Is Christianity more violent than Islam?

[Oliver]

I started this thread to get a sense for the general opinions regarding this issue - and to comprehend if the US-political arguments concerning Terrorism might have racial, religious backgrounds, too.

Feel free to discuss the threads question. I will follow the discussion without interfering too much with my non-US opinion ...

[Wolfman]

Impossible to say.

If we are looking only at a very specific period of time (ie. right now), one could make a reasonable case that Muslims are more violent than Christians (in that there are more people being killed in the name of Islam than there are people being killed in the name of Christianity).

However, if you go to other periods of history, you'd find times when the situation was reversed; when Muslims were tolerant and relatively peaceful, and Christians were killing in the name of their religion.

In the end, it is a moot argument; I don't believe there is any manner in which one could come up with a quantitative argument for one religion or the other.

[David Swidler]

No religion is "inherently" more violent than another. Whether the beliefs are used to foment or justify violence is primarily a question of other factors - politics, preexisting societal mores and pressures, economics, you name it.

Most often, I would say, when religion has been the stated reason for a violent conflict, it is used either to mask or bolster the primary motivations.

[gtc]

You forgot Jews.

Why is there no option to blame the Jew?

[David Swidler]

You forgot Jews.

Why is there no option to blame the Jew?

It's understood. See, no matter which one is more violent, since they both ultimately stem from Judaism in some way, it's a win-win propostion.

[Oliver]

You forgot Jews.

Why is there no option to blame the Jew?


Since when are Jews violent? Israel isn't about Jews. Anyway:
This thread isn't about rantings between Ziggurat, Darthrotor, Pardalis, MaGZ and ION.

[Ryokan]

Since when are Jews violent?

Read the bible much? Quite a lot of genocide going on in there.

[Undesired Walrus]

Man, I hate these threads...

Humanity is the violent one, the stupid one, the unpractical one.

Any religion pales in comparison.

[Zep]

Define "violent". Then we can move on.

[quixotecoyote]

This could mean taking all actions over the course history into account or it could mean today while bearing in mind the influences of history.

[Oliver]

Define "violent". Then we can move on.


"Violent" is what violent means to you - personally.
Your very own definition.

ETA: Same goes to "History" and "Islam" and "Christianity" and "Context" and "Account". :boggled: :p

[Zep]

"Violent" is what violent means to you - personally.
Your very own definition.Ah. So there is no common measure or scale on which we all agree to rate "violence".

So your poll is so vague and nebulous and subjective that it is useless.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[stilicho]

Man, I hate these threads...

Humanity is the violent one, the stupid one, the unpractical one.

Any religion pales in comparison.

You are correct, sir.

I wouldn't deign to vote on a poll like this because it ignores the competitive social structures that exist regardless of label. You can read thousands of words by idealists (a lot of them American--go figure) on the subject of religion as the source of all conflict.

Reason, after all, along with an abiding humanism and agnosticism, was "supposed" to make war obsolete. Yet, excepting possibly the Thirty Years' War, the conflicts of the Age Of Reason eclipsed all those preceding it in lethality.

[Broes]

A religion is as violent as the fundamentalist interpreting it...

[Oliver]

@the moderator/admin who moved the thread.

This threads intention is about the social and political backgrounds regarding Religion. I have no Idea why mentioning Christianity and Islam has anything to do with the "philosophizing Religion section"? :confused:

[RandFan]

Dumb poll. Focusing only on Christians vs Muslims won't shed much light on the problems at hand and in fact is more likely to simply cloud the issue.

The right answer is militant fanaticism and no group of humans is entirely immune. Humanists and Jainists are rather unlikely to be militant so they figure unlikely to be violent. Atheists who don't subscribe to militant ideologies are fairly non violent also but then many, if not most of them, are humanists.

Muslims are more likely to be militant than Christians at the moment. Germans as a group have been pretty militant in the recent past as have so called Communists.

Some day Oliver, if we are lucky, we will get you to think critically and you will open your eyes and not see the world in such a myopic way. Your bigotry and hatred of America blinds you.

Well, we can hope.

[Zep]

People may be violent. Religion gives them an excuse to be violent in groups. But so do many other excuses and valid reasons.

