Serious question: Religion and violence

I think it is part of human nature. Get a group of people together who think of themselves as sharing something in common, they are willing to fight for that common thing. Which is why the people they want to go to war with are always different, and they always point out the differences.

To add:
Most people are followers and mostly products of their environment/upbringing. Moreso when you can enforce this from the jump in a developing mind (indoctrination).

It's widely accepted across the more violent religions that death should always follow the "wicked".

It is a fair question though you are expressing it in a very American political way. You are defining the people who are "most religious" as the folks who yell the loudest. What about the Amish? the strong anti-war history of the mainline Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches? Yes, the source of "Just War" theory comes out of that context but the struggle against the Vietnam War and the loudest voices against the more recent US actions in southwest and central Asia have come from the Church. As a pastor myself, I have spoken out regularly against the culture of violence and trying to solve too many problems with a gun when talking would be better.

Yet, you are correct and there is a loooong history especially in this country. I grew up hearing preachers yell, "Kill a Commie for Christ!" and being very, very confused.

I suppose the short answer would be that people of religious beliefs are not immune to sin. I remain a Lutheran at least in part because of Martin Luther's theological understanding of Simul Eustis est paccator which roughly translates that each of us and all of us are at the same time saints and sinners. We may only be the latter but we are never only the former! Thus sin (at its core self interest) continues to worm its way into our lives.

Don't know if this is where you were thinking but hope it helps.

I think a better question is: why are the most religious people often just intolerant zealots who are completely unwilling to let others live their own lifestyle like they enjoy theirs? Clearly many are willing to live and let live but others go around blowing stuff up in the name of a prophet. Others still, behead, torture, and bring other types of violence to those that speak out against their religion. Obviously we don't see that as nearly as much in the United States but it's commonplace in many areas in the middle east and Africa. In Italy someone was fined 3500 dollars for wearing a bikini on the beach which offended Muslims. Where's the tolerance? What about non-Muslims? It wasn't an act of violence but an example of the double standard that exists.

Boik, I hear your anger and frankly I share it. I regularly pray, "Please God, save me from the people who say they are on my side!"

I try to make a distinction between folks who are truly "people of faith" whatever that faith may be and those who simply use religious slogans for their own grabs at power. Unfortunately there are far too many people who profess themselves to be religious without having any grasp on what their faith truly says, nor are they willing to dialog with others regarding their views. It is a shame, a terrible shame.

People of faith are the leading founders of hospital, medical facilities in general, and provide a huge number of "boots on the ground" workers in any and all relief efforts. Yet folks who use the name of religious traditions also create horrific evil. It is a struggle I deal with up close and personally each day.

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

Boik, I hear your anger and frankly I share it. I regularly pray, "Please God, save me from the people who say they are on my side!"

I try to make a distinction between folks who are truly "people of faith" whatever that faith may be and those who simply use religious slogans for their own grabs at power. Unfortunately there are far too many people who profess themselves to be religious without having any grasp on what their faith truly says, nor are they willing to dialog with others regarding their views. It is a shame, a terrible shame.

People of faith are the leading founders of hospital, medical facilities in general, and provide a huge number of "boots on the ground" workers in any and all relief efforts. Yet folks who use the name of religious traditions also create horrific evil. It is a struggle I deal with up close and personally each day.

Its insane Pastor. Over the years Ive explained Im not a religious man. I havent been to a temple outside of a wedding or a funeral since I was 13 and I have no plans of changing that soon. Its an absolute misrepresentation of who some of these people are. Not necessarily saying you or anyone in particular of the Jewish, Hindu, or Christian faiths, but in many cases it exists and all too often.

