Religion Doesn’t Kill People; People Kill People
Many times have I heard the claim, “If it were not for religion, there would be so much peace!”, as if religion was an evil influence that urges all who follow it to slaughter all who don’t. This would be a completely understandable plea if, say, Christianity were to advocate the actions which took place in the Crusades, or if Islam were to push for a jihad (holy war) on all who disagree with any aspects of it. This is not, at all, the case.
For example, the Fourth Crusades were not a rampant, violent attempt to convert people to Christianity because the Bible said they were necessary. No – they began for the alleged reason that the trade routes for Christian merchants, missionaries, etc. had to be protected. They also were a wonderful opportunity to take wealth (and many other things) from the Eastern lands.
Islam’s concept of a jihad was originally meant, by Muhammad (the founder, and “last prophet” of Islam), as a war inside of one’s own self. The war, say, between the good self and bad self, between the urges to do bad and the will to do good, etc. It was later altered (after Muhammad’s death) to mean a war on those threatening the Islamic faith, via invasions of their land and the like. Never was the jihad meant to be declared by any psychopathic, genocidal leader who decided one country or another didn’t quite tickle his fancy.
My point in these examples being:
Religion is not a source of any man’s need to fight with one another. I’ve yet to see a religion that vehemently advocates such, much less a major one. Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. all teach peace, humility, kindness to one’s neighbors, and a variety of other morals that are usually considered virtues. The religion of one region or another is but an excuse; a justification used for one conquest or another. Even in early America, the concept of Manifest Destiny claimed that God had given America the right to take over the rest of the land. No, it’s not in the Bible. No, it’s nowhere in formalized Christianity – but, that was what was used as justification for violent conquest! God was, undoubtedly, on the side of America, and encouraged its expansion. If the concept of religion did not exist, if there were no Paganism or Judaism, then man would, undoubtedly, find something else to bicker, conflict, and war about.Perhaps we could war over… maybe… governmental / economical systems. I think that may take the place of religion. Say, Capitalism and Democracy holding a war against Communism?
… Oh… wait.
12 comments
Koran:
Sura 48:29. “Kill the Mushrikun (unbelievers) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush…”
Religion no doubt influences…
I make clear that these next words are not of my own, but those of Dr. Jamal Badawi; a pronounced Islamic scholar:
“One of the main rules of interpretation of the Qur’an is to examine occasions of revelation and to keep in mind the historical contexts. As such, there is no necessity to have these details in the text of the Qur’an itself. It should be kept in mind, however, that in some instances if the same conditions are duplicated at other time, then the same rule will be applicable. However, there are few instances where the specific earlier conditions surrounding the budding Muslim community necessitated certain security arrangements that justified certain arrangements.
It is true, however, that the Qur’an generally, is applicable to all times and places. Yet, the special circumstances of the beginning of Islam are not the same like today where Islam has been established firmly as a universal faith.”
“There is no single verse in the Qur’an properly interpreted in its context and historical circumstances that ever allowed the Muslim to fight non-Muslims simply because they are non-Muslims. The opposite is true; in Chapter 60, verse 8 and 9 in the Qur’an, it clearly says that non-Muslims who are not fighting against Muslims or oppressing them are entitled to kind and just treatment. Also, in the Qur’an, Chapter 2, verse 256, it says: let there be no compulsion in religion.” It is in the light of these two verses and many others in the Qur’an that the Hadith referred to should be understood.
The word “people” in this hadith and in the Qur’an may mean a subset of people but not all of them. There are a lot of evidences of variant usage in the Qur’an and also in this hadith. This hadith in all likelihood refers to the pagan Arabs who persecuted Muslims, murdered them, and broke their treaties with them. As such, they deserved capital punishment, yet they are given the opportunity to repent in which case they are to be forgiven, and their property will be protected.”
http://www.islamonline.net/livedialogue/english/Browse.asp?hGuestID=GRdp6I
For more.
