Is religion at the root of present day atrocities?

[marco]

In Manchester, England, we had a suicide bomber murder 22 people, many of them children. As usual the perpetrator was a Muslim and as usual we are reminded that Islam is a religion of peace. But it spawns people to murder innocent folk, usually with the pointless observation that Allah is great.

It is possible to leaf through the Koran and find verses that justify cruelty and we can also find verses that condemn it.

Is there an answer to this never ending circle of violence?
Does the problem reside with values that belong to a barbaric age?

[psychoslice]

In Manchester, England, we had a suicide bomber murder 22 people, many of them children. As usual the perpetrator was a Muslim and as usual we are reminded that Islam is a religion of peace. But it spawns people to murder innocent folk, usually with the pointless observation that Allah is great.

It is possible to leaf through the Koran and find verses that justify cruelty and we can also find verses that condemn it.

Is there an answer to this never ending circle of violence?
Does the problem reside with values that belong to a barbaric age?

If you have read the Koran you would know the answer, yes the Koran is full of violence, as also the bible, its just that the Christians don't follow the cruel god of their book no more, where as the Muslims do.

[marco]

[Replying to marco]

Christianity has largely discarded punishments prescribed in the OT but Islam still carries these out. The present day atrocities are done by people who seem to be religiously committed. Is it possible to read the Koran and then understand why people kill other people? I think it is.

Sorry, but I take a bit of offense at this response. First, Christianity has largely discarded punishments prescribed in the OT because we live in different times (and everyone religious and non religious disregard the kinds of punishments that cultures and societies use to engage in) not because those punishments are part of our Christian teaching and we aren’t as “religiously committed� to our religion as others. I like to think I am religiously committed – whatever that means.

We seem to be arguing at cross purposes. I am saying that what Christianity once did, and no longer does (except perhaps in Africa) Islam continues to do.

But to follow the point you are making: in 18th and 19th century Britain men were put to death for homosexuality done in private. The judgment was based on Biblical teaching. James 1, who authorised the translation of the Bible, accepted the injunction not to suffer a witch to live. And based on Biblical teaching, witches were killed. I am saying that for whatever reason most Christian societies have stopped killing but in Islamic countries girls today are still stoned to death, as God seems to have commanded. I have no idea where the offensive material is here.

If God asked a person to kill their son or daughter, would they do it? Abraham showed his willingness to oblige, so why wouldn't today's fiery youth follow the patriarch's example?

They wouldn’t or shouldn’t because that it isn’t what we are to take away from the story of God’s test to Abraham and the overwhelming majority of Judeo Christian groups get that. Guess Islam didn’t get the memo.

The memo was never issued. "Kill your son" is what was ordered and in any circumstances this is a wicked instruction. The end result is irrelevant. Most believers will take the story as indicating Abraham's complete submission, even to the extent of agreeing to murder his son. Lauding such mentality and servility is dangerous.

I think for Islamic terrorists, yes it is the root of their religion, but it seems wrong to say religion is at the root of Islamic terrorist acts, because it isn’t religion in general – it is religion specific – specifically their religion. Does that make sense?

My question is about today's atrocities and so Islam is the religion in question. Were I writing in the 16th or 17th century Christianity would be the culpable religion. In some backwaters, Christian governments still go by bible teaching in their brutal proscriptions but I was not addressing them.

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

But to follow the point you are making: in 18th and 19th century Britain men were put to death for homosexuality done in private. The judgment was based on Biblical teaching. James 1, who authorised the translation of the Bible, accepted the injunction not to suffer a witch to live. And based on Biblical teaching, witches were killed. I am saying that for whatever reason most Christian societies have stopped killing but in Islamic countries girls today are still stoned to death, as God seems to have commanded. I have no idea where the offensive material is here.

Because the ‘stoning to death’ verses are still in my Bible today as well as my Jewish brothers and sisters and yet we recognize those verses weren’t intended as license by God to stone people. The culture was a time of stoning people – not because it was commanded by God.

