Atrocities in the name of Religion - who is to blame?

[Gingerbread Man]

The debate question here has appeared many times before in religion debates, but (as far as I have seen) the discussion has been supressed due to being off-topic. It may be an old question, but, why not exhume it?

So I ask:
Is Christianity/Islam/whatever to blame for the atrocities people commited which were done in the name of that religion?

For example, in the past both christianity and islam have forced people to convert, sometimes to the point of death. To some extent, this still occurs. But are christians and muslims who weren't actually involved in what happened, responsible for the stains on their religion?

I guess the real question is, and what I would prefer people to debate, is Were the people who commited these crimes really following the law of their book, or were they simply finding an excuse to kill a lot of people?

 

[KaNick]

The leaders of those religions, or the ones who twist it to meet their own desires are the ones who are responsible. Most religions are beautiful things before humans get their hands on them.

 

[stormbind]

Bad education and an individual's greed are to blaim!

For example: Jesus said "those who live by the sword, die by the sword" and yet somehow the people of Europe were not told this when the Pope decided Crusades were a good idea!!

It's the same in most religious issues, though Islam appears to be the easiest to manipulate - it can be interpreted as peaceful and/or aggressive.

Satan-worshiping is the only true exception I know of. That is just pure nastiness.

 

[Stapel]

People are capable of believing the most ridiculous things. Whether it is conquering Jerusalem, burning 'witches', hunting down non-catholics, or mass-killing jews, gipsies or gays, doesn't matter. People, appearenlty, can be convinced they are doing the right thing, while committing terrible crimes.

It would be rather silly to blame christianity, islam or whatever ideology for it. What is to blame is the human capability of having FAITH.

People can have faith in the most cruel and horrible ideologies, both religious and non-religious ones. Or maybe they all are religious?

As to the question: Were the people who commited these crimes really following the law of their book?
There is no clear specific line in 'the book'. The book can be explained in a zillion ways. And this simply happens.

But that doesn't take away that 'the book' has inspired many to commit horrible atrocities.

 

[Gingerbread Man]

What about Jihad? I dont know enough about Islam and such, but what are the rules? If someone is physically threatening your religion, you take up the sword and lop off their heads? Or is it allowed for more suttle opposition, for example a group of (assumedly non-militant) missionaries?

In the former, Islam is innocent, because many times Jihad has been declared unnecessarily, and as a result completely innocent people have died. Somebody has just manipulated people via religion. (Or maybe the way the text is written simply incites the violence anyway?)
However, if it were the latter (that is, the non-militant missionaries) who is to blame? Is the entire belief structure immoral and wrong, because murder is a part of it, or is it simply the people who commited the violence?

Does anybody have some particular saucy quotes from religious texts, that encourage violence? Try and get a mix of quotes from the mainstream religions, along with other things like buhddism and hinduism (of which I SEVERELY DOUBT have violence in them).

(DISCLAIMER - all these questions are pot-stirrers, an dont necessarily represent my views.)

 

[Stapel]

The Koran is just as multi-interpretable as the bible. Some say the Jihad is the personal 'struggle' for seeking the true Allah, others say it is an armed struggle to kill non-believers.

 

[Gingerbread Man]

Originally posted by Stapel
As to the question: Were the people who commited these crimes really following the law of their book?
There is no clear specific line in 'the book'. The book can be explained in a zillion ways. And this simply happens.

But that doesn't take away that 'the book' has inspired many to commit horrible atrocities.

I thought 'the book' should be fairly clear cut. I mean, if a religious book is so un-interpretable that many different belief systems can be drawn from it, is it really clear enough?

I am a bit of a supporter of non-denominational christianity. I mean, come on, when did us (referring to me) christians stop calling ourselves straght 'christians' and started getting complicated which Church of England, Roman Catholic, Baptist, Anglican, Evangelical, Orthodox, Charismatic, Mormon/LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, Church of Christ, Uniting Church, Reformed church, Presbyterian, Amish, Bretheren, mennonite, pentecostal, methodist, apostolic, quakers, restoration, and science/churches. Some of the differences between these are arguable. Can at least most of these agree to some kind of basic (dare I say fundamental) belief that we all agree on? (maybe JWs and LDS, etc couldn't).

