Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Willfor]

I didn't say don't discuss it. That would be silly, yes. I said that three page tangents of "Man, those religious people are weird and I dislike religion anyway," should stop. Feelings about religion in general don't enter into this, do they? If they figure in here somewhere, I'd like to know how.

Go right ahead and say that these people are nuts, but I'm seeing several pieces of derail here that could be in a separate thread instead of a pure discussion of only the people who are literally crucifying people.

[SalmonGod]

Yes, Buddhism is quite possibly the most violent thing in the world.

This is basically the second time in about three days that I've seen a circlejerk about the dislike of religion by many vocal posters (many of whom are the same in both cases) in two separate threads that I follow. There may be more. And while you're perfectly entitled to debate the topic, I would ask that you take it to a separate topic where it can be encapsulated so that I don't get tempted to weigh in here. I'm trying my very best to, and failing as you can see from the very first line of this post.

I know others are expressing their distaste for religion.  Just want to make sure you know I've said no such thing.  My post was purely in regard to religiously-motivated violence.

[Helgoland]

Both Christianity and Islam are very clear on the point that non-adherents are The Enemy and must be destroyed, even if most of their followers do not actually engage in this.

I'd disagree with that very strongly. There's passages in the Koran that literally command Muslim rulers not to violently convert non-believers living under their rule.
And yeah, 'tis a circlejerk, and not exactly an original one. And 'hurr durr durr religion iz so dumb!!!1!! EUPHORIC' is not related to the topic at hand, either.
/rant

Ontopic: My explanation of religious violence is that at some point group dynamics kick in. You get group-based stereotypes, group-based mistrust, and when you hear that one heathen from three streets over hit your local holy man... You got a riot. It's exactly the same pattern that explains ethnicity-based or even soccer allegiance-based violence.

TL;DR: It's not about religion, it's about the others being a group of people distinct from your group of people.

[Willfor]

I probably shouldn't have said anything at all. I'm just a little on edge from having held my tongue in the sad thread's seven page funfest, and I started to see some of the same things here. Sorry.

[Descan]

I never really got into my religion-hate here, but... I DO dislike it, I think it's all hogwash and should be burned in the cleansing fires of Rationalism, and stick their bloody books into fiction where it belongs.

But even I can acknowledge that that's not really important here, I was only discussing a possible mechanism for why what SalmonGod noticed  happens (throwing you under the bus here, babe <3). And I can acknowledge that there is a functional difference between extremism and moderate religion. While I think it's cracked to even color your reflections and morality with books that say such like "Put the infidel to the sword!" "Slave, listen to your masters, even when they beat you!", and full of genocide, rape, and just stupid shit / non-facts like talking donkeys, Genesis, and cursing a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season, there's still a difference between colouring and literally lifting your morality from such a book.

[XXSockXX]

Anyways, there seems to be an alliance between the very secular remnants of the Iraqi Baath party with ISIS, based on the fact that they both hate the Shia-dominated government.
There are both Sunni and Shia Kurds, but their agenda is mostly ethnicity based.
There are many factors and groups at play in Iraq, even the Shia Muslims there are not united really, except in their struggle against ISIS.

[SalmonGod]

TL;DR: It's not about religion, it's about the others being a group of people distinct from your group of people.

Yeah, I'm aware of this.  This is exactly why I'm not anti-religious.  I know that religion is just used as a vehicle for this thing that non-religious people still find other ways and excuses to express.

But the thing about it in the case of religion is there's an especially contradictory element that I don't understand how people work around.  Their actions are of a devoted nature from their perspective, but directly contradict that devotion.  And these behaviors are calculated and persist over long term, where I'd expect such contradictions to eventually be realized.

I understand that it's a mess of emotions and instincts and mental gymnastics, but trying to understand exactly how those things work is an obsession of mine that's not limited to the subject at hand.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Both Christianity and Islam are very clear on the point that non-adherents are The Enemy and must be destroyed, even if most of their followers do not actually engage in this.

I'd disagree with that very strongly. There's passages in the Koran that literally command Muslim rulers not to violently convert non-believers living under their rule.
And yeah, 'tis a circlejerk, and not exactly an original one. And 'hurr durr durr religion iz so dumb!!!1!! EUPHORIC' is not related to the topic at hand, either.
/rant

It also commands Muslim rulers do do just about everything but "convert or die". Heavy taxation of non-adherents, mandatory execution for apostates, one-way marriages and child identity for becoming Muslims, the list goes on. And during actual warfare? Then convert or die is sometimes the order of the day. It is every social structure possible to ensure its survival over other groups, through violence if necessary.

