally valid, and not every viewpoint deserves the same credence and respect as the next one.
I liked this overview.
(no subject)
Date: 2/6/15 14:52 (UTC)Case in point: proxy warfare; propping up violent oppressive regimes because they're friendly and beneficial to us; and treating non-manned air strikes on vague targets conducted from a safe distance as something good, which we tolerate for the sake of "freedom".
(no subject)
Date: 2/6/15 16:03 (UTC)I think that, ultimately, religion is neither inherently violent, nor pacifist. Neither is "true religion," yet both are, because ultimately religion is a reflection of humanity. You reference religion not existing in a vacuum; that implied context is human nature, politics, and interaction. So long as there has been a question of "who gets what, when, and how" combined with the limitations of Dunbar's Number (assuming that really holds any scientific validity) we are going to find excuses to be tribal, exclusionary, and violent towards those we want to exploit, blame, or remove. Religion makes for a convenient vehicle with which to express these conflicts; the unthinking obedience and condemnation of critical thinking that many religions insist on makes religion a fertile ground for this kind of abuse. Still, I think we are sometimes too quick to point to religion as a culprit when in reality I think it's a deeper problem than that. Religion is just a symptom, and while a decline in religious affiliation (combined with an increase in education that develops critical thinking) does seem to have a positive impact, I think that decline in religion speaks to the evolution of our society. The two things seem to go hand in hand. I won't outright absolve religion of responsibility, but I can't outright condemn it either.
That doesn't mean I don't think religious speech that preaches against human rights should not be spoken against, or religious action that violates human rights shouldn't be fought vigorously. But even as an "angry atheist" who is routinely outraged by religious abuses around the world, I still can't help but think it's more complicated than just saying, as Hitchens did, "religion poisons everything."
(Side note: re: "''freedom of religion' for its own sake." I am often frustrated by those who use "freedom of religion" as a cudgel with which to bludgeon those on the other side of any debate. Still, I can't find myself lamenting the ideal there, because we've seen historically what happens when religion is not free. The freedom of belief is what guarantees the freedom not to believe. I know other places in the world hold different ideals, but if there's any one freedom (apart from freedom of speech) that I truly think my predecessors were right to enshrine in a founding document, it's the free exercise of religion, along with prohibition of state establishment of the same. It certainly causes its own problems, but I think those are far preferable to the alternative.)
(no subject)
Date: 2/6/15 19:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/6/15 20:17 (UTC)The free exercise of religion was perfectly fine during prohibition regarding wine.. Alcoholic beverages for medicinal and sacramental use were exempt under the Volstead Act.* Polygamy being dropped from Mormonism regarding Utah's organizing as a territory and subsequent admission as a state, is a more interesting and compelling American example,
-------------------------------------
* http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1927/what-did-the-catholic-church-use-for-altar-wine-during-prohibition
(no subject)
Date: 2/6/15 22:09 (UTC)And you are right about Mormonism.
I've just opened a distillery bottle of Ardbeg Perpetuum and am not fit for further discourse.
(no subject)
Date: 3/6/15 23:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/6/15 17:13 (UTC)Who says "Religion is inherently non-violent?" Plenty of folks say, "My religion is inherently non-violent." or "This class of religions are less violent than this other class of religions." Then it would be up to us to judge those specific claims based on the evidence and reason.
What does inherent mean, anyway? Inherent to a specific religious text? Inherent to a certain philosophical or theological argument? Inherent to a specific set of religious practices? Inherent to a specific way that believers behave in a given circumstance?
What does violent or non-violent mean? Is defense of the weak violence? Is the administration of justice violence? Is allowing violence in the name of pacifism truly non-violence? If you have one man who pushes an old woman in front of a bus and kills her and you have another man who pushes an old lady out of way of bus and saves her life you cannot simply describe both men as being the sort of guys who push old ladies.** So, you cannot say that violence, or non-violence is, itself, a marker for anything without giving it a larger context.
It seems to me that to say "relgion is inhernetly non-violent" is as ridiculous as saying "humanity is inhernetly non-violent." Of course, humans are violent. But that means, it seems to me, that saying "religion is inhernently violent," is just a way of saying "humanity is inherently violent" at one remove. If people are fallen, crooked timber, then it seems to me natural that what they develop, be it religion, culture, philosophy or government will be built from the same crooked timbers and be expressions of humanities inherent nature. Paging St. Augustine.
**Somebody famous said this, and I can't for the life of me remember who. Churchill? Chesterton? Mark Twain? Anyway, my google-fu has failed me.
(no subject)
Date: 3/6/15 23:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/6/15 19:02 (UTC)-- William F. Buckley.
(no subject)
Date: 2/6/15 20:12 (UTC)It may not be fair, but Islam is on a different timetable than Christianity was. Our 10g internet connections let us know Muslims on the other side of the world have cut a head off before the head has even hit the ground.
Christians a thousand years ago could go on violent rampage, but if you weren't right in the middle of it, or a carrier pigeon didn't accidently drop a rock with a painting of the atrocities on your head - you probably never found out about it.
