Speaking of different religious belief, it has become a rationale for terrorism, a way of justifying what is "right" and "wrong".
In the past 200 years, we have gone through 4 waves of terrorism and modelski. we started out with terrorism due to anarchists from 1880-1914, then moved on to nationalist and ideologists from 1920-1960 and 1960-1990 respectively. Finally, religious terrorism initiated after the 1990 and has become a transnational and comic one. The state is no longer the political arbiter, which in turn leads to larger and more violent acts of terrorism.
I can't say what's Al-Qaeda's ultimate motive, but his ideology is justified by his religious belief. He opposes all nations not governed to a particular interpretation of Islam and the US forces in the Middle East, therefore he "attack the enemies of God" in order to create a unified Muslim-state.
Though he might've used religion only as an excuse, but it's sure powerful enough to bring his people together and follow his lead.
So does religion advocate peace or war?
Posted in
Political,
Popular Posts,
Religion
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
23 comments:
Although all the major religions are anti-war in theory, the evidence seems to show that it's not quite true in practice. EfPanne, you forgot to mention the wars of the Christians, i.e. justifying invasion of whole countries in "retaliation" for a few slain missionaries in the 1800s and 1900s, and the recent Irish terrorism against the UK.
Although religion preaches peace, it also preaches a very intolerant and inflexible black and white view of Good vs. Evil. I think that is why religion ends up getting people into conflicts. Just look at George Bush and his so called "Axis of Evil," his "Crusade" against terrorism, and how he believes he's doing God's Will.
I'm not an expert on the history of missionaries, but I'm pretty sure something really insensitive along the lines of "You're going to Hell for worshiping your false idols!" is what got most of the missionaries killed.
I am going to have to side with the views of hotlikeatoaster and EfPanne here. Most religions advocate peace but most take a very aggressive stance on the way to spread their religion, which results in war. When I first arrived in America I was extremely annoyed by people who tried to push me to believe in their religion stating that "you will go to hell if you do not." If I were to join a religion it would be one that does not have followers walking door to door taking a hostile stance when they find out you are not one of them. They seem to have a very set of idea of "right" and "wrong". Instead of saying one's action is good or bad they define good or evil by your acceptance of their god. Religions like Hinduism, Confucianism, and Buddhism are peaceful religions (tell me if I’m wrong) because they judge by actions not by one’s acknowledgement of a certain divine being. If my experience with these invasive religions weren’t’t so negative then perhaps I would have joined one of them. Lastly I want to thank my friends for not pushing their religions on me.
it's ePfanne, not efPanne. though this is irrelevant...
mmm... in my opinion, a lot of these stereotypes of christians and other religions appear due to a handful of radicals or extremists that leave a huge (and possibly very negative)impression. I am a christian and I think there are a lot of misconceptions on these particular topics.
First, missionaries do not preach "You're going to Hell for worshiping your false idols!". I'm sure hotlikeatoaster was exaggerating. (Perhaps). But the missionaries I've known go out to other countries to help the local people that any secular person could do such as helping build houses and etc. The only difference is their motive. Missionaries do these good works in order to show God's love. May sound somewhat cliche but it is the truth. And many ... and i mean many villages or cities convert to christianity because they are curious about this God. Not because the missionary is telling them to convert or else they'll go to hell but rather, the missionary is doing so many things out of love.
Now for the christians in the US. Honestly, if any christian tells you you're going to hell if you do not believe in God as a way to introduce you to Christianity, he isn't ready to approach a non-christian. Not everyone is gifted in evangelizing to non-christians, but some christians believe it is required as receiving some favor from God. But this is far from the truth. True evangelism shows his/her own love for another first. After you establish a real relationship, then can you introduce some of the teachings of Christianity.
That's my 2 cents on this topic. I may post a more coherent thread later cuz that wasn't too clear. I dunno if this comment supported my viewpoint at all but I felt like I had to mention something.