—–
Again, it is a book of religion being taken out of it’s context, and used as an excuse to do what was not originally intended. Exodus 30:21 says, “So they shall wash their hands and their feet, that they die not…” – Should we, as a people who know the losses of context via translation, the differences between old times and new, and the fallacies of taking timeworn text literally – assume that a religion, as a whole, advocates these things?
But, let us assume that, say, verses in the Bible that spoke of God sending all those who believe in other gods to hell did nothing but encourage the believers to shout a genocidal idiom and slay all nonbelievers. I think it is a reasonable observation that a large majority of every major religion is not violently religious. I claim that the majority of followers, and leaders of a religion embody what a religion does; not objective olden text.
As (of course) some followers are violent, I bring my point again. The minority who does justify their violence with their religion could be said to be influenced by religion – but, if there was no religion to justify violence with, there would be something else. Religion is not the factor which creates violence, just that which is used as justification for something that has already been created.
Soooo let’s say if that Koran never existed…Would we have the problems in the muslim countries we have now?
If the Koran never existed, then said Islamic countries would have never existed. Muhammad would have never existed, and, the world we live in today would not have existed. Both hemispheres would be dramatically different in fields of technology, morality, and religion.
Yes, books like the Koran and the Bible serve more than simple religious advice, and are conclusions to a wide array of historical events that have built up to the world we live in today.
We’ll say that the Koran serves no other purpose, and signifies nothing but being a book, though: Yes, we (America) would still have problems.
I won’t get into the fallacies of the origins of the war itself, but, here are a couple of facts:
1) We have invaded a country.
2) We’re promoting Democracy in a culture that looks down upon it.
3) We’re blowing things up, killing people, etc.
4) Vietnam
I think it would be reasonable to say that we would be having problems in any area, regardless of religious alignment.
(Imagine someone breaking into your house, smashing all of your belongings, telling you to live the way they do – then giving you, as a gift, a flag of their household.)
I love to light a spark! So what is your thoughts on Iran wanting to eliminate Israel from the map? Are these people the new Nazi’s? There are many comparisons in the news! Don’t give me the western media make it up! Should we stand by and let these people develop technology to turn Israel into a parking lot? Did you ever listen to Michael Savage?
I’d have to say they’re akin to the Nazi belief. It’s a difficult thing, though. If it were up to me, America would be a mostly introverted country. The dealings of Israel and Iran wouldn’t be on our agenda. The most I would condone is supplying them if we’re really that bent on having Israel as an ally.
I liked WWI. We were America, standing by until things got really serious. We were absolutely sure of victory, ran in, and won the war.
Now we’re just immersing ourselves into things that we need not immerse ourselves into.
Personally, I think any kind of genocide and things along that line are wrong – but I don’t think we should be getting ourselves involved.
http://religion.propeller.com/story/2007/11/03/religion-doesnt-kill-people-people-kill-people/#comments
This is also being discussed on Netscape! Knox go get them!
Muslims quote verse 2:256 from the Qur’an to prove what a tolerant religion Islam is. The verse reads in part, “Let there be no compulsion in religion; truth stands out clearly from error…”
The Truth:
The Muslim who offers this verse may or may not understand that it is from one of the earliest Suras (or chapters) from the Medinan period. It was “revealed” at a time when the Muslims had just arrived in Medina after being chased out of Mecca. They needed to stay in the good graces of the stronger tribes around them, many of which were Jewish. It was around this time, for example, that Muhammad decided to have his followers change the direction of their prayer from Mecca to Jerusalem.
But Muslims today pray toward Mecca. The reason for this is that Muhammad issued a later command that abrogated (or nullified) the first. In fact, abrogation is a very important principle to keep in mind when interpreting the Qur’an – and verse 2:256 in particular – because later verses (in chronological terms) are said to abrogate any earlier ones that may be in contradiction.
Muhammad’s message was far closer to peace and tolerance during his early years at Mecca, when he didn’t have an army. This changed dramatically after he attained the power to conquer, which he eventually used with impunity to bring other tribes into the Muslim fold. Contrast verse 2:256 with Suras 9 and 5, which were the last “revealed,” and it is easy to see why Islam has been anything but a religion of peace from the time of Muhammad to the present day.