'This group got to be assholes for so long, so now we have to let this group be assholes for so long' isn't a productive approach to achieving world peace - I'd say it's going in the opposite direction.
(no subject)
Date: 2/6/15 21:26 (UTC)(in before you are called an islamophobe)
(no subject)
Date: 2/6/15 22:28 (UTC)If the atheists have a more reasonable set of values than the religious types, isn't it time we dispensed with the notion that our religions have anything to do with a transcendental supreme being, and are instead a mirror to ourselves, with all of our prejudices and stupidness magnified..."This be the verse", said the poet Larkin. For mum and dad, read religion and religious texts: it doesn't scan the same, and the metre is all over the place, nevertheless it has meaning.
(no subject)
Date: 2/6/15 22:46 (UTC)I have to admit I'm not sure if it's me or the "distillery bottle of Ardbeg Perpetuum" but I didn't really understand your second.
Of course that is partially due to the fact I cannot accept the premise of the first sentence. Could a link to the "verse" help?
(no subject)
Date: 3/6/15 14:35 (UTC)Having had a Catholic education, I find it easy to make the substitution. But I guess not everyone feels the same.
(no subject)
Date: 3/6/15 23:16 (UTC)I would contend that the progroms undertaken by the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were as much a product of "Secularism" as the Spanish inquisition and countless Muslim Intifadas were/are products of "religion". That said, I think that Oportet raises an excellent point about different groups being on a "different timetable".
(no subject)
Date: 4/6/15 08:16 (UTC)However, if one includes the religious wars, and includes the reformation and counter-reformation struggles, as well as the sectarian problems derived from such things, I imagine the balance would be different.
As for the different timetable...well maybe. Excepting that at one time, Islam as a whole, for example, was much more enlightened than any variety of Christianity.
The problem is militant fundamentalism as an expression of religion, rather than religious belief in itself. I have no objection to my children being brought up in the Church of England in its modern form. But the CoE isn't really fundamentalist in any way, and regards women and gay folk as being full members of its congregation, worthy of both worshipping and administering worship.
As for the rest...well, the Human Rights we all think of as inalienable weren't actually drawn up or defined by religions: it took non religious supra-national organisations to delineate and define them. And those notions of Human Rights specifically exclude things which religions have accepted, like slavery, and equal rights for gay folk and women. Secular values and religious ones do not always match, and sometimes the secular values are both more humane and decent. And when that happens, I think the folk espousing religious values have to rethink.
(no subject)
Date: 4/6/15 09:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/15 09:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/15 10:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/15 11:19 (UTC)More reasonable even, given that women, gay folk, and potential slaves rather outnumber the "religiously enfranchised"?
(no subject)
Date: 5/6/15 08:00 (UTC)I think you are dramatically underestimating the ranks of the "religiously enfranchised" and their allure/hold. Have you not heard of “the hand that rocks the cradle”?
It seems rather arrogant to assume that we will be greeted as liberators. As far as the rest of the world is concerned westerners are fucking weird (http://www.psmag.com/books-and-culture/joe-henrich-weird-ultimatum-game-shaking-up-psychology-economics-53135).
(no subject)
Date: 3/6/15 02:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/15 05:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/15 23:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/15 23:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/15 23:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/15 23:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/15 23:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/15 23:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/15 23:56 (UTC)To elaborate on my previous comment; A strictly enforced "Freedom from religion" would necessarily encompass any public expression of said religion. No yarmulkes or headscarves. No fasting for Lent or Ramadan. and God forbid (irony intended) that someone build a church/temple/mosque or attach their religion to any other public venture.
(no subject)
Date: 4/6/15 06:51 (UTC)Edited to add link
(no subject)
Date: 8/6/15 11:39 (UTC)The city of Milford had a ordnance that allowed public buildings and spaces (such as a school auditorium) to be reserved or rented out for use by the public. Good News Club was denied the use of such spaces on the basis of their being a religious organization. They successfully argued that this constituted religious discrimination. The city of Milford argued in their defense that the establishment clause barred religious activity on public property.
A public fora is by definition public. If you tell people to keep out it's not really public is it?
(no subject)
Date: 8/6/15 13:30 (UTC)I brought it up because you claimed that "freedom from religion" requires the restriction of public displays of religion was a straw man. An assertion that Milford's choice of defense soundly refutes
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 3/6/15 07:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/15 09:44 (UTC)A. violent, controlling, and capricious
B. ?
C. less violent, less controlling, less capricious
I'm more prepared to believe that there is no progression, and the differences in levels of violence, and the level of internal and external strife, is a matter of other forces.
A thought exercise: What would happen if you took every Christian in the United States and swapped them for a Muslim in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, or Pakistan? Change nothing else but the land they own.
What would happen to all those devout Christians, if a small set of Christian families owned the bits of land that erupt an inexhaustible supply of money, and all the other Christian families got miles and miles of dry rocky earth and sand instead? What if the families sitting on the money claimed it was theirs by divine right - because they were the most devout Christians? Now crank the clock forward almost 100 years. What "phase" would Christianity be in?
(no subject)
Date: 3/6/15 10:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/15 19:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/15 23:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/15 23:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/15 23:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/15 03:05 (UTC)