![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
luzribeiro.livejournal.comThere'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.
( Read more... )
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.
( Read more... )