Because as we have all learnt from northern Ireland, denominations often lead to rivalry and violence. Yet another form of unintentional religious-incited violence.

 

[Karl Lenin]

Religions are to blame because of the "we are better than them and god is on our side"-sides they have.

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by Gingerbread Man

I thought 'the book' should be fairly clear cut. I mean, if a religious book is so un-interpretable that many different belief systems can be drawn from it, is it really clear enough?

I am a bit of a supporter of non-denominational christianity. I mean, come on, when did us (referring to me) christians stop calling ourselves straght 'christians' and started getting complicated which Church of England, Roman Catholic, Baptist, Anglican, Evangelical, Orthodox, Charismatic, Mormon/LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, Church of Christ, Uniting Church, Reformed church, Presbyterian, Amish, Bretheren, mennonite, pentecostal, methodist, apostolic, quakers, restoration, and science/churches. Some of the differences between these are arguable. Can at least most of these agree to some kind of basic (dare I say fundamental) belief that we all agree on? (maybe JWs and LDS, etc couldn't).

Because as we have all learnt from northern Ireland, denominations often lead to rivalry and violence. Yet another form of unintentional religious-incited violence.

Maybe 'the book' should be fairly clear cut, but it is not. As your post sows: there are many ways to explian the phenomenon. I am one of those people that think that 'the book', quite ovbviously, was written without any divine influence, and try to explain its existance by hostorical facts. This is easier than many think btw.

But, you make an interesting point, when refering to Northern Ireland.
I think that the violent Unionist and violent Republicans ovethere, hardly know a thing about the different interpretations of the bible by catholics and anglicans.
The rivalry and violance in Ulster are not caused by religion, but by the simple fact that the English succesfully conquered and settled the area. The catholic minority still feels they are Irish, and not British / English.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Christianity has its origins in the preachings of a passivist Galilean. The new testament says nothing positive about warfare. Islam has its origins in a series of "revelations" claimed by a 7th century Arab merchant turned warlord. Medieval christian violence has its origins in Roman theology and European/Germanic military culture. The Crusades were a reaction against the aggressiveness and "imperialism" of Islamic civilization. To a certain extent, the response was only natural. In fact, it is mirrored in India, where Islamic aggression has turned the polytheistic, traditional religion of the sub-continent into a militant movement capable of terrible violence. The societies of Europe and India, like any other society would, turned to and developed their own sources of cultural integrity to resist the encroachments of these outsiders. To blame either Christianity or Hinduism (or even Islam) for this is to totally misunderstand the cultural forces at work.

But generally, if you are a christian and believe in Holy War and witch burning, then you won't think there's anything wrong anyway. It is the same if you are a moslem and believe in Jihad.

And if you don't believe in those things, then why should you feel responsible for all those misguided people who do.

There is no way a Nestorian monk in the tropics of India should feel ashamed for the witch burnings of medieval Scotland. Why TF should he?

 

[smalltalk]

Scripture alone is not able to kill or hurt anybody.
(However, it might bore you to death.)


Words do not kill nobody.
Words might hurt.
But they don't do real physical harm to your limbs and vitals.

One might say, a crown of thornes hurts.
You might say, being whiplashed hurts.
You might say, it's the bullet that kills.
You might say, it is the fire, that consumes the witch.


But I say, it is the person who whips, that hurts.
It is the shootist, who kills.
And it's executor who sets the fire, that is finally responsible for the death of an innocent "witch".


Only the self-rightous believers are to blame.
People, which allow themselves to physically hurt others for their own believes.


***

A contemporary metaphor about religion:

If you fall for the marketing/advertisment sharks; if they trick you into buying a SUV, who is to blame? You or them?


***

GrandMasta Nick
Most religions are beautiful things before humans get their hands on them.

Well, I'd say, religions are revalations of tiny fractions of the eternal truth, that occured to some people and then was written onto paper by their hands. So religions are the works of people's minds and hands, inspired by the eternal universe/truth.

On the other hand, sometimes religions are the works of decievers.

The task at hand is to judge, which religion/believe/saying is true or probable or plausible.

stormbind
For example: Jesus said "those who live by the sword, die by the sword" and yet somehow the people of Europe were not told this when the Pope decided Crusades were a good idea!!