PS - snakesaywhat... I dont think Christians really need to force religion on others. If christians show outwardly what they're suppose to... the non-believer will be the one to come to the Christian with questions. (usually)
Couple points on the article. One, I think 1990 is way too late a date to pick as the start for "transnational religious terrorism" (look at Munich olympics 1972 as one example). But I think the significant thing is that it is there. Two, more importantly, some people are evil. They just are. They just want the "other" people all to die so they can live their perfect lives. They have no ideas about coexistence. I think you present a lot of evidence early in your post to show that war and terrorism is not an exclusive practice of the religious (Fascism in World War 2, which led to the death of 72 million people, wasn't exactly a religious movement. Neither is anarchism). People are bad. Some use religion as their tool. If it wasn't there, they would find something else.
Fascism had many similarities to religion actually. Hitler was worshiped in very cult-like ways, and people pledged complete devotion to their leader in the same way that God-followers pledge complete and utter obedience to their God. I think that Hitler's followers did not believe they were committing "evil." Their hearts were good, and they thought they were acting for the betterment of their future and their children. I think they viewed genocide as a necessary task of cleansing and purification, much in the same way that we Americans view our prison system as a necessary cleansing and purification against 1% of our population.
It is pointless to say that religion starts wars. Religion does not start wars. People start wars. If religion is to blame for people who misuse it, then science is to blame for people who misuse it.
Fascism was actually an example of misapplication of science: take the pseudo science that Hitler used for the killing of the Jews. Eugenics is based on biology, just as extremism is based on a more moderate religious base. Both systems of thought can be exploited to justify anything.
The creation of "better" weapons pulls on the fields of chemistry, biology, and physics. It would be meaningless to say that science is the source of conflict; one might say that science is used in military operations, but science itself cannot act. It is the same with religion: one might use religion as a catalyst for conflict, but religion itself can create no conflict.
a.kim,
You state that the negative views are "due to a handful of radicals or extremists that leave a huge(and possibly very negative) impression." Are you sure it is just a handful? There are states that are trying to teach evolution in school! Where I live in Chicago there are a lot of people walking up and down the streets approaching people. There is more than just "a handful." Over the summer I was knocking on doors to sell paint jobs. I approached a house and I a man tells me to enter. I thought it was going to be a good lead but instead, he pulls out a bible and said some stuff that made me sound like a criminal because I don’t pray every night. Before I left he even handed a stack of pamphlets so I can “spread the love of God to my customers and friends in school.” I think that sounds more like a pushy businessman.
martias
When a piece of technology is created it can fuel wars, but it cannot start wars. A piece of technology can be used but it does not advocate anything. The creation of guns cannot start wars. A piece of technology can make wars more deadly, however the creation of it does not mean that it will be used for war.
On the other hand, some religions have war built into it. The creation of a religion and ideas can start wars. People can start wars because religions advocate them to, however weapons don’t people to start wars. Weapons are results of wars. So lets assume that religions are the cause of wars… lets draw a logic tree to this. Religion >> people >> war >> weapons/technology. Now let’s draw a logic tree with technology on top. Technology >> people >> war???? But this does not make any sense. We create technology because we need it, we don’t create the piece of technology with no purpose then use it. It not like some engineering decide to make guns for no reason, then some random guy sees the guns and said “o look, these things can fire bullets; lets use them to fight wars!!!” Technology/weapons must fall under wars in the logic tree. I am not saying that religions start wars, I’m just saying that your logic is wrong :p
A handful was just an expression to explain that its not a majority of christianity. I just said it because it was not being quite fair characterizing christianity on a minority.
I'm with Jake, you cannot compare religion to technology or any other tool. It's not a tool.
It's a mindset. It's a worldview, much like racism, bigotry, and hatred are worldviews. And like these worldviews, religions like Christianity divide humanity into two black and white groups with no gray areas. "Us" and "Them." "Saved" and "Damned." "Real Christians" and "Fake Christians and other Heathens/Devil-Worshipers." We must step over these artificial barriers that divide us if we ever want to achieve peace and equality.
