The myth of religious violence

[durangodawood]

There were many crusades, but let's try to generalize to the ones fought in the holy lands. They are good examples of wars to fight back invaders that simply used religion as a rally call rather than as their valid reason for war.

Shows the power of religion to overcome people's dis-inclination to violence.

 

[ken777]

Christianity accepts the idea from the OT that when God himself speaks directly to a prophet to instruct a war, it is righteous. However, God no longer speaks in this manner.

While I agree with you, we cannot take this to the extent of saying that a Christian today cannot participate in a righteous war.
We must read the OT through the lens of the NT, but even in the NT there is still the concept of punishment for evil doers (Romans 13:4).

 

[ken777]

I'm not making any of this up, I'm referring to the way Christians used to think when they ruled the Europe for a thousand years or so.

You cannot ignore the context of violence in the culture. Christian faith was often invoked by opposing sides in a war. Christianity still today is influenced by the culture in which it exists.

 

[Jack of Spades]

Christianity accepts the idea from the OT that when God himself speaks directly to a prophet to instruct a war, it is righteous. However, God no longer speaks in this manner.

That's your interpretation, and probably the most popular one today. But as I said, there is material in the Bible for another kind of interpretation.

Or if you for example, believe in infallibility of your Church, and the Church goes and declares war in God's name, chances are that you go along. Again, not making of any this up, it was done many times in history.

 

[Meowzltov]

While I agree with you, we cannot take this to the extent of saying that a Christian today cannot participate in a righteous war.

Oh trust me, I am so not a Pacifist. But participating in a just war is to participate in the name of ethics. Persons of all faiths or even lack of faith can argue to participate in such a war. A just war is no more a "Christian" war than a "Jewish" war or "Muslim" war or even an "Atheist" war, etc.

 

[Meowzltov]

That's your interpretation, and probably the most popular one today. But as I said, there is material in the Bible for another kind of interpretation.

Or if you for example, believe in infallibility of your Church, and the Church goes and declares war in God's name, chances are that you go along. Again, not making of any this up, it was done many times in history.

There have been times when, i.e., the Pope has declared a war. However, when he has done so, he has not been speaking for the Church on the matters of faith and morals. Thus he is NOT SPEAKING INFALLIBLY. Any Catholic is free to disagree with what is essentially a respected but ultimately personal opinion. Honestly, you can count on one hand the number of times a Pope has spoken infallibly on their own.

 

[Jack of Spades]

There have been times when, i.e., the Pope has declared a war. However, when he has done so, he has not been speaking for the Church on the matters of faith and morals. Thus he is NOT SPEAKING INFALLIBLY. Any Catholic is free to disagree with what is essentially a respected but ultimately personal opinion. Honestly, you can count on one hand the number of times a Pope has spoken infallibly on their own.

When we talk about religious politics, there is no line between matters of faith and morals, and matters of politics and war. They're tangled together, so when talking about religious war, pope is talking about matters of faith.

Eye-witness record of what the Pope said when he called for the first Crusade in the middle east. To me it doesn't sound like a words of a guy who is going to like if somebody is going to disagree with him:

"On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.

"All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested."

 

[Armoured]

When we talk about religious politics, there is no line between matters of faith and morals, and matters of politics and war. They're tangled together, so when talking about religious war, pope is talking about matters of faith.

Eye-witness record of what the Pope said when he called for the first Crusade in the middle east. To me it doesn't sound like a words of a guy who is going to like if somebody is going to disagree with him:

"On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.

"All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested."

Deus lo vult

 

[Jack of Spades]

Deus lo volt

Et tu, Brute!

 

[Armoured]

Et tu, Brute!

 

[Jack of Spades]

Deus lo vult

Because Deus apparently lo vult me to keep calm, I should probably summarize what I'm trying to say:

There have been brutal and tragic events in the Christian history, and hiding behind the "No true scotsman" or "Had nothing to do with our religion" can very well be refusing to learn the lessons from those stories and thus, in worst case, paving the way for it happening again in the future.

