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?

[marco]

We, the USA, are just bombing and killing the people without any declaration of war, and we are not even attacking the Syrian government as we are just murdering civilians.

Well if that's the case then the world is in a bad way. America has simply decided to go to the Middle East, as on a rabbit shoot, specifically to kill civilians? That is truly shocking.

The only hope for ending the violent hostilities would be for the USA to get some religion and start following some simple commandments as like = Thou shalt not murder.

It is disturbing that USA governments seem to have been ignorant of this simple moral principle. It must be hell to live in godless American cities. Perhaps the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah awaits.

I agree we should have left the hell alone that is Christ's old stamping ground - the land he visited to bring peace and happiness and redemption and love and kindness and mercy. Saddam and Gaddafi may have been bad; what resulted is worse. But I understand that ignoring a problem does not remove it. Your suggestion that we give everyone a copy of the Bible would be interesting, especially in areas that read the Koran.

You (marco) declare above without shame that you want to eliminate the religions - which is the same long old call of the brutes throughout human history.

It was that same mentality which put Jesus on a crucifixion, that fed Christians to the lions, which sent Jews into the gas chambers, and that now makes war against the religion of Islam.

At least I am not being accused of murder, I suppose. What my words meant is it would be best if there were no conflicting religions whence come wars. I am not suggesting for a moment the "elimination" of people, just the removal of superstition by education not by guns or gas. Nobody is making war against Muslims, per se, except Muslims themselves. In the mess, where Allah is great and Jesus and Yahweh not so much, Christians, Jews and atheists are killed. It is rather mischievous to suggest America is making war on Islam and this mistaken view makes martyrs out of ignorant youths.

Have you any practical suggestions for ending the conflict, other than distributing bibles? Do you believe that America's removal from the area would eventually cause tulips to grow?

[JP Cusick]

Have you any practical suggestions for ending the conflict, other than distributing bibles? Do you believe that America's removal from the area would eventually cause tulips to grow?

The very best solution is the one we hear about so often and our government refuses to allow, which is to let the Muslims create a Caliphate as their right and we need to stop fighting this.

In the religion of Islam the creation of a Caliphate is the built in way of Islam, and the only thing to stop it is the continual brute force of military intervention forever.

If we pull out of Afghanistan then our puppet gov will rightly fall and the people will create a new Islamic government, same in Iraq when we pull out then our puppet gov there will quickly be uprooted and a new Islamic gov installed - and rightfully so.

It is their Country, their land, their people, their choice, and none of our business.

Plus a Caliphate would create peace, and it would give both us and them a true authority in order to work out any problems or disputes.

And the Muslims would submit to peace from a Caliphate - but never to the Christian infidels masquerading as a secular USA.

[marco]

The very best solution is the one we hear about so often and our government refuses to allow, which is to let the Muslims create a Caliphate as their right and we need to stop fighting this.

]

"The Muslims" are not a homogeneous group of Caliphate-desiring pacifists. Sunnis, who are proposing and disposing at present, kill Shi'ites, which rather irritates Iran. Meanwhile, any infidel Christians can be decapitated to let the pious internecine strife continue and Israel can eventually be bulldozed into Gehenna.

And the Muslims would submit to peace from a Caliphate - but never to the Christian infidels masquerading as a secular USA.

Again you are regarding Muslims as a group of similarly minded souls. They are not. The big question is not their "submission" but what further advances they would want to make to ensure their Caliphate is universal. Islam has a big appetite.

I think the worthy Caliph would see it as his remit to extend his control to Spain, France and Europe as a whole. Would America - then - feel disposed to intervene? Naivety isn't a useful engine for survival.

[JP Cusick]

"The Muslims" are not a homogeneous group of Caliphate-desiring pacifists. Sunnis, who are proposing and disposing at present, kill Shi'ites, which rather irritates Iran. Meanwhile, any infidel Christians can be decapitated to let the pious internecine strife continue and Israel can eventually be bulldozed into Gehenna.

I do not see any of that propaganda to be justification for the USA to be involved in the Syrian civil war.

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.

Again you are regarding Muslims as a group of similarly minded souls. They are not. The big question is not their "submission" but what further advances they would want to make to ensure their Caliphate is universal. Islam has a big appetite.

A Caliphate in that area would not thereby be a Caliphate for the entire Islamic world.

But yes a universal Caliphate would still be the best ideal.

As to violent appetite then no one surpasses the blood lust of our own white race.

I think the worthy Caliph would see it as his remit to extend his control to Spain, France and Europe as a whole. Would America - then - feel disposed to intervene? Naivety isn't a useful engine for survival.

That is the same old infamous "Domino Theory" which has never been accurate or true.

And the domino theory has always been based on emotional fear and on politically driven prejudice.

I do not expect the USA to rise to the challenge this time either, as our imperialistic goals in the middle east are doomed to continue failing - and rightfully so.

[marco]

I do not see any of that propaganda to be justification for the USA to be involved in the Syrian civil war.

Nor do I. I haven't sought to justify interfering in Arabic strife. Live and let die, I would say.

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.

But yes a universal Caliphate would still be the best ideal.

But only if you are a caliph. I should imagine that many ladies would be upset when ordered to wander around in black tents, if that has not been their wont.

As to violent appetite then no one surpasses the blood lust of our own white race.

Hmmm ... I'm not sure that's true. The Apaches were notoriously cruel and there were people who ate other people. Today we have fathers who bury their daughters alive and mothers who allow their little girls to die in circumcision operations. I think Western people may have demonstrated savagery - Vikings, Huns, Vandals, Visigoths, Gauls, even Romans - but time has soothed the savage breast to a large extent. I think man is a cruel animal by nature.

