Can virtually every religion justify the violence and vengeance we claim to disdain of the religions of others?

Yeah, they can.

“Those people weren’t following God’s will, so they deserved it.”

It’s not a good excuse, but it’s one they use.

Justify to themselves? People can justify anything to themselves, that doesn’t make it right or properly justified.

@zenvelo Obvously. But the US military is right wing and predominately Christian. We go to war with a similar attitude.

Religion fuelled hatred has been the default for donkey’s years, not going to stop any time…ever!

But surely just because that’s the way it has always been is a poor excuse for future behaviors

Most religions condone murder if the cause is right. That’s why army chaplains exist.

None of the various Gods take lightly to disrespect. They reek vengance on unbelievers through their followers.

@MadMadMax I guess I am not getting the thought behind your question. Are you saying it is okay, since it is done? I am just saying that it can be said that way, that doesn’t make it right.

And I don’t think the US military is quite as right wing as you state nor is it evangelical. Those just happen to be vocal elements of the military, and also those groups unquestioningly support the military (up to the point where they need monetary support).

National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of a real Christianity…. For their interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life… These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles! And I believe that if we should fail to follow these principles then we should to be able to point to our successes, for the result of our political battle is surely not unblest by God.

-Adolf Hitler, speech at Koblenz, to the Germans of the Saar, 26 Aug. 1934

The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc, because it recognized the Jews for what they were”.... I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the church and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions.

-Adolf Hitler, 26 April 1933, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall’s The Holy Reich]

So far as the Evangelical Confessions are concerned we are determined to put an end to existing divisions, which are concerned only with the forms of organization, and to create a single Evangelical Church for the whole Reich….

And we know that were the great German reformer [Martin Luther] with us to-day he would rejoice to be freed from the necessity of his own time and, like Ulrich von Hutten, his last prayer would be not for the Churches of the separate States: it would be of Germany that he would think and of the Evangelical Church of Germany.

-Adolf Hitler, in his Proclamation at the Parteitag at Nuremberg on 5 Sept. 1934
Inspired by Martin Luther’s book “On the Jews and their Lies”

When Luther turned his attention to the Jews, after he completed his translation of the Bible, he left behind “on the Jews and their Lies” for posterity.
Richard Steigmann-Gall’s The Holy Reich

Many people confess their amazement that Hitler preaches ideas which they have always held…. From the Middle Ages we can look to the same example in Martin Luther. What stirred in the soul and spirit of the German people of that time, finally found expression in his person, in his words and deeds.

-“Geist und Kampf” (speech), Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall’s The Holy Reich]

In the first ten sections The Jews and Their Lies, Luther expounds, at considerable length, upon his views concerning Jews and Judaism and how these compare against Christians and Christianity. Following this exposition, Section XI of the treatise Martiin Luther advises Christians to carry out seven remedial actions. These are -

for Jewish synagogues and schools to be burned to the ground, and the remnants buried out of sight;

for houses owned by Jews to be likewise razed, and the owners made to live in agricultural outbuildings;

for their religious writings to be taken away;

for rabbis to be forbidden to preach, and to be executed if they do;

for safe conduct on the roads to be abolished for Jews;

for usury to be prohibited, and for all silver and gold to be removed and “put aside for safekeeping”; and

for the Jewish population to be put to work as agricultural slave laborers.

^ Did you just enact Godwin’s Law on your own thread?

Actually I’m suggesting that religion, in general, tend to be the inspiration for domination and war. I could have used another example but this one lead strait to Martin Luther’s teachings.

I could just as easily address fundamentalist movements in the US or the Middle East – they all seem to favor vengeance and sadly persecution of one group of another.

Godwin’s Law is a excuse to prevent intellectual discussion and comparison with Nazi beliefs and contemporary movements. There should no reason to exclude that element of history unless there is a reason why it’s not preferable by some.

@flutherother “Most religions condone murder if the cause is right. That’s why army chaplains exist.”

A good point but imagine soldiers dieing in the field without the solace of a blessing to reassure them there really was something worth dieing for. I can’t imagine it.

Roman soldiers dieing in battle were reassured that as heroes they and their loved on would meet in Elysium and live through eternity in a paradise specifically for heroes.

Religion is a quick start guide for civilization:

Obviously some nations still need it.

@SecondHandStoke “Obviously some nations still need it.”

They don’t need it in reality. It is ingrained or even impossible to escape due to Theocratic governments—for example Saudi Arabia; but it’s not really needed, it’s a bad habit.