Actually snakesaywhat, you side stepped my main point. By focusing on the logical inconsistencies of my minor point on technology (I accept your point about it being illogical) you never addressed the issue I brought up about science being used to fuel conflict. Eugenics was a form of twisted science, and was used as justification for the elimination of Jews. Extremism is a form of twisted religion that is used to justify hatred and war against other peoples.
hotliketoaster:
your point about divides suggest that religion is solely a source of division. I must disagree strongly with that idea. On the contrary, I would argue that religion is a source of unity. While there are certainly Christians who view the world in a binary way, one cannot argue that there are not irreligious people who are not the same. People are people. Divide does not arise from religion, but from people. I can follow the tenets of Protestant Christianity perfectly fine without dividing the world into such distinct categories.
I believe strongly that it is completely possible to have a peaceful and equal world without doing away with religion.
martias, as stated in my post "I’m just saying that your logic is wrong :p." I was not commenting on other topics.
I agreed with you that technology fuels wars. Eugenics are driven by the difference among people. They are not driven by technology/science, but you can say that they are driven by discovery.
Martias, it's a given that religion is a source of unity, because it divides people. It divides people into "Us" vs. "Them." Religion unifies and consolidates a group into a mindless mob, persecuting the minority. I fail to see why you consider this preferable. I don't see how this is good, because whenever you create an "Us" you create a "Them." A "them," who, through no fault of their own, are to be either feared, despised and hated, (or more euphemistically, to be cured, healed or rescued from Hell). For example, look at the way Christian Moral Majority despise homosexuals and women who forced to become pregnant because they were victims of rape and incest. Look at the Jim Crow laws in the past, in the so-called Bible Belt where religion is arguably much much stronger and the people are much more devout than in the North. Do you fail to see the connection between religion and intolerance???
You're wrong about people being naturally evil. There is no evidence to support that theory, except your Creation Myth in the Garden of Eden. Except there was no apple or tree of knowledge or Original Sin. The only trees are the ones we used to swing on. People are naturally good. People naturally want to help others in their community and help the world. The eugenics of Hitler that you speak of was good-hearted, but misguided. It was for the betterment of society, and they just happen to have a different code of scientific ethics than we do, today. It was a different time back then, where there were different levels of humans. What they did was no different than the breeding of high-quality slaves for desirable attributes that occurred for hundreds of years in the USA.
Although I feel very conflicted on this matter, allow me to offer my two cents.
Religion, as it stands alone, is a spiritual, peaceful practice, that usually promotes peace and harmony among all of man.
It is unfortunate, however, that religion should manifest in multiple forms, and that it should interwine with race, language, and culture. Moreover, in a still-globalizing world, religion remains an institution of division, for there exist those whose greed and lust for power compel them use religion, and science for that matter, as a tool for militaristic, commercial, cultural domination. (Take the Church of Scientology as a more recent case study.)
As long as man cannot attain the, and forgive the usage, holy grail, that is the unified state of thinking, free information, mutual understanding amongst all of man, I am afraid that religion cannot attain the status so sought after by its advocates around the world.
That is not to say that I believe this won't happen one day (Let us remain optimistic!). And also that is not to say that religion does not bring unity and peace to our hearts.
Let's tie this all back to martin and jake's current scuffle over science vs religion. I agree with the two of them on different accounts. Let us realize that first of all, war is the mother of invention, but does not have to be true in future decades. Martin says that people cause wars, but I think we can delve deeper. Racial and cultural division (which tie to religion and viceversa) are what cause wars. Greedy politicians and businessman, more recently, have caused our wars. Religion and science, I will reiterate, on the individual level, remain pure, innocuous, and benevolent institutions of man. Both are worthy of praise and of celebration.
But while this world stands divided at the present (offset by the election of Barack Obama: +3 happy citizens in every city, anyone?) these wondrous creations of man remain exploitable. And that, my friends, is a constant struggle and balancing act that we face today.
Ah, I see we're getting into discussion about man being inherently evil now, but what is evil?
How do we define what is evil? By our own moral codes, or by what society has preached to us? (I'm thinking of Tom Sawyer, Crime and Punishment)
I believe in tabla rosa (the blank slate). We are shapen by our surroundings and experiences. What allows evil to propogate is the simple fact that evil begets evil. But let us try to move beyond that.