The people you mention though are not of the religions I mentioned. When adherence to religious principles created a million years ago overrides "normal" in the modern era there is a problem with the religion. It proves to me that the foundation is not everlasting. It cannot endure change in society or adapt to other cultures or religion. When people cant be educated because of their religion theres a problem. When religion tells you its ok to subjugate 50% of your population due to their sex theres a problem with their religion. When religion tells you to behead another being because of sexual orientation theres a problem with religion. When religion tells you if you have sex with a goat or sheep you are still pure (according to Quranic Scholar Dr. Zakir Naik), there is a real problem with religion. When a religion preaches intolerance and violence, there is a real problem with religion. Of course every Muslim doesnt adhere to this as sternly as some others but these are all traits of Islam. Every last one of them.

This country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and yet we allow people of every creed to worship and even preach against other religions because the concept of freedom of religion is important enough that people should have it even if a few abuse it. Yet I find it more and more concerning that I see things being done to cater to certain religions based on outdated religious principles while things that matter to other religions and atheists go completely unnoticed or are ignored. If a bikini at the beach is too much for a person of a certain religion to handle because it violates their religion, it doesnt mean we all have to observe that. Maybe she simply has no business at the beach. Maybe she simply lost sight of why people go to the beach. Females go there to get a tan. Men go there to interact with females getting a tan and throw a football or baseball around :lol:

Boik, I understand your commentary, but I was really just speaking about within the US. I won't even begin to try to understand how people in a culture where it is mandatory to be one religion see the world.

Living in my part of the US (Ive lived in WV, VA, & TN), almost everyone is either Christian or non-religious. And just based upon my own observations of the world, the people who are the angriest, most likely to be opposed to any kind of gun control, support any and all war, or even threaten violence against people face to face almost always are from the same group who force their Christianity into the face of anyone that they can. People who are openly non-religious mostly seem to be easy going, less likely to own weapons, opposed to war, and such.

I just wonder about the who "chicken or the egg" end of the question. Are they this way because violence and strong religious belief tend to go hand in hand, or is it simply a situation where almost all people who are strongly Christian in my neck of the woods are also strongly Republican, and therefore act this way due to politics? Had the Republican party not started using the "Religious Right" several decades ago to increase their power and influence, would many of these same people even act the crazy ways that they do?

"Boik14 wrote:

I think a better question is: why are the most religious people often just intolerant zealots who are completely unwilling to let others live their own lifestyle like they enjoy theirs? Clearly many are willing to live and let live but others go around blowing stuff up in the name of a prophet. Others still, behead, torture, and bring other types of violence to those that speak out against their religion. Obviously we don't see that as nearly as much in the United States but it's commonplace in many areas in the middle east and Africa. In Italy someone was fined 3500 dollars for wearing a bikini on the beach which offended Muslims. Where's the tolerance? What about non-Muslims? It wasn't an act of violence but an example of the double standard that exists.

The ones that piss me off are the knocking on my door with pamphlets.

"Unlucky 13 wrote:

Boik, I understand your commentary, but I was really just speaking about within the US. I won't even begin to try to understand how people in a culture where it is mandatory to be one religion see the world.

Living in my part of the US (Ive lived in WV, VA, & TN), almost everyone is either Christian or non-religious. And just based upon my own observations of the world, the people who are the angriest, most likely to be opposed to any kind of gun control, support any and all war, or even threaten violence against people face to face almost always are from the same group who force their Christianity into the face of anyone that they can. People who are openly non-religious mostly seem to be easy going, less likely to own weapons, opposed to war, and such.

I just wonder about the who "chicken or the egg" end of the question. Are they this way because violence and strong religious belief tend to go hand in hand, or is it simply a situation where almost all people who are strongly Christian in my neck of the woods are also strongly Republican, and therefore act this way due to politics? Had the Republican party not started using the "Religious Right" several decades ago to increase their power and influence, would many of these same people even act the crazy ways that they do?

In my world it is the exact opposite. Not saying you are wrong in where you are or in the persons you deal with but I have non-believers coming to me in public and getting in my face when I go out wearing a clerical collar. I would suggest it may have to do with aggressive, angry folks seeking out those opposite them? The desire or perhaps even the need to convince others of the rightness of your position because deep down you are insecure about it yourselves??? I don't know.