[clerihew80]

Reason, after all, along with an abiding humanism and agnosticism, was "supposed" to make war obsolete. Yet, excepting possibly the Thirty Years' War, the conflicts of the Age Of Reason eclipsed all those preceding it in lethality.
I don't follow your example. The humanistic, rationalistic philosophy of the Age of Reason wasn't diffused throughout the general population of the epoch. It was cultivated by a minority of elites and intellectuals scattered throughout Western Europe. It should be no surprise that the majority of the population persisted in butchering each other in religious and territorial disputes, and indeed, no surprise that, given advances in technology and military knowledge, such conflicts would be even bloodier than their predecessors. I feel you've postulated a fallacious correlation here. After all, soldiers of the period were unlikely to be reading Descartes in between battles.

Theoretically, reason should be able to make war obsolete. Unfortunately we have never yet come anywhere near an all-inclusive "Age of Reason" or "Age of Enlightenment."

[gtc]

I think that more Muslims than Christians currently use their religion to justify violence and there are many passages in the Koran that can justify violence.

However, that is not the point.

The point to me is that Muslims who use their religion to justify their violence are a problem that needs to be addressed. As are the Christians and the Buddhists who use their religion to justify violence and those who justify violence for other reasons.

The other point is that the majority of Muslims, Buddhists and Christians are not violent (irrespective of which passages in their holy books can be used to justify violence and irrespective of whether they ought to do more to silence those who are violent for religous reasons).

[a_unique_person]

You forgot Jews.

Why is there no option to blame the Jew?

How about the Buddists? I looked at Ayutaya (sp?) in Thailand, which is a magnificent ruined city from hundreds of years ago, when Burma and Thailand were at war.

"weren't both countries Buddhist?" I asked. "Yes", said the guide, in a mournful tone of voice.

[Flo]

Man, I hate these threads...

Humanity is the violent one, the stupid one, the unpractical one.

Any religion pales in comparison.

You are correct, sir.

I wouldn't deign to vote on a poll like this because it ignores the competitive social structures that exist regardless of label. You can read thousands of words by idealists (a lot of them American--go figure) on the subject of religion as the source of all conflict.

Reason, after all, along with an abiding humanism and agnosticism, was "supposed" to make war obsolete. Yet, excepting possibly the Thirty Years' War, the conflicts of the Age Of Reason eclipsed all those preceding it in lethality.

Dumb poll. Focusing only on Christians vs Muslims won't shed much light on the problems at hand and in fact is more likely to simply cloud the issue.

The right answer is militant fanaticism and no group of humans is entirely immune. Humanists and Jainists are rather unlikely to be militant so they figure unlikely to be violent. Atheists who don't subscribe to militant ideologies are fairly non violent also but then many, if not most of them, are humanists.

Muslims are more likely to be militant than Christians at the moment. Germans as a group have been pretty militant in the recent past as have so called Communists.

Some day Oliver, if we are lucky, we will get you to think critically and you will open your eyes and not see the world in such a myopic way. Your bigotry and hatred of America blinds you.

Well, we can hope.


What you three said ...

[RandFan]

Theoretically, reason should be able to make war obsolete. Unfortunately we have never yet come anywhere near an all-inclusive "Age of Reason" or "Age of Enlightenment."Bingo. No where near.

[gtc]

Indeed AUP.

Are you aware of the Jathika Hela Urumaya in Sri Lanka? They are a party of Buddhist monks oppossed to the peace process with the Tamils.

[Flo]

I don't follow your example. The humanistic, rationalistic philosophy of the Age of Reason wasn't diffused throughout the general population of the epoch. It was cultivated by a minority of elites and intellectuals scattered throughout Western Europe. It should be no surprise that the majority of the population persisted in butchering each other in religious and territorial disputes, and indeed, no surprise that, given advances in technology and military knowledge, such conflicts would be even bloodier than their predecessors. I feel you've postulated a fallacious correlation here. After all, soldiers of the period were unlikely to be reading Descartes in between battles.

Humanistic rationalistic philosophies have been resisted through the ages by all established powers, be they political or religious, since they basically postulate that there's no god-given right to rule the masses.

Theoretically, reason should be able to make war obsolete. Unfortunately we have never yet come anywhere near an all-inclusive "Age of Reason" or "Age of Enlightenment."

"Mankind will turn towards rational solutions only after having tried all the others"

[Darat]

...snip..

"Mankind will turn towards rational solutions only after having tried all the others"

... many times.