Or very convenient for control of a population. I’ve always been convinced most Theocratic leaders aren’t that foolish – it’s a tool.

They can’t, but they surly try to justify such!

The nature of the god man has created to follow is suffused with human weakness. It is the vengeance of this so called god that justifies such behavior in said followers. The bible has within it documentation of this god’s killing of 2, 821,364 beings out of rage, jealousy and vengeance. This includes men, women and children. Apparently there is no such thing as the innocence of childhood if the parents are not believers because thousand were ripped to pieces. The women were raped, denigrated, and beheld as mere tramps to do with what the men pleased, again in keeping with the will of their god.

The dagger of war, punishment and rage at the behest of the religious has plunged and ripped deeply into the collective unconscious of our species.

Oh, by the way, the total count of those killed at the hand of ‘Satan’: 10.

Yeah Skylight. As usual you understand the question and gave a wonderful answer.

I am so happy to see you!

Maxie

@MadMadMax

I meant more like: until reason starts to settle in.

@SecondHandStoke

Sadly I saw a great many more signs of reason back in the late 60’s and 70’s. Reason seems to be under attack today.

Reason is being rejected, and easy answers are favored.

I don’t think so – what about, say, Quakers? And Taoism?

@wildpotato The question used the word “Virtually” not all.

. virtually – in essence or effect but not in fact; “the strike virtually paralyzed the city”; “I’m virtually broke”
2. virtually – (of actions or states) slightly short of or not quite accomplished; all but; “the job is (just) about done”; “the baby was almost asleep when the alarm sounded”; “we’re almost finished”; “the car all but ran her down”; “he nearly fainted”; “talked for nigh onto 2 hours”; “the recording is well-nigh perfect”; “virtually all the parties signed the contract”; “I was near exhausted by the run”; “most everyone agrees”
almost, nearly, well-nigh, nigh, near, most, about

It seems to me that religions that are staunchly pacifist can be especially attractive to people with anger issues, maybe because they fear their own anger and hope that the religious practice will be the antidote.

My father in law is a Quaker—has been for decades—but he has a terrible temper. His foreign policy positions are staunchly pacifist, but he absolutely seethes with anger at his political and corporate enemies, frequently unloads (verbally) on his wife and others, and with just a little provocation will yell and shake his fist out the car window when he’s not even driving.

Closer to my own tradition, there’s an organization called the Buddhist Peace Fellowship that from what I’ve seen has a large number of pretty angry people.

Now, anger doesn’t equal violence. And certainly, there’s nothing in either Quaker or Buddhist beliefs that condones violence. But something happens whenever you set yourself against something, even against war. Whatever anger there may be simmering under the surface now has what looks like a legitimate target for expression: those who seem to be enemies of peace.

I don’t doubt that many or most Quakers and Buddhists engaged in peace work are truly peaceful people. It takes an extraordinary amount of self-awareness, though, to make a strong stand for peace without creating enemies in your own mind.

@thorninmud I am not convinced that’s not a generalization, however, I am a freethinker and I’m talking more about the fact that most regions tend to follow some ancient scriptures that are rife with horrendous violence and abuse and yet each points to the other as wrong, despised by God or gods or even inherently evil.
These can affect each’s interaction on the whole world level – not just individual anger.

Your post was an interesting observation. I have not seen this in the Quakers I’m known but obviously you have more experience dealing with them or perhaps individuals with problems

@MadMadMax I didn’t intend to generalize, which I tried to make clear in my last lines.

Isn’t it just a fact of human nature that whenever you place yourself in opposition to another group, that fosters violent feelings, if not outright violence? That holds for all our institutions: the military, of course, the political arena, the business world, sports…Each of these has provisions for venting that violent energy in socially acceptable ways.

What I was addressing was the subset of religions that say that violence really has no place at all, and my own observation was that even in that context. there can be an implied opposition that will still trigger strong feelings of animosity in anyone so predisposed. Belonging to a pacifist religion doesn’t mean that one is, by nature, a peaceable person. There seems to a fair number of people who look to traditions like these the way an alcoholic looks to AA. AA is organized around the principle of abstinence, but it attracts people for whom abstinence is difficult.

Then, of course, there are religions that draw clear battle lines and have canonical references to divinely sanctioned mayhem mixed right in with exhortations of tolerance and non-violence. If we’re to avoid generalization, then we have to acknowledge that the majority of the practitioners of even these religions choose to ignore the violent message in favor of the message of peace.