As to folks coming to your porch with pamphlets, I had JW's come to the door of the pastor's residence next door to the church building (and even a blind man could see the connection between the two with the walkways, landscaping, etc.) and try to convince me. I said, as calmly as I could, that their arrogance was beyond anything I could imagine. Amazingly they were offended by me being offended! It was all I could do to hold back my very, very large dog. He would have simply jumped up to be friends but they didn't know that!

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

In my world it is the exact opposite. Not saying you are wrong in where you are or in the persons you deal with but I have non-believers coming to me in public and getting in my face when I go out wearing a clerical collar. I would suggest it may have to do with aggressive, angry folks seeking out those opposite them? The desire or perhaps even the need to convince others of the rightness of your position because deep down you are insecure about it yourselves??? I don't know.

As to folks coming to your porch with pamphlets, I had JW's come to the door of the pastor's residence next door to the church building (and even a blind man could see the connection between the two with the walkways, landscaping, etc.) and try to convince me. I said, as calmly as I could, that their arrogance was beyond anything I could imagine. Amazingly they were offended by me being offended! It was all I could do to hold back my very, very large dog. He would have simply jumped up to be friends but they didn't know that!

That's a shame (coming from a non-believer who is from the general area to which you are from). :no:

I suspect that the notion of Religion also conveys a deeply personal view of how the world "should" be, any deviation from that perceived norm, means castle up and prepare to repel all boarders me hardees!!!

For good reasons, either persecuted, or persecutors, a worldly view of reality whether painted in an Easter Bonnet or in a Gulag, is ingrained in Religion as a sort of survival instinct.

That said, I've also seen a sort of "something is missing, this is not how things are supposed to be" among the non religious. So in reaching for answers outside themselves, ppl never look into the problem itself..what is on the inside, from health to thought processes.

Not that the Charlatans have not noticed, and reaped huge amounts of money off of ppl's need to believe in something, anything.

Religious..or not, for every religious zealot there is a Trotsky saying "Even the barricades are more important than morality"

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

I think it is part of human nature. Get a group of people together who think of themselves as sharing something in common, they are willing to fight for that common thing. Which is why the people they want to go to war with are always different, and they always point out the differences.

He made a lot of mistakes as head of the Luftwaffe, but with this quote he was pretty much spot on:

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."

--Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

Goering did not mention religion but indeed one of the tools leaders use is religious zealotry. Certainly today in the Middle East, Zealots are denouncing groups as attacking "their" view of faith as a reason for war.

Though Goering didn't mention religion, Hitler sure did.

Through subterfuge and concealment, many of today's Church leaders and faithful Christians have camouflaged the Christianity of Adolf Hitler and have attempted to mark him an atheist, a pagan cult worshipper, or a false Christian. However, from the earliest formation of the Nazi party and throughout the period of conquest and growth, Hitler expressed his Christian support to the German citizenry and soldiers. In the 1920s, Hitler's German Workers' Party (pre Nazi term) adopted a "Programme" with twenty-five points (the Nazi version of a constitution). In point twenty-four, their intent clearly demonstrates, from the very beginning, their stand in favor of a "positive" Christianity:

24. We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest.
Hitler's speeches and proclamations, even more clearly, reveal his faith and feelings toward a Christianized Germany. Nazism presents an embarrassment to Christianity and demonstrates the danger of faith. The following words from Hitler show his disdain for atheism, and pagan cults, and reveals the strength of his Christian feelings:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922

[Note, "brood of vipers" appears in Matt. 3:7 & 12:34. John 2:15 depicts Jesus driving out the money changers (adders) from the temple. The word "adders" also appears in Psalms 140:3]

Hitler was baptized in a Lutheran Church. It is a reality of which I am painfully aware though many do not, you are correct.

Like many political leaders today, Hitler expropriated religious symbols for his own use. Did you note his choice to sub serve faith to the "morality of the German Race". Since he was defining the latter, his "Christianity" became something very different.

