Religous hate crime

Current issues and things in the news

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
QED
Prodigy
Posts: 3798
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:34 am
Location: UK

Religous hate crime

Post #1

Post by QED »

Why is it that the first fifteen minutes of the TV News every evening seems to have the thread of religiously motivated hate running through it?

Whether it's on the scale of problems in the middle-east or a single nut-case murdering people in London:
Paranoid schizophrenic Torto had a hate list of sinners and those that did not follow his Christian faith who he wanted to kill, including homosexuals, gender changing clinics, off licences and nightclubs.
Maybe I'm too mesmerized by the knowledge that one of his victims: Mr Hamidi, was an Afghan national who had managed to flee the Taliban seven years before his murder. It brought back memories of one of the victims of the London bombings who had also escaped from one pan only to find herself in a religiously motivated fire.

Obviously these individual tragedies pale into insignificance when considered against the widespread grief inflicted upon people who would much rather be allowed to live in peace the world over, but these coincidences really seem to hammer home the all-pervasive nature of divisions generated by different ideologies that claim different knowledge of the same God.

So to the question for debate: Considering the religious undercurrents shaping conflicts around the world today, Is religion an innocent practice that becomes subverted into destructiveness by factions who would use any excuse to impose their will, or is religion the root cause of conflict such that the evening news would be less unpleasant if religion lost its grip on people (regardless of how likely a prospect such a transformation might be).

User avatar
disbelief
Student
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:49 am
Location: Kentucky

Re: Religous hate crime

Post #2

Post by disbelief »

So to the question for debate: Considering the religious undercurrents shaping conflicts around the world today, Is religion an innocent practice that becomes subverted into destructiveness by factions who would use any excuse to impose their will, or is religion the root cause of conflict such that the evening news would be less unpleasant if religion lost its grip on people (regardless of how likely a prospect such a transformation might be).

I would say that while on the surface most religions are going to look harmless as though they love everyone and that their god is a god of peace and friendship the reality is going to quite the opposite. Reading the KJV bible shows many,many murders,rapes,child deaths,global killings on a scale unimaginable all done by a loving god. This loving god must be obeyed no matter what. It must be worshipped and all of its laws followed unquestioningly or else. Or else what? You will suffer a physical death and then you are to be punished in the "afterlife" for ever and ever. The god of the bible is angry,jealous,vengeful,hateful basically a unseen monster that must be appeased. The followers of this god will listen to this god because they fear the punishment. And where do these faithful good servants get their information from? Well it is not the god hot line or the god internet, they get it from the preacher who interprets the holy books. The interpretation of most holy books can be used for good or for evil and being that most human preachers want to retain their position of power they must have everyone to conform to their ideas of what the great god is and says. So in the early stages this god appears to be ok and loving but in reality this god hooks you with these things and then makes you to do things that in a rational frame of mind you may second guess but by this point in your religious walk rational thinking has left the building many years ago and you are left with only the fantastic belief system of a magical invisible god that no one has ever seen or spoken to directly outside of the make believe characters in a very old mistranslated work of fiction.
So at the end of the day religion is not good , does no good, and only seeks to feed the beast and keep itself and those in power in control of the subjugated sheep that will blindly follow the master over the cliff.

User avatar
Furrowed Brow
Site Supporter
Posts: 3720
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Here
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Post #3

Post by Furrowed Brow »

I don't think religion is the root. Group identity, identifying other groups as "outsiders", and seeing the outsiders as a threat to your own group identity is the root of conflict. By creating an enemy it is easier to mobilise people into action, and in so doing reinforce your own group identity.

The Nazis turned the Jews into a mythological threat, and the Slavs into sub humans, and thus made themselves a real threat to the both.

The disturbed and mentally ill may seen the world around them as threatening.

The US turned the communists into an evil force, and the Soviets repaid the compliment in kind. However they could just about live with one another at arms length.

And I think geographic distance is an important factor in nullifying material conflicts.

The West has intervened in other parts of the world for hundreds of years. We may no longer have our empires but we still export our Western values and expect other countries and cultures to see the sense in the reasonableness of our values. Values that can be the antithesis of those held by many cultures - We are the outsiders but don’t recognise it. Our values are a threat. And as a threat our existence strengthens the group identity of those who reject our values. Values that are non material, and are rejected through appeal to some "higher" non materiality. Religion reaches for ultimates, and thus anything less must be rejected; and hence the relioius group identity is perpetually reinforced and flattered.

I think religion has a mechanism for group identity is a powerful and intoxicating force. It allows a person or group to feel righteous. Feed that sense of riotousness into a group who for real or imagined feel threatened and the brew can be toxic. I think religion when feeding off a sense of threat or intrusion can raise the intensity of feeling and self justification to a whole different level. But religion is not the root I think. Just an ingredient. Though at times a toxic ingredient.