I do not expect the USA to rise to the challenge this time either, as our imperialistic goals in the middle east are doomed to continue failing - and rightfully so.

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?

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.

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

Does the problem reside with values that belong to a barbaric age?

Perhaps I am a little unclear on the point you are trying to make. Are you saying b/c religious groups also existed during what can be described as a “barbaric age� they must have some residual barbaric tendencies? IOW, are you making the argument that evil or violence we see today from a religious group is probably due to the fact that the religion itself originated from a barbaric age?

I would describe today’s legality of abortion barbaric, even though the culture today did not originate from a barbaric age. The pro abortion groups of today do not have origins from a barbaric culture and yet it certainly can be argued that those who consider a certain class of people as an inconvenience and consider it the right of the stronger to silence the weaker is the mindset of a barbaric age. With this in mind, I’m not sure one can make the connection you may be trying to make with regards to religious groups.

I especially don’t think it is an argument that can be made because of how many examples there are of religious groups throughout history who have actually stepped up when injustice was seen and tried to use reason to fight our barbaric human nature.


You cite Christianity for example as having given us the crusades or the inquisition, but perhaps you forget just how uncivilized the world was prior to Christianity. Christians were often the witnesses to pagan cultures who were more than happy to watch their fellow men being thrown to the lions for sport. It was Christians who were on the forefront fighting for human rights, fighting to end slavery, fighting for the oppressed.

I understand all our despair with regards to terrorism, but I just don’t think their barbarianism stems from the age or roots of their religion. I think it simply stems from a bad/wrong religion. The further we drift from truth, we are capable of many evils we may have never thought possible.

Somehow we pulled ourselves away from Christian atrocities and, to some extent, saw sense in disregarding some of the darker Biblical passages, not before some innocent people were murdered just for being gay.

I think this statement is a straw man. We didn’t pull away from Christian atrocities; we pulled away from human being atrocities because we understood more fully what it means to be Christian. And which Christian Biblical passages have we pulled away from? All the passages are still in my Bible and continue to explain the history of man’s journey and with our new covenant with Christ.

Yes, innocent people may have been murdered for being gay. Innocent people were also murdered for being black, foreigners, weak, “feeble minded�, old, sick, etc. (and I am afraid this is often still the case today) But these weren’t due to Christian teachings, rather due to ignorant human beings. It would also be fair to say due to ignorant Christians who were unaware of Christian teachings.

In barbaric times people use to be killed for immorality. Religious and non religious groups killed or punished people for adultery, sodomy, stealing, heck even for simply disagreeing with whatever political party may have been in power at the time. Many towns had sodomy on the books as being illegal. To me, this indicates human beings got it wrong in the past with regards to how to handle immorality. Both religious and non religious are guilty of hatred, bigotry, and thinking violence or torture or even death are acceptable means of punishment. I like to think we know better today. It would be odd to believe however that it is the religious that have been holding mankind back from being more loving, understanding, charitable, civilized, etc. And even though it may have once been ok to stone someone for stealing or adultery or sodomy, we now recognize that is not the way to maintain order and justice. It isn’t that those things are not still wrong, it just means our ways of handling them have improved.

Or maybe I missed the point of your thread entirely

[marco]

Or maybe I missed the point of your thread entirely

Yes, I think you did. 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.

When we hear of yet another atrocity in a European city some blame America, social deprivation, warmongering in Afghanistan, poor education ..... when it seems obvious that motivation comes from strongly held belief.

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?

That is what I meant by asking whether religion was behind today's atrocities.

[bluethread]

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?

That is what I meant by asking whether religion was behind today's atrocities.

That passage is indeed problematic. However, it is pointed out that Avraham did not kill Yitschak and there is no other example of a command from Adonai for human sacrifice. In fact, human sacrifice is repeatedly criticized in the Tanach. Given the historical context, it might have been a "do you love me more than these" moment. Such sacrifices were done in other cultures of the time. It is possible that Adonai was testing Avraham to affirm that this was not just a verbal commitment on his part.

[marco]

That passage is indeed problematic........ It is possible that Adonai was testing Avraham to affirm that this was not just a verbal commitment on his part.

It may be problematic and I have heard various justifications for its inclusion but none that leaves Adonai with honour. For God to "test" when he knows the outcome is not a satisfactory explanation. The result of this story is that people can assume that God may, on occasions, ask them to kill not just enemies but their dearest.

The Koran of course has verses that seem to make it a duty to kill unbelievers, enemies of Allah. When the deed is done it is then appropriate to point out that Allah is great.

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

Yes, I think you did.

Sorry.

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.

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.

I think you need to be careful. I agree certain groups of Islam are teaching and inciting people to do horrendous things, but I guess I take offense that you think it fair to say it is the root of religion. Perhaps, what you should say is -- at the root of many of the terrorist atrocities we are seeing today is the root of certain groups within the Islamic religion or I might even be ok with you saying or is the root of the Islamic religion in general if in fact that seems to be proven to be true.

That is what I meant by asking whether religion was behind today's atrocities.

I understand, but still consider it too much of a generalization. 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?

For God to "test" when he knows the outcome is not a satisfactory explanation. The result of this story is that people can assume that God may, on occasions, ask them to kill not just enemies but their dearest.

But that isn’t the result. Like I said the majority of Judeo Christian groups do not believe that, so you can’t really say The story of Abraham may provoke terrorist acts anymore than you could say watching a certain video game may provoke terrorist acts just because some terrorist watched a video game and then committed a terrorist act.

Again, I think the problem lies more in the specific mindset/groupthink/worldview of a particular group rather than in the mindset/worldview of religion in general.

Not sure if I’m being clear . . .