I imagine a society where evil no longer gives rise to more evil, and its citizens are open-minded, educated, and mature. This, we cannot achieve without globalization. Until that day, whether or not religion will remain, I am unsure.
nice post zexi, i have to agree with you. i just hope this will end this circular debate about religion...poo on ann for starting this topic
i like what we've concluded :)
zexi, I disagree with the "tabla rosa." Did you know that they've found very specific genes that are directly linked to very specific behaviors?
One example is the gene that, when coupled with being abused as a child, almost guarantees that you'll grow up and be a psychopathic criminal.
Another example is the gene for polygamistic / monogamistic behavior.
Another example is the genes for mirror neurons, neurons that enable one to sympathize and empathize.
Tabla Rosa or whatever sounds great in prose and conjecture, but the reality is much more complicated than we can imagine. People are more or less still animals. Although we are domesticatable to a degree (like your tabla rosa idea) we are also very prone to our instincts.
I never said that people are inherently evil. That was never part of my argument. My argument was that blaming religion for conflict is pointless: blaming a system for the fault of its adherents leads nowhere. I said that people cause divisions. This is true, and has nothing to do with whether or not someone is "evil."
Also, I dislike the personification of religious people as "a mindless mob." Just because I believe in something that others believe in doesn't make me a puppet, or even that I always agree with people who claim to hold the same beliefs as me. It is somewhat frightening (as well as bewildering) to hear someone I think of as a nice guy belittling me for what I choose to believe. I don't want this argument to spiral into a discussion of personal flaws.
Let me address the point about the link between intolerance and religion. I think that you were saying that in believing in something some one else believes in, I am submitting myself into a group, "Us," which is opposed to those who do not hold our beliefs, "them." You continued by listing instances in which people were mistreated by people who held religious beliefs. You have shown that there exist people who hold religious beliefs and commit acts of intolerance. You then asked me how it was that I was failing to see the connection.
I am not saying that religion has not been used to promote intolerance. As you pointed out, Christians certainly have had their fair share of intolerant actions, though we could argue about the meaning of "devout" for hours. I am just opposed to the idea that religion is inherently intolerant, or that intolerance springs from religion. I think that claiming that religion exists to "persecute the minority" is misidentifying the purpose of religion.
I disagree with your argument because I believe that conflict and intolerance does not need religion to exist. That is, even without religion, conflict and intolerance would still exist. I contend also, that the amount of conflict and intolerance would not decrease, and that religion has also helped increase tolerance (though we no doubt fiercely disagree on this point). I am not going to give examples because I feel that that would lead to us arguing over what is "good" or "tolerant" and because it would be artificial to look through the history of religion to pick out instances where "tolerance" was the main theme.
I also believe that the creation of "us" and "them" is artificial in nature and that you are enforcing it on the situation. This is akin to self awareness, that is, "who am 'I?'" as compared to "who is 'he/she/it?'" Such barriers exist, and for good reason, because without such barriers we would lose sight of individuality. Is it wrong to say that someone is different, or other, than I am? The problem lies not in the grouping but in the treatment of "other."
Racism and intolerance starts in the primal center of the brain. Religion might be misused, but to reiterate my point, how can conflict and intolerance be attributed solely to the concept of a God?
Your other question, why do I believe in a religious sense, is a question that requires a long answer. If you wish to ask me that in person, I would be more than happy to answer it in full.
Martin,
I'm not belittling you for what you believe, and I hope you don't see it that way. Let me be honest with you. You are a fellow human being, and I love you and I care for you for that. However, my love for you manifests itself in this particular manner when I see you follow a wrong-headed path. When you see someone you care for endanger himself, for instance, by using drugs or participating in gang-related activity, is it not your duty and responsibility to speak up and help him?? I'm flattered that you think of me as a "nice guy" and I can assure you that I have not changed. But my experience with Scientology over the summer has left me seriously creeped out, and I don't want you to get involved with that weird religion-stuff. Moreover, I think you should have more racial pride. The White Christians screwed Asia over, I'm sure you know this, right? Although they never invaded your home country, they persecuted and tyrannized mine, and they were indirectly responsible for the ravaging of your homeland. The Japanese admired the imperialism of the White Christians, and wanted to be just like them, so that's why they colonized the shit out of Korea (and later China too). I don't tell many people this, but I feel betrayed to see so many Asian Christians.