Granted that the minority who see their religion as a license to do violence are enough to screw things up on a global scale.

“Granted that the minority who see their religion as a license to do violence are enough to screw things up on a global scale.”

And there are so many. Within just Christianity there are so many and moving more toward behaving like the ones they despise. It’s very disturbing; especially if you live in a place that is rife with it and growing.

I guess I have had so many positive and supportive experiences with Quakers that your observation feels odd to me, but certainly my experiences don’t come from within and are, therefore, limited. I found Quakers to be accepting of the decisions of others, introspective and warm. I always enjoyed the experience of interacting with the local Friends Meetinghouse. The only thing I found impossible for myself was when I joined in “expectant waiting.”

They don’t really meditate as I “expected.”

I consider old books like the Bible as any art work: A snapshot of the artist’s perspective at the time of writing. I think the Bible writers believed their superstitions and personifications were accurate.

I would summarize it as this: They were all worshipers of Truth. They would look at how things turned out and then decree that it must be God’s will. Whatever the truth was, was the right thing and God’s doing. So, if they had a better war strategy it means God was on their side. If they had a bumper crop, it was God’s blessing. If they had disease, it was their failing to please God. They all worshiped fate and made superstitious appeals to get fate on their sides.

The brutal descriptions of the Samarian destruction is a comparison to the impartiality of fate. There’s no difference between a landslide or a holy war. If you die in a landslide, it must be God’s will. If you get raped and gutted in a war, it must be God’s will.

Fate/God wins every time: This is how the history book were written.

God Promised

With such regularity, it really should be the refrain of every national anthem, we hear something along these lines: ‘The land is rightfully ours. God promised it to us.’

Yeah well, God lies. Or at least he changes his mind.

Consider this: “And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying…’And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession.” It’s from Genesis 17:3,8. Genesis 13:15 and Exodus 32:13 say pretty much the same thing.

But check out Acts 7:5, which says “And he gave him none inheritance in it…yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him…”

Promises, promises, eh? But of course the retraction is in the New Testament, which isn’t recognized by those of the Jewish faith.

No matter, there are lots of lies and changing of God’s mind in the Old Testament:
-God said that Adam would die on the day he ate the apple (Gen 2:16,17), but he didn’t – read Gen 3:17 and Gen 5:3.

-Jehoiakim was told that he wouldn’t have a son (Jer 36:30), but he did – read 2Kings 24:6.
– God promised Jacob that he would return from Egypt (Gen 46:3,4), but he didn’t – he died in Egypt (Gen 49).

- Nebuchadnezzar was to have captured and destroyed Tyre (Ezek 26:3–5,7,10,13–14). He didn’t (surprise!) – Alexander the Great did.

- “‘I am merciful,’ saith the Lord, ‘and I will not keep anger for ever’” (Jer 3:12); “Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever” (Jer 17:4). Well, which is it?
– Israel shall rise again (Jer 31:4); Israel shall not rise again (Amos 5:2). She loves me, she loves me not.
– “They shall seek me early, but they shall not find me” (Prov 1:28); nope, I lied – “these that seek me early shall find me” (Prov 8:17).
– “Every living thing that liveth shall be meat for you” (Gen 9:3); wait, changed my mind – “these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud or of them that divide the cloven hoof” (Deut 14:7).

No need to go on, really. To start a war on the basis of what God said is about as ridiculous as you can get. It’s quite possible that he lied when he said the land was yours. It’s quite possible that he changed his mind. Give it up!

Don’t misunderstand. I’m not picking on Jews. I’m picking on anyone foolish enough to claim such supernatural support. ‘God said so’ is not exactly a strong premise for anything, let alone for going to war. ‘Whose God?’ is a reasonable response to such a claim. So is ‘Oh yeah? Prove it!’

For better or worse (and my vote is on worse), our society (well actually, the U.S., aka the U.N.) distinguishes between just and unjust wars. One of the criteria for a just war is that there must be a just cause, a valid reason that justifies the war. Isn’t it about time, then, that we consider all religious wars to be unjust wars?

http://www.pegtittle.com/god-promised.html#more-943

The justification of violence can be done in the name of any ideology or cause. The shooting of East Germans trying to flee to West Germany was done to protect the socialist paradise of world peace.

mattbrowne: Thats because of Russian or Lenin/Stalinist communism and that was a failure and very unusual. I don’t think that addresses the question.

Thank you for your input.. It is true.