Also, many places punished homosexuality because 1- immorality was handled that way by both religious and non religious alike and 2- Both religious and non religious all knew and believed the wrongness of homosexual acts as violations of natural law.

The memo was never issued. "Kill your son" is what was ordered and in any circumstances this is a wicked instruction. The end result is irrelevant. Most believers will take the story as indicating Abraham's complete submission, even to the extent of agreeing to murder his son. Lauding such mentality and servility is dangerous.

Again, I disagree – because most believers do not kill their children because they think God tells them to so there is no argument to be made that servility is dangerous. Of course many non religious kill their children today via abortion and I suppose that is servility to the culture.

My question is about today's atrocities and so Islam is the religion in question. Were I writing in the 16th or 17th century Christianity would be the culpable religion. In some backwaters, Christian governments still go by bible teaching in their brutal proscriptions but I was not addressing them.

Fair enough, I guess, but still think you were generalizing about religion in general, suggesting religion is to blame for many atrocities that occur. Many atrocities occur because of a warped or misguided set of values – which can be religious or non religious. I’m just not sure it is a strong argument to say religion is the culprit of atrocities, when more often than not there are horrible atrocities committed with no religious roots?

[JP Cusick]

All I see you describing above is your own prejudice and religious bigotry against the people called Muslims, and that is the true root of the present day atrocities.

That is very honest of you to admit that this is all you see. My prejudice, I can assure you, had nothing to do with people going to war. The Muslims of the Middle East seem to manage hostilities without Marco's intrusions.

I do not see this as very honest of you, but I will clarify just for the record.

The atrocities committed in the Middle East (the Levant and beyond) are being done by the USA and Western allies based on the prejudice and religious bigotry against the people called Muslims.

I believe that I had that quite clear in the first place and yet your twist allows me to followup and make it more clear.

An imperialist goal is surely to increase one's imperium, or empire. Do you think that's what America is doing in the Middle East? America may not flow with milk and honey, but her stated aims are laudable, even if you think she does not always practise what she preaches. Do any of us?

You claim that the aims of the USA in the Middle East are laudable (deserving praise) and yet there are no stated aims or intentions except the vague war cry of our intention to win, win, win.

In Syria we are not fighting that government nor any gov, and we murder civilians where they do not even have the ability or option to surrender, and no one knows what is the intention of the USA except just to win, win, win, and the win is just against civilians defending their own home land.

If you or anyone thinks that the USA or Britain has some sensible or justifiable reason for being in Syria = then what is that reason?

Anyway, back to the OP.... those trying to kill us on planes, trains and buses or at busy street corners or in cafes seem consistently to attribute their deeds to the favour of Allah. You seem to take little notice of this amazing clue.

I do not see any complication with the Middle Eastern people striking back against their Western invaders.

The West could unilaterally stop the hostilities just by stopping our own hostilities.

People fighting under the name of their God and their religion is to be expected.

When Palestine was first overrun from 1917-1947 then it was Jewish terrorist, when occupying Ireland then it was Catholic terrorist, in India the terrorist were Hindu, and American invasion of Korea had Korean opposition, in Vietnam we had Vietnamese opposition, and now that we are invading Islamic Countries then it is Muslim resistance to our violent hostilities.

It just depends on whoever we attack as to who shall be fighting back.

[marco]

The atrocities committed in the Middle East are being done by the USA and Western allies based on the prejudice and religious bigotry against the people called Muslims.

This might be acceptable if you attach the phrase "in my opinion" to it. The hostilities have nothing to do with anti-Muslim feeling on the part of the USA or anybody else. And I have already told you that in the combat Muslims are killing Muslims. That does not fit in with your curious viewpoint.

no one knows what is the intention of the USA except just to win, win, win, and the win is just against civilians defending their own home land.

If you or anyone thinks that the USA or Britain has some sensible or justifiable reason for being in Syria = then what is that reason?