[Darth Rotor]

Since when are Jews violent? Israel isn't about Jews. Anyway:
This thread isn't about rantings between Ziggurat, Darthrotor, Pardalis, MaGZ and ION.
Fine. I'll take one for the team and Blame the Jews. It's all their fault that monotheism exists, and that God chose them to get worship of Him off on and running.

Of course, they screwed it up, repeatedly, (see the OT and the Torah) which is all the more reason to blame them for everything and anything since then, what with their role as God's Chosen. Fer God's sake, getting it right from the outset would have prevented silly things like language barriers, religious differences, and thus much human suffering.

Freaking Jews, causing all this violence for three millenia.

Are you happy now, Oliver?

Anyone? Oh, while I am at it, I just hurt my forehead rolling my eyes while I posted that sarcastic drivel.

DR

[sphenisc]

Theoretically, reason should be able to make war obsolete.

Theoretically, Christianity should make war obsolete - so much for theory.

[JoeEllison]

Israel isn't about Jews.

Really? That's an odd position to take, considering that Israel was created as a Jewish state after WWII, so it has everything to do with Jews.

Now, if you mean to say that criticism of Israel isn't inherently antisemitic or directed at the worldwide Jewish community, I agree with you completely. It would be as unfair to blame all Jews, or even all Israelis, for the actions of the Israeli government and military. We don't think it is right to blame all Muslims for Osama bin Laden, or all Americans for George W. Bush.

Of course, if you believe the "America is a Christian Nation" wackos, it follows that Christianity is the world's most violent religion.

[Slimething]

:lfault

[stilicho]

I don't follow your example. The humanistic, rationalistic philosophy of the Age of Reason wasn't diffused throughout the general population of the epoch. It was cultivated by a minority of elites and intellectuals scattered throughout Western Europe. It should be no surprise that the majority of the population persisted in butchering each other in religious and territorial disputes, and indeed, no surprise that, given advances in technology and military knowledge, such conflicts would be even bloodier than their predecessors. I feel you've postulated a fallacious correlation here. After all, soldiers of the period were unlikely to be reading Descartes in between battles.

Theoretically, reason should be able to make war obsolete. Unfortunately we have never yet come anywhere near an all-inclusive "Age of Reason" or "Age of Enlightenment."

I am gently reminded of Frederick II, the self-styled Stupor Mundi--the Wonder of the World--in a famous portrait wearing a cloak over armour and reading a book. Very much ahead of his time. Soldiers do read books. He even managed to argue his way into securing Jerusalem during one of the most unusual crusades ever mounted.

But I digress.

Why do you think an "age of reason" should make war obsolete? Try reading Tuchman's The Proud Tower. That's exactly what they thought at the turn of the nineteenth into the twentieth century. Hiram Maxim boasted that his machine gun had made war too terrible to contemplate.

And, of course, all these products of the Age Of Reason marched off to war in the firm belief that the whole thing would be over in weeks if not days.

I take exception that what we observed was sort of an ersatz "Age Of Reason" or "Age Of Enlightenment". I see all over this forum the same optimism and faith in atheism and "real" enlightenment that typified the ruling classes in the years leading up to the Great War. I am not prognosticating, of course, but figuring that a better appreciation of "reason" and "enlightenment" would result in less frequent or less lethal warfare is naive in extreme. Sandhurst was founded directly upon the foundations of rationalism and inquiry into the liberal arts. Compare its Classics faculty to that of your own alma mater. You'd be pleasantly surprised to see that soldiers do read books.

[stilicho]

"Mankind will turn towards rational solutions only after having tried all the others"
After saying kind things about what I wrote before, I almost hate to object to this.

But...

Inherent in this quotation is the presumption that war is irrational. It is actually quite rational. And real.

I have seen people explain that it is a purely human phenomenon (intra-species conflict) or outmoded or any number of other things that are simply not true. You have your Greg Palasts of the world explaining that it is purely economic in nature--which it is not. Nor is warfare just a "trick" employed by "elites" to exploit their subjects.

Human beings are biologically both territorial and social creatures. This understanding goes back to both Aristotle and Plato. If you could somehow extract both those capacities out of the gene pool you might--might--be able to banish warfare. Nothing at all to do with being more "rational" or "enlightened".

I'd hate to see exactly what kind of beings these non-territorial and non-social "people" would appear like. I doubt they'd be much fun.

[Flo]

After saying kind things about what I wrote before, I almost hate to object to this.

Please do feel free to object all you want, I know this quotation is more a joke than a profound philosophical observation.

But ...

But...