There is some evidence that verse 2:256 may not have been intended for Muslims at all, but is instead meant to be a message to other religions concerning their treatment of Muslims. Verse 193 of the same Sura instructs Muslims to “fight with them (non-Muslims) until there is no more persecution and religion is only for Allah.” This reinforces the narcissistic nature of Islam, which places Muslims above non-Muslims, and applies very different standards to both groups.
Though many Muslims today reject the practice of outright forcing others into changing their religion, forced conversion has been a part of Islamic history since Muhammad first picked up a sword. As he is recorded in many places as saying, “I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah…”
Muhammad put his words into practice. When he marched into Mecca with an army, one of his very first tasks was to destroy idols at the Kaaba, which had been devoutly worshipped by the Arabs for centuries. By destroying these objects of worship, he destroyed the religion of the people and supplanted it with his own.
Interestingly, even the Muslims who quote 2:256 usually believe in Islamic teachings that sound very much like religious compulsion. These would be the laws punishing apostasy by death, and the institutionalized discrimination against religious minorities under Islamic rule that is sometimes referred to as “dhimmiitude.”
Dhimmitude prohibits non-Muslims from sharing their faith and even includes the extortion of money from them in the form of a tax called the jizya. Those who refuse to pay this arbitrary amount are put to death. If this isn’t compulsion, then what is?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
I’m going to bypass the debate at the moment…and just comment on the concept of religion being used as an excuse or reason for for death…or other things.
I had the most amazing world civ professor at MWCC. Well technically he was a jerk…but his teachings were sound. His whole philosophy was “Show me the money”.
We are going to take two things…religion as a faith…and religion as an economic vehicle. Religion as a faith like many ideas at it’s core is meant to be a great thing…much like how communism looks great on paper. Most religions hold good core values…in fact most hold the same core values…they attempt to uphold morality and create a kinship between people.
Unfortunately…power hungry greedy people have since the advent of religion used it to benefit themselves. And it’s worked because even though at it’s core religion means well…it’s extremely easy to take advantage of those who follow organized churches…and throughout the ages many people who are the most “religious” are also suffering in their lives and are being offered something, most likely in a devious way, by someone in power wielding religion as their cause.
So…during the dark ages while Christianity was building up it’s powerhouse in Europe…Islam was building up it’s wealth in the middle east. Islam spread easily throughout the areas it encountered…the premise it followed was similar to other beliefs held by the peoples of the area…it was an easy religion to follow…and it often came along with the “We’ll leave you alone as long as you convert…and conversion means access to trade”. And well everyone wanted access to trade. If you weren’t the in power’s religion…you weren’t about to make any cash.
Then Europe made it’s way out of the dark (in much the same way, you weren’t about to get anywhere unless you converted to christianity and started kissing butt as the church owned most of the land and had access to all kinds of resources and treasure)…and it realized…we want what the middle east has…and we don’t want to have to get the nice way. Much like the Barbary Pirates fiasco. So they…under the pretense of religion…but really due to economics…went and pummeled their way over and “took” the trade….in essense halting Islam and middle eastern culture in it’s tracks. Prior to the crusades…Islam and the middle eastern areas were at their cultural high point. They held vast expanses of knowledge…had the best medical practices…treated women in the highest regard for the given time. But like many cultures in their hayday…were ok with where they were at…which usually means it’s time for some issues. Cue in crusades.
The leaders in Europe…who were essentially The Church…cover up the economic reasons under the pretense of religious ones. This is of course around the time when they accepted monetary “donations” for getting into heaven…
If we jump to now…the “war” (it’s technically a conflict as the congress hasn’t declared war since 1942) with Iraq…religion is being used as a cover up for what’s really going on…and what’s really going on is oil. Are religious “fanatics” involved on both sides…yes…but are they really the reasons people are dying every day? No…the reason that people are dying is because people in power want more and know that mainstream society wants to believe in the innocence and righteousness of their country and religion…and are using that against them to help further their cause.