I just want to say that I want to emphasize what was mentioned in one of the comments.
The older Religions in itself is quite innocent (not saying anything bout the newer and more modern ones). If you pick up a bible or a torah or etc. and read through it yourself, then I am pretty sure you can agree that religion in itself isn't harmful. However, as people come to interpret the scriptures, people can misinterpret a teaching. And before properly reflecting on its true meaning, the misinterpretted message can be quickly perpetuated and thrown out of proportion. I believe this is what gives rise to many radicals willing to go against teachings (such as not judging others because this is only a right held by God) and outwardly proclaiming another's judgement.
So I am sorry for whoever has approached you in the past pushing their religion on you and judging you before they even get to know you. I believe it is partially the fault of other christians, too. Sometimes it is hard disciplining yourself let alone disciplining other christians and furthermore disciplining non-christians.
But again, I am not here saying this to judge unprepared christians or non-christians. That would be very hypocritical of me. I just want some clarification so that everyone can be somewhat willing to hear someone else's experience with their faith in a somewhat objective manner without their prior experiences (good or bad) being a brick wall.
a.kim
I give you two thumbs up for this last comment. I greatly appreciate your views on this. Ever since I arrived in America I’ve notice that religions here take very aggressive actions. The government itself is twisted by religion. I think that stem cell research is the future of medicine, however due to Bush’s believes he has restricted research area would could have saved thousands if not millions of lives. It has come to a point where people from all walks of life are effected by religion. Do you support stem cell research? Remember that stem cells could come from other sources other than embryos. Religious groups spend millions of dollars supporting religious presidential candidates so that they can stop gay marriages, stop stem cell research, stop abortion and teach creationism in school. I think this is the evilest thing religion can do. I think that forcing people into religions is a wide spread problem. Are there any religious groups that are trying to stop this? Are people who share your views doing anything about this? That is a lot of people who have misinterpreted the bible. Are people trying to teach the right way of interpreting the bible? I think if all the religious people where like you, krnchoe and mostly all my other religious friends I would have to say that I might have been a believer myself. I’ve always been a curious person about religion. Back in China I knew nothing about evolution and I was really confused on how life started. It seemed to me that by not believing I would create less conflict, I would be one less supporter of pushing religion on to people. Days before my grandfather passed away my uncle approached him and told him to believe in god or go to hell. Instead of saying something a good son would my uncle threatened my grandfather with suffering through the after life as though he wasn’t suffering enough. I knew that if my grandfather had the ability to slap him, he would have. My uncle was a good man, but I saw how religion has changed him. Even if there was absolute proof to the existence of god I would still question how it is practiced today.
I think these posts about religion has brought me closer to being religious than I’ve ever had been because I now see that there are those few who leave other alone and allow them to choose their own path. The world needs more of you guys. When all the religious people have turned this way that is the day when I will become religions because I’ll see the true and not what is distorted.
Hah thanx... i guess... But dont get me wrong, I do also want others to convert too. I just think it should be solely based on love for the person and his/her soul. In this regard, it'll take time. Sometimes you show love to others by giving them space to figure something out without forcing them. You show love just by giving them your honest opinion even though it may sound religious (such as drugs and etc.). You show love by being there for the person without wanting anything in return. You show love by praying for the person without the person even realizing it. The list goes on.
In this regard, I would say your uncle was doing it out of love but was pressed for time. Because of this, he must have gotten somewhat anxious and frustrated and did not choose his words well. Because when you think about it, why would your uncle bother trying to convert a guy who is about to die? Your grandfather would not be at church showing how great a christian your uncle is. He got a person to convert. Rather, I think your uncle really cared about your grandfather's soul. If you imagined you were your uncle and a christian... would you not be worried if your belief system said non-christians go to hell? I think it shows trememdous love.
I am lucky to be a christian at an early age. I have lots of time to disciple myself and really grow in wisdom through experiences with friends. Just cause I do not straight up approach you and say "BECOME A CHRISTIAN OR ILL BUST YOUR KNEECAPS" doesn't mean I am not doing all i can to help you through your life towards christianity.
Post a Comment