User avatar
Alamanach
Student
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:32 am

Re: Religous hate crime

Post #4

Post by Alamanach »

disbelief wrote:So at the end of the day religion is not good , does no good, and only seeks to feed the beast and keep itself and those in power in control of the subjugated sheep that will blindly follow the master over the cliff.
You raise some worthwhile points, but this last sentence is clearly an overstatement. There are more hospitals, charities, and service organizations in the world than we could count that have a foundation in some religion or other, and have service to all mankind as their mission. I doubt you could convince me they all do no good.

My daughter was born in a Catholic hospital that had a program for people (like us) who were poor and had no health insurance. We weren't Catholic, but that didn't matter; we were people in need of help. They helped, and they did it with out any evangelizing or expectation that they'd get some sort of commitment out of us beyond what we owed on our (remarkably small) bill. They did good, and my story is typical of what these groups usually do.


I'm with Furrowed Brow on this one. While it may be very tempting to claim that religion causes divisiveness, there are plenty of things beside religion that people also get divisive about; politics, ethnicity, intellectual debates, sports, and gang affiliation have all been known to get out of hand (some more violently than others). If people want to hate each other, religion becomes just another easy excuse.

User avatar
QED
Prodigy
Posts: 3798
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:34 am
Location: UK

Post #5

Post by QED »

Well, here's how I think religion could be a root cause: If we arrive at some belief as an article of faith in some revelation and not through the kind of reasoning that we can all share and confirm -- what can we do to uphold our ideology other than use some kind of force other than reason? Force such as coercion through "soft" threats (e.g. the threat of eternal damnation) or harder threats culminating in use use of physical might would seem to be the only options left.

It reminds me of a comedy sketch (Python maybe?) where a couple of classical philosophers resort to slugging it out with each other after exhausting their arguments for their own self-consistent but mutually exclusive arguments.

But it's certainly right to cite group identity as a component of hate crime. The spin-doctors of war have long since known that the most effective weapon against an enemy is its dehumanization. Any difference can serve this cause, but the more arbitrary the difference, the less necessity there is for it. With the increasing diffusion of populations beyond their natural geographical boundaries we may end up one day as one coffee-coloured race. I'd hate to think that the one remaining division would be religion.

User avatar
Alamanach
Student
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:32 am

Post #6

Post by Alamanach »

QED wrote:Well, here's how I think religion could be a root cause: If we arrive at some belief as an article of faith in some revelation and not through the kind of reasoning that we can all share and confirm -- what can we do to uphold our ideology other than use some kind of force other than reason? Force such as coercion through "soft" threats (e.g. the threat of eternal damnation) or harder threats culminating in use use of physical might would seem to be the only options left.
Why would such an ideology need to be upheld? If someone really has the truth, then so what if he can't convince others? Physicists, for example, know all kinds of genuinely important (but incredibly arcane) stuff that most other people will never begin to understand because the math is so out of reach. As far as all non-physicists are concerned, this knowledge may as well have come through divine revelation; certainly it is not something the non-physicists can share and confirm. Yet physicists don't seem to have a special propensity for coercion or violence.

I don't see how the monopoly on truth that you are describing would be sufficient, all on its own, to cause the violent factionalization and soft threats that you are assigning to religion.

User avatar
disbelief
Student
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:49 am
Location: Kentucky

Re: Religous hate crime

Post #7

Post by disbelief »

You raise some worthwhile points, but this last sentence is clearly an overstatement. There are more hospitals, charities, and service organizations in the world than we could count that have a foundation in some religion or other, and have service to all mankind as their mission. I doubt you could convince me they all do no good.

I'm with Furrowed Brow on this one. While it may be very tempting to claim that religion causes divisiveness, there are plenty of things beside religion that people also get divisive about; politics, ethnicity, intellectual debates, sports, and gang affiliation have all been known to get out of hand (some more violently than others). If people want to hate each other, religion becomes just another easy excuse.
[/quote]

I am glad that the Catholic hospital was there for your family in your time of need. But, I wonder if the same amount of good they do today erases over 1,000 years of killing in the name of their god? I do not think given the history that this was an overstatement but I respect that you do and that this has struck a cord with you. I think that society can do more good if it wants to without the need of a god or in the name of a god.

I also understand how people can use something to justify anything and I can see how one with your experience would think that maybe religion has been or is currently being used in this way. For me the only teacher we have is history so I have to look at the history of things. Reading the bible has shown me that this god that is worshipped by these people is angry,hateful and full of wrath. I wonder why this being is like this toward something that he supposedly created. If this being created us and knows all things then surely this being knew how things would turn out. If knowing this this god still created us this way knowing how things would be he must be the most insane being in existence. Knowing how sinful we would be and then allowing us to be created so that he could punish us in life and then after death is truly the definition of a sadist. This religion teaches them that if people do not follow their beliefs they must be turned or killed. So why would I defend this religion in anyway? Plus please if any christian responds lets take the whole bible and not just a few nice words from the new testament.