There are elements of the religious right today which do not recognize me as a Christian because I was baptized as an infant and because I understand certain Biblical passages in ways very different than they do. Some things never change. Unfortunately.

There's a lot of Christians who are liberal and anti gun. Just like there were a lot of Christians on both sides of the aisle for slavery, war , etc. I'm not sure I'd say more likely so much as there are more conservatives who happen to be christian.its more to me about conservatism than Christianity.

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

In my world it is the exact opposite. Not saying you are wrong in where you are or in the persons you deal with but I have non-believers coming to me in public and getting in my face when I go out wearing a clerical collar. I would suggest it may have to do with aggressive, angry folks seeking out those opposite them? The desire or perhaps even the need to convince others of the rightness of your position because deep down you are insecure about it yourselves??? I don't know.

As to folks coming to your porch with pamphlets, I had JW's come to the door of the pastor's residence next door to the church building (and even a blind man could see the connection between the two with the walkways, landscaping, etc.) and try to convince me. I said, as calmly as I could, that their arrogance was beyond anything I could imagine. Amazingly they were offended by me being offended! It was all I could do to hold back my very, very large dog. He would have simply jumped up to be friends but they didn't know that!

I find gnostic atheists to be every bit as annoying as fundamentalist Christians. They are all so damned sure they are right and if ya don't agree with them they tend to get overbearing.

"MrClean wrote:

I find gnostic atheists to be every bit as annoying as fundamentalist Christians. They are all so damned sure they are right and if ya don't agree with them they tend to get overbearing.

In my youth, I considered myself an Atheist. Absolute. However, I realized that I was as wrong to force my opinion on others as the religious folks who shoved the bible in my face all the time. So, for about a decade, I referred to myself as Agnostic, since I had no more proof in my belief than anyone else did. Today, I just say that I'm non-religious, and truth be told, I just don't care what the truth is, because I'll never know. As long as someone else isn't trying to force their religion of beliefs onto someone else, I could care less what they believe. Its when they do that I care.

the gun thing is a matter of culture and upbringing. religous people in south america or europe arent advocating gun rights. that's particular to the US. it obviously has nothing to do with religion or south america and europe would be advocating the same thing.

as for hitler being a christian hahahahahahahahahaha

The Fuhrer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race. This can be seen in the similarity of their religious rites. Both (Judaism and Christianity) have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end they will be destroyed. The Fuhrer is a convinced vegetarian on principle.

— Goebbels Diaries, 29 December 1939

Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:

Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner:
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday:

It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)

10th October, 1941, midday:

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night:

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

21st October, 1941, midday:

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, *******? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)
13th December, 1941, midnight:

The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.

All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.

hitler voiced support for christianity in public for political reasons. germany was a christian nation and its tough to get votes in a christian democracy if you are going to berate and slur the religion

ap2003, I believe you are agreeing with my contention in post #16 above that Hitler used Christian images to make his own point.

A somewhat metaphysical or philosophical question we have been skirting in this thread is what determines a person's religious identity? Is it what they say or claim to believe or is it their actions which are visible to others? I would premise that both are integral to a full understanding of religious questions but that question is open.

"Ohiophinphan wrote:

ap2003, I believe you are agreeing with my contention in post #16 above that Hitler used Christian images to make his own point.

A somewhat metaphysical or philosophical question we have been skirting in this thread is what determines a person's religious identity? Is it what they say or claim to believe or is it their actions which are visible to others? I would premise that both are integral to a full understanding of religious questions but that question is open.

i do agree with your post. politicians know that religion is important to a great many citizens so most will feign their faith to whatever religion is the majority in their country (if they dont actually believe) just to get the votes. i think its pretty obvious that hitler was talking the talk but walking a completely different walk. the only politicians who outwardly voiced their disbelief were communists that i am aware of.

i think the only way to judge or decipher one's true beliefs is to look at what they do not what they say. i do believe hitler had some interest in old germanic pagan religions and he had an interest in spiritualism (the madame blavatsky type)

Maybe relevant? (territorial control-wise)