The most important conclusion from what I've read is, whenever something or someone is put above criticism and questioning, be it Church, Party or a book or whatever, bad things are bound to start happening sooner or later.

On personal level, what I've learnt from the history of religious madness is that as a mystic, I should not claim that my spiritual experiences are infallibly of God, however meaningful they are for me personally. Claiming to be infallible oracle would not only be dangerous for some poor soul possibly taking me seriously, but also for myself in long run.

 

[Meowzltov]

When we talk about religious politics, there is no line between matters of faith and morals, and matters of politics and war. They're tangled together, so when talking about religious war, pope is talking about matters of faith.

Oh, we had arrogant Popes back in the day when Popes had a good deal more imagined authority. But the fact is, this extra authority was never real, it has no history from the ECF, nor is it considered substantial today. It was nothing more than a trendy sort of idea that came and went, and was never dogma.

 

[Jack of Spades]

Oh, we had arrogant Popes back in the day when Popes had a good deal more imagined authority. But the fact is, this extra authority was never real, it has no history from the ECF, nor is it considered substantial today. It was nothing more than a trendy sort of idea that came and went, and was never dogma.

Excuse me if I somehow get the impression that couple hundred years of constant insisting on the divine authority of the church had anything to do with making it possible for someone representing the said church, to claim to have divine authority and the rest of the crew taking it seriously.

No true Scotsman. Case closed.

 

[ken777]

No true Scotsman. Case closed.

NTS is the flip side of GBA. Both are superficial perspectives of a complex concept.

 

[Armoured]

NTS is the flip side of GBA. Both are superficial perspectives of a complex concept.

GBA?

 

[ken777]

Oh trust me, I am so not a Pacifist. But participating in a just war is to participate in the name of ethics. Persons of all faiths or even lack of faith can argue to participate in such a war. A just war is no more a "Christian" war than a "Jewish" war or "Muslim" war or even an "Atheist" war, etc.

I was arguing more than a just war from the human perspective - I believe the hand of God is seen in the outcome of WW1 & WW11. Just watched a documentary on the development of the nuclear bomb. The Nazis were also working on an atom bomb. Was it just luck that allowed America to develop it first? Using the bomb is morally offensive to many people; others see it as the hand of God.

 

[Jack of Spades]

I believe the hand of God is seen in the outcome of WW1 & WW11.

In case of ww2, it depends from who's point of view you think it. If you see the outcome through eyes of say, Estonians or Hungarians, they would likely feel a bit offended by what you say. For them, the war was two foreign invasions and from there on, 40+ years of totalitarian oppression and (direct or indirect) foreign rule. During the war, Estonia was liberated three times. No people on earth can dream to be more free than they were after so much liberating.

Also, from religious/ideological point of view, outcome of ww2 was largely responsible for something like a third of the world becoming atheists.

 

[Meowzltov]

I was arguing more than a just war from the human perspective - I believe the hand of God is seen in the outcome of WW1 & WW11. Just watched a documentary on the development of the nuclear bomb. The Nazis were also working on an atom bomb. Was it just luck that allowed America to develop it first? Using the bomb is morally offensive to many people; others see it as the hand of God.

Yes. I think WW1 is an example of a foolish unjust war, and WW2 is an example of a thoroughly just war.

 

[Strathos]

There is quite a bit of historical evidence, that many wars were battled because of religious differences between people and most historians would agree with the motivation.

Religious beliefs in general, are very important to individuals, because they are a crucial part of their personal psyche and need to be protected. This psychological state leads to this; my religion is superior to your religion and my religion allows me to be entitled to go to war with you.

If all it took was religious differences to cause a war, then every single religious group would constantly be at war with every other religious group. Obviously this is not the case, so there must be other factors involved.

 

[dayhiker]

Good point, Strathos. Often history shows political leaders use religion to move people to hate others and go to war against them.
I did hear a story of how Bust, 43, used the religious right to get into power. The way the story I saw on TV had was that it was more of a behind the scene
thing he did to move leaders from support of other candidates to himself. So religious groups can be used for purposes without there even being violence as part of the agenda.