Completly agree.

I think, it is remarkable, that chinese thinkers have come to this conclusion also, abuot 400 BC.

Loa-Tse
What others teach, I also teach, that is:
"A violent man will die a violent death!"
This will be the essence of my teaching.

Gingerbread Man
Does anybody have some particular saucy quotes from religious texts, that encourage violence?

Here you are:

Exodus 32
#27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
#28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

 

[stormbind]

Jesus said that to insult someone is to murder their soul, because it prevents them from standing as an equal among peers and performing to their full potential. (or something to that effect)

Thus, words can cause harm.

 

[Smidlee]

Originally posted by Gingerbread Man




For example, in the past both christianity and islam have forced people to convert, sometimes to the point of death. To some extent, this still occurs. But are christians and muslims who weren't actually involved in what happened, responsible for the stains on their religion?

I guess the real question is, and what I would prefer people to debate, is Were the people who commited these crimes really following the law of their book, or were they simply finding an excuse to kill a lot of people? [/B]

I'm an American and I love my country even believe I die for it if it came down to it. BUT this doesn't mean I 100% agree everything my government does or involved in or just because they are Americans too doesn't mean we have the same values. the same goes with those in the church .In the Church there is the wheat and tares which God allows to be together until the harvest.
First it not possible to force anyone to be a true christian. ( the reason is ..)Second a christian doesn't live by law but by Grace. (Grace can't be forced)

 

[Shadylookin]

religion may be a catalyst, but ultimately it's the humans deed and therefore humans fault. don't know who said it but "a land where there are only 2 religions there will be constant fighting, but in a land of 40 of them there will be none)

 

[Bobo the Ape]

Were the people who commited these crimes really following the law of their book, or were they simply finding an excuse to kill a lot of people?

From what I've read of the major Western religions texts I'd have to go with b.

 

[cgannon64]

THE PERSON WHO COMMITS THE CRIME IS RESPONSIBLE.

That should be entirely obvious.

 

[CurtSibling]

The person who absolves and condones the criminal in the name of religion or faith is also to blame.

 

[privatehudson]

Depends really, as far as I'm concerned, both are to blame, the person for committing the act, and the religon for ambiguity on certain points. I don't consider ALL members of the religion responsible for the crimes committed, but would look into their response to it. For example, would those "innocents" be simply staying quiet, or would they preach against the move? Little is gained by those claiming innocence if they failed to oppose moves they saw as directly against their religion.

I personally think most of the religons screwed themselves royally by trying to lay down both rigid guidelines, and at the same time the book involved contains numerous examples of the deity allowing the rules to be broken. It leaves open the theory that if you believe, (or are persuaded) that your deity wants you to do something, it's simple to persuade yourself that the rules you would normally obey matter not in the slightest.

I take the line that morality should be a mix between conscience based on the situation faced, and direct consultation with "God" should it be possible. No book or teaching can possibly hope to cover all aspects of morality without contradicting itself or being open to interpretation. Therefore with such a system of relying on texts rather than say the gut feeling, there will always be problems.

Of course, my theory on such things is far from perfect, but I've never committed genocide

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

If they are following the dictates of the mainstream religious organization in their area, then of course that organization must share part of the blame! But not necessarily the whole religion.

Christians today aren't responsible for the Crusades. Muslims living in Cincinatti sure aren't responsible for terrorist bombings instigated by Al Qaeda and Wahabbists.

If people are going counter to the mainstream religious belief in their area then I can't see how religion could possibly be a factor

Tangentially, I would say that it's a whole lot easier to have faith in a stupid or atrocious idea than to try to support it with reason and logic. [there's a reason they call it "voodoo" economics ]

By the way, if we're talking about the violent births of faiths, than Judaism just has to top the list. Exactly how many tribes did we genocidally slaughter? I lost count a while ago. Yet Judaism is pretty darn peaceful today. Several Christian denominations also started violently, ie Mormonism and Lutheranism for example, although their founders didn't necessarily intend it. And the whole Christian movement was pretty violent through the first millenium - the Christians were the victims for the first two hundred years, and then went out and converted Gothic Europe by the sword. The feats of "Christians" like Clovis make pretty poor bedtime reading.

 

[Archer 007]

The person who commits the act is responable.