User avatar
Alamanach
Student
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:32 am

Re: Religous hate crime

Post #8

Post by Alamanach »

disbelief wrote:...I wonder if the same amount of good they do today erases over 1,000 years of killing in the name of their god? I do not think given the history that this was an overstatement but I respect that you do and that this has struck a cord with you...
What you'd originally said was that religion did no good, not that its good was outweighed by its bad. That religion does no good is, I think, demonstrably false.
disbelief wrote:...For me the only teacher we have is history so I have to look at the history of things...
Good idea. I have a history book right here...
Will Durant wrote: Excerpted from The Age of Faith by Will Durant, pages 77-79
(Durant here is speaking of the centuries following the fall of Rome.)

The outstanding moral distinction of the Church was her extensive provisions of charity. The pagan emperors had provided state funds for poor families, and pagan magnates had done something for their "clients" and the poor. But never had the world seen such a dispensation of alms as was now organized by the Church. She encouraged bequests to the poor, to be administered by her; some abuses and malversation crept in, but that the Church carried out her obligations abundantly is attested by the jealous emulation of Julian. She helped widows, orphans, the sick or infirm, prisoners, victims of natural catastrophes; and she frequently intervened to protect the lower orders from unusual exploitation or excessive taxation. In many cases priests, on attaining the episcopacy, gave all their property to the poor. Christian women like Fabiola, Paula, and Melania devoted fortunes to charitable work. Following the example of pagan valetudinaria, the Church or her rich laymen founded hospitals on a scale never known before. Basil established a famous hospital, and the first asylum for lepers, at Caesarea in Cappadocia. Xenodocia-- refuges for wayfarers-- rose along pilgrim routes; the Council of Nicea ordered that one should be provided in every city. Widows were enlisted to distribute charity, and found in this work a new significance for their lonely lives. Pagans admired the steadfastness of Christians in caring for the sick in cities stricken with famine or pestilence...

The basic cause of cultural retrogression was not Christianity but barbarism; not religion but war. The human innundation ruined or impoverished cities, monastaries, libraries, schools, and made impossible the life of the scholar or the scientist. Perhaps the destruction would have been worse had not the Church maintained some measure of order in a crumbling civilization. "Amid the agitations of the world," said Ambrose, "the Church remains unmoved; the waves cannot shake her. while around her everything is in horrible chaos, she offers to all the shipwrecked a tranquil port where they will find safety." And often it was so.

The Roman Empire had raised science, prosperity, and power to their ancient peaks. The decay of the Empire in the West, the growth of poverty and the spread of violence, necessitated some new ideal and hope to give men consolation in their suffering and courage in their toil: an age of power gave way to an age of faith. Not till wealth and pride should return in the Renaissance would reason reject faith, and abandon heaven for utopia. But if, thereafter, reason should fail, and science should find no answers, but should multiply knowledge and powers without improving conscience or purpose; if all utopias should collapse in the changeless abuse of the weak by the strong;then men would understand why once their ancestors, in the barbarism of those early Christian centuries, turned from science, knowledge, power, and pride, and took refuge for a thousand years in humble faith, hope, and charity.
I would hesitate to weigh the good of shepherding western civilization through her darkest period against the evil of wars and other forms of religion gone bad. If anyone knows a way to measure and compare the two, please let me know.

But at the same time, it may be a pointless exercise. Suppose we determine that religion on the whole causes mostly suffering and its teachings are morally deficient. Then what? Atheism? We can't turn to atheism just because we don't happen to like religion; that would be dumb. The question need to hinge on whether or not it is true. If religion were to turn out to be true, then we would have to accept it whether we agreed with it or not. If religion is not true, then we dismiss it out of hand, and its teachings are irrelevant.

User avatar
QED
Prodigy
Posts: 3798
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:34 am
Location: UK

Re: Religous hate crime

Post #9

Post by QED »

Alamanach wrote:Suppose we determine that religion on the whole causes mostly suffering and its teachings are morally deficient. Then what? Atheism? We can't turn to atheism just because we don't happen to like religion; that would be dumb.
Atheism isn't the only alternative (and I'm not sure it even exists in the sense you imply). Humanism springs to mind, but the point of principle that I am trying to establish is that religion is spoilt by it's adherence to a credo that is supposed to have been handed to man from a higher authority. If instead our credo is acknowledged as being man-made then we can "explain our workings" in a way that can't be done between different religious factions.

I'm sure that the spirit of charity that does good in the world can operate just as effectively when conducted under a man-made manifesto.
Alamanach wrote:The question need to hinge on whether or not it is true. If religion were to turn out to be true, then we would have to accept it whether we agreed with it or not. If religion is not true, then we dismiss it out of hand, and its teachings are irrelevant.
But after several millennia of debate and enquiry we still can't establish the truth of any of the world's religions. And if we study the Cosmological Anthropic Principle we can partly see why: there is a fundamental ambiguity due to the limits of our knowledge imposed by our relativistic isolation from the full extent of the universe. I mention this particular reason because I suspect that a great deal of religious faith is motivated by a basic misconception about our existence.

User avatar
Alamanach
Student
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:32 am

Re: Religous hate crime

Post #10

Post by Alamanach »

What misconception is that? Are you saying that religious faith is based on an assumption of knowledge more comprehensive than we are actually able to possess?

Post Reply