People kill people…using religion as a shield for their motives.
Any time we blame an inanimate object for the actions of live free thinking people…we might as well invoke the Deodand.
But back to Show me the money. Even when we negate religion out of the equation…look at any war or conflict…on various levels…and look to see what the benefits of the situation are. Who gains power or an upper hand? Follow the money/power and you’ll find the real reason behind what’s going on.
And in the very end…no matter the means…when someone or people end up dying by means other than natural causes or accident…people are the cause of it. A person with malice and intent will find the means to accomplish their goal…and what matters is the fact that they were successful and not by what means they succeeded. Removing religion from the war equation would be like removing alcohol from an alcoholic. You may have treated the outward symptoms…but you haven’t addressed the actual issue. You still have an addict..and you still have war.
end blabberage.
I’ve said this before… “All wars are based in economics”. Almost immediately someone will chime in with “No, some are based in religion”. I will then offer my second hypothesis, that “All mainstream religions are based in economics”.
If you are a small fish in the big pond and you feel disenfranchised, left out, short-changed, you have a choice of accepting that premise or starting your own pond and becoming the big fish. Women getting the upper hand? Make yours Patriarchal. Too many patriarchs? Drop the gods and invoke a goddess. Too many deities to keep track of? Go monotheistic. One deity seem like they’re too busy to listen to your problems? Create a pantheon.
Mainstream religions and political pushiness (empire building) all have a common goal. Increase the economic stability of your followers at the expense of someone else’s.
Sure, there are some along the line that actually believe the hype and feel they are doing holy/patriotic work for their particular deity/ideology. The other issue that arises is that in order to recruit followers, a religion or a political entity inevitably end up tossing crumbs to attract them. You give the people a certain amount of wiggle room until you are strong enough to lay down a rigid dogma and lock in your tenets.
A look at the early histories of most mainstream religions shows a surprising amount of “wiggle room” being granted to new adherents to the faith. These often differed in the various areas where the new faith was taking hold, in order to accommodate long-standing local beliefs and customs into the new church.
When the Christian church spread through the British Isles, it evolved as it moved along. Sts. Patrick and St Columba (a distant relative apparently, as he was great-great-grandson of Niall of the Nine Hostages) both helped to spread Christianity through Ireland. Years later, when the various churches got together, it was found that they all had differing versions of Christianity and ended up with the daunting task of consolidating those into a general consensus. Gospels collected from areas outside the sphere of Roman influence are nowhere near as kind to Rome as the NT gospels are.
It seems that most mainstream religions were fairly flexible for maybe 400 or so years of their existence and then locked in a rigid, unchangeable doctrine for the rest of eternity.
It has been said that we are all “On A path” and that the sooner we all come to accept that our path is just that “A way – A truth – and – A life” instead of “THE way – THE truth – and THE life”, the sooner we can resolve those differences that block understanding and communication.
“Fuzzy” is a kind moniker for the folks who haven’t a clue as to what Christianity is about. Neither would you understand the difference between religion and a relationship with the living Christ. Christ hated religion, for example, and tore the religious a new one at every opportunity. Christ walked before the religious in a perfect way and the religious killed Him rather than repent from their wickedness.The fog lifts and the simplicity of submitting to the true God and His Son Jesus comes into view to those who have grace to receive His love. Selfless love sets true Christianity apart from any evil spawned counterfeit perpetuated by its blinded children. The issue of contention has always been in the struggle of the true believers sanctification…becoming selflessly Christ-like and less like the selfish fallen man. This does not negate objective truth; it’s everywhere you look, unless you are blind. Even creation itself (physical/natural world for you atheists) declares the existence and necessity of a genius, benevolent creator. The crisis you fear is coming soon, your denial matters not, when you face the Almighty and give account for the common sense you chose to ignore.
For those without grace, there is no alternative but to behave selfishly and accumulate all the world has to offer unto yourselves until you die, leave it all here, and have an encounter with the One which made you. Romans 10.9-10
In rely to the original post:
I never knew what a Jihad was until today
Leave a Comment