You aren't going to dissuade me from what I know by comparing me to r/atheism. It didn't work before and it won't work now.

[Helgoland]

You aren't going to dissuade me from what I know

Bring on the quotes, then! From the Koran, preferrably - crazy scholars don't count.

(Plus that r/atheism comparison was more about the general tone, not about the actual content - mostly a reminder to stay close to the subject, really.)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Muslim-dominant marriage structure:

O ye who believe! When there come to you believing women refugees, examine (and test) them: Allah knows best as to their Faith: if ye ascertain that they are Believers, then send them not back to the Unbelievers. They are not lawful (wives) for the Unbelievers, nor are the (Unbelievers) lawful (husbands) for them. But pay the Unbelievers what they have spent (on their dower), and there will be no blame on you if ye marry them on payment of their dower to them. But hold not to the guardianship of unbelieving women: ask for what ye have spent on their dowers, and let the (Unbelievers) ask for what they have spent (on the dowers of women who come over to you). Such is the command of Allah. He judges (with justice) between you. And Allah is Full of Knowledge and Wisdom. {Surah 60:10}

Tax Non-adherents:

009.029

YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

Killing Apostates:

Qur'an Surah 4. An-Nisa, Ayah 89

"They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-"

See Also: Islamic countries that currently kill apostates.

Could be better organized, but there you go. Islam is one of the most viciously defensive social structures in the world. Even educated followers are taught to kill to protect it, as that as what the texts say to do. Fortunately, most Muslims don't act like this, but with 2 billion followers plenty enough do that it is a problem.

[Helgoland]

'Muslim-dominant marriage structure' (it really just sounds like a disencouragment - not even a ban! - of intermarriage, seeing as how the infidels even get back the dowry, which was a very big deal back then), taxation of infidels (that's what this amounts to) and killing of apostates still differs quite a lot from

Both Christianity and Islam are very clear on the point that non-adherents are The Enemy and must be destroyed

, don't you think? And I'm not even pointing out the great amount of religious tolerance that infidels enjoyed in the Caliphates of the middle ages...

But wait - there's more!

Both Christianity and Islam are very clear on the point that non-adherents are The Enemy and must be destroyed

Surely you also have passages from the bible - New Testament, please, we're not talking about Judaism - to back that up!

[smjjames]

Well... They ARE subsuming themselves to a religious text. That's what extremism *is*, moderates have internal reflection colored by their Bible or Qu'ran or what have you. Extremists replace their internal reflection with what the Bible or Qu'ran tells them and what their Imams and pastors tell them the bible says.

This is especially relevant for Islam. Islam has no central authority, there used to be a weak one - the Caliphate - which lead to the Sunni/Shia split in the first place.
Islam is not homogenous at all, much less even than Protestantism in the US, so there is a lot of room for weird interpretation, mixing in local tribal traditions, ethnic conflicts and extremism.

Yes, Buddhism is quite possibly the most violent thing in the world.

Even Buddhism is not a great example of a peaceful religion, it's just that these days Buddhist violence is relatively limited to Burma.
I agree though that this doesn't need to become about religion in general, the Shia-Sunni conflict is very very relevant here, but it is not the only issue, there are also ethnic conflicts, arbitrary post-colonial borders and bad history at work here.

Speaking of arbritrary post colonial borders, theres the geometric borders of the middle east. Historically, the Iraq area was origionally split between three states. I think, according to some sources anyway.

[XXSockXX]

Historically, the Iraq area was origionally split between three states. I think, according to some sources anyway.

Not really. It was part of the Ottoman Empire until after WW1, when the British made it into a country under Sunni Arab rule (the Arabs had been their allies against the Ottomans), pretty much ignoring the various other ethnicities and the Shia majority. The area had been part (and sometimes center) of various empires since antiquity, but there is not much of a "naturally grown" national sentiment holding it together. The geometric borders are mostly due to uninhabited desert areas.

[LordSlowpoke]

yay iran yay

how come this wasn't here yet? it's two days old

[10ebbor10]

Iranian news and politicians are categorically denying that btw.

Link