Colateral Damage

[troglodyte]

Is killing in the name of religion justifiable under ANY circumstance?...
this is a recurring thing through history, the crusades... even today, muslim extremists... emphasis on the extreme part to avoid and offense... but sometimes, people put the ends before the means...and i find that morally wrong... just thought id share...

 

[James T]

Are you talking in terms of the historical practice of what people have done or what we should do?

I ask mainly because I'm of the view you judge people by their actions above their words.

 

[revrobor]

Is killing in the name of religion justifiable under ANY circumstance?...
this is a recurring thing through history, the crusades... even today, muslim extremists... emphasis on the extreme part to avoid and offense... but sometimes, people put the ends before the means...and i find that morally wrong... just thought id share...

Collateral damage refers to unintentional killing of non-combatants (civilians) in war. It occurs in every war.

Killing in the name of any religion is never justifiable. The only people currently killing in the name of religion are Muslims.

 

[eutychus]

Yeah, I consider it morally wrong in this day and age to manslaughter in the name of anything, but especially religion...even if it was not intentional.

 

[DaRkWoLf]

The only people currently killing in the name of religion are Muslims.

I wouldnt be so sure about that.

Every religion has people that kill other people due to extreme views. Its happening now. Everywhere. Just because we dont see a (insert religion name) "holy war" on the news dosent mean its not happening.

 

[Percy]

Look how many Muslims have been killed by Christians in Afganistan and Iraq recently. It may not be overtly a holy war but it has its similarities.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

Collateral damage refers to unintentional killing of non-combatants (civilians) in war. It occurs in every war.

Killing in the name of any religion is never justifiable. The only people currently killing in the name of religion are Muslims.

Don't forget the Christians... and members of every other religion, too.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Are you talking about collateral damage in the sense of those unintentionally killed, or those who were intentionally killed, but only as a means towards an end?

 

[The-Doctor]

Personally I think you can never justify violence or death in the name of religion. For myself I'm still all for Love thy Neighbour. The Muslims I know personally abhor violence to others and believe in peace.

 

[Arkanin]

There are plenty of American Christians who kill in the name of religion all the time. I know some of them.

 

[marvmax]

Killing for money is the best thing to do. That way you get something out of it. Killing for religion is a distant second all you really get is an attaboy from your coreligionists and that won't buy you much. Well since the USA put Saddam Hussien away.

 

[Arkanin]

Killing for money is the best thing to do. That way you get something out of it. Killing for religion is a distant second all you really get is an attaboy from your coreligionists and that won't buy you much. Well since the USA put Saddam Hussien away.

That's rather cynical.

 

[marvmax]

That's rather cynical.

Actually it wasn't cynical, it was saracastic.

 

[Blackmarch]

Is killing in the name of religion justifiable under ANY circumstance?...
this is a recurring thing through history, the crusades... even today, muslim extremists... emphasis on the extreme part to avoid and offense... but sometimes, people put the ends before the means...and i find that morally wrong... just thought id share...

Offensively or defensively? if offensively that is hard to justify, but defensively is a lot easier to justify. (eg- you attack my home to take over my freedoms and rights or threaten one's family... and while you are doing that you are killed, that could be justified)

 

[lismore]

Is killing in the name of religion justifiable under ANY circumstance?...
...

Thou shalt not kill