The casus belli was an insurrection against Assad, the Syrian President, which threatened disruption in the whole area NOT because some bad people disliked Muslims, as you contend, but because Saudi Arabia's brand of Islam opposes Iran's and Iran supports Assad. It was feared thousands would be slaughtered and so the West entered the conflict - unwisely, in my view. They did not enter with the intention of killing civilians, as you say, or wiping out Muslims, as you say.

I would have been happier had Saddam and Gaddafi, bad as they were, stayed put. And Assad should have been left to clear up the mess, though that would mean vast numbers being slaughtered. Those opposing him apparently were not averse to eating human flesh or killing children i.e. Muslims killing Muslim children.

The West could unilaterally stop the hostilities just by stopping our own hostilities.

In fine Hans Andersen tradition, yes. You have the mistaken idea that there are Muslims fighting for their homeland against the bad West, which hates them. I will say again: Muslims are killing Muslims. The war would go on happily without Western involvement. The pressing concern is with ISIS which, according to you, is just retaliating against Western hatred. Its total annihilation would be a worthy aim, and then perhaps American planes could go home and let Islam continue with its war.

[marco]

Again, I disagree – because most believers do not kill their children because they think God tells them to so there is no argument to be made that servility is dangerous.

Has someone made this preposterous suggestion that "most believers kill their kids at God's suggestion"? The point I made was that it is not possible to say to those who commit atrocities in God's name: "God would never ask you to kill." They can readily reply, "O, but he can."

Fair enough, I guess, but still think you were generalizing about religion in general, suggesting religion is to blame for many atrocities that occur.

And it was and it is. The Albigensian Crusade where people were massacred in France had overtly religious causes. But, as I said, Christians laid aside their savagery centuries ago. I am dealing with atrocities done in the name of Allah.

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

And it was and it is. The Albigensian Crusade where people were massacred in France had overtly religious causes. But, as I said, Christians laid aside their savagery centuries ago. I am dealing with atrocities done in the name of Allah.

Ok, my last comment, don’t think you’re getting it . . .

I believe these statements are more accurate then what you are saying . . .

Christians JUST LIKE non Christians laid aside their savagery centuries ago. And Religious JUST LIKE non religious laid aside their savagery centuries ago.

Christians and religious today JUST LIKE non religious commit savage atrocities.

The point is human beings have been guilty of committing savage atrocities for both religious and non religious reasons throughout history.

[JP Cusick]

The atrocities committed in the Middle East are being done by the USA and Western allies based on the prejudice and religious bigotry against the people called Muslims.

This might be acceptable if you attach the phrase "in my opinion" to it. The hostilities have nothing to do with anti-Muslim feeling on the part of the USA or anybody else. And I have already told you that in the combat Muslims are killing Muslims. That does not fit in with your curious viewpoint.

I see this thread as finished and complete for me.

I have religious commandments of truth and honesty which others do not adhere, and to them it is obviously just a competition of trying to win win win, and I am not competing.

As such - for the record = The topic question has already been decisively answered, and I stand by all my own comments as mine are accurate and mine are true, and for me this naive competition is finished.

[marco]

Christians and religious today JUST LIKE non religious commit savage atrocities.

The point is human beings have been guilty of committing savage atrocities for both religious and non religious reasons throughout history.

Humans do bad things. That is true.

Now, back to the OP - Is religion at the root of the killings we have seen in Paris, Brussels, Berlin, Manchester, London... ? The reason I ask is that invariably someone shouts something about Allah, who is a religious figure, so it might be possible to link these atrocities with religion. But perhaps I am reading too much into it and all we're witnessing is, as you say, a manifestation of the darker side of human nature while in other cities nice people are doing nice things.

.

[marco]

I have religious commandments of truth and honesty which others do not adhere, and to them it is obviously just a competition of trying to win win win, and I am not competing.

You are wise then to quit. Nobody likes losing an argument but it seems that you chose a particularly difficult topic to defend. Saying America is deliberately killing Muslim children is a hugely difficult proposition to defend. And you seem to have ignored altogether the significance of people shouting "Allah is great".

I'm not sure what your religious commandments of truth and honesty have to do with our discussion. Go well.