Inherent in this quotation is the presumption that war is irrational. It is actually quite rational.


You'll concede that many reasons to go to war can't reasonably considered as rational ;)

And real.

I have seen people explain that it is a purely human phenomenon (intra-species conflict) or outmoded or any number of other things that are simply not true. You have your Greg Palasts of the world explaining that it is purely economic in nature--which it is not. Nor is warfare just a "trick" employed by "elites" to exploit their subjects.

Human beings are biologically both territorial and social creatures. This understanding goes back to both Aristotle and Plato. If you could somehow extract both those capacities out of the gene pool you might--might--be able to banish warfare. Nothing at all to do with being more "rational" or "enlightened".

Totally agree.

I'd hate to see exactly what kind of beings these non-territorial and non-social "people" would appear like. I doubt they'd be much fun.

Why would a non-territorial species necessarily be non-social ?

[CapelDodger]

Impossible to say.

If we are looking only at a very specific period of time (ie. right now), one could make a reasonable case that Muslims are more violent than Christians (in that there are more people being killed in the name of Islam than there are people being killed in the name of Christianity).

However, if you go to other periods of history, you'd find times when the situation was reversed; when Muslims were tolerant and relatively peaceful, and Christians were killing in the name of their religion.

In the end, it is a moot argument; I don't believe there is any manner in which one could come up with a quantitative argument for one religion or the other.

I'm not so sure. Religions have their own inherent characteristics, derived from the societies they were formulated in.

Christianity is inheritantly orthodox and intolerant, as was the Roman Imperial mindset it derives from. (In many ways Church mimics State in Christianity). Until very recently the only significant religious minority within Christendom was Judaism, and that only because the Jews served a special doctrinal purpose. Wherever Christians conquered populations of other faiths - in Spain, Italy, Central Europe, the Holy Land during the Crusades, yadda-yadda - the only options offered were conversion, emigration or death. And not always all of those.

A long-term result of the Roman (and Christian) mindset is the implicit assumption that homogeneity is a necessary condition of an ordered society. Nationalism and the nation state - a "gift" from Christendom to the world - are dripping with that assumption (and with blood, of course). One ethnicity, one language, one mythos, one culture, one dress-sense. Multi-culturalism in Europe is a post-WW2 phaenomenon, and it's not sitting easy. I'm not convinced it will take in the long-run.


Islam is predicated on multi-culturalism, being from a very different historical background. From its very inception it addresses the questions raised by the continuing presence of non-Muslims within a Muslim state (Muslimdom?). It's far more tolerant inherently than Christianity is. This derives from the regional experience of multi-ethnic empires that - unlike the Roman Imperium - did not attempt to impose their metropolitan culture as an orthodoxy. The only orthodoxy they imposed was of the "cough up your dues, chump" variety. Their monuments actually celebrate the variety of peoples that pay tribute to The Boss. Roman monuments celebrate the variety of peoples they screwed-over and turned into Romans.


Roughly correlating tolerance and violent tendencies in an inverse relationship, Christianity is inherently more violent than Islam. (The historical record backs this up.) But only because they represent the secular circumstances they emerged in.

Both are equally laughable. (From a safe distance.) There's only one true doctrine - "Cough up your dues, chump, or there'll be violence, capisce?".

[CapelDodger]

Reason, after all, along with an abiding humanism and agnosticism, was "supposed" to make war obsolete. Yet, excepting possibly the Thirty Years' War, the conflicts of the Age Of Reason eclipsed all those preceding it in lethality.

The lethality simply tracks the available technology, and technological advance follows the funding - which is most readily available for "defence" related technology. There's nothing new under the Sun.

[Mark]

How about the Buddists? I looked at Ayutaya (sp?) in Thailand, which is a magnificent ruined city from hundreds of years ago, when Burma and Thailand were at war.

"weren't both countries Buddhist?" I asked. "Yes", said the guide, in a mournful tone of voice.

But did the issues in that battle have anything to do with being Buddhist? Buddhists will fight, if motivated...they just generally do not fight to punish blasphemers or convert/kill infidels. In other words, they don't, as a rule, fight "holy" wars.

That said, I do not know about this particular battle. I would be interested, though.

[CapelDodger]

People may be violent. Religion gives them an excuse to be violent in groups. But so do many other excuses and valid reasons.

Groups may be violent without directly reflecting the violent tendencies of the group members. Human groups aren't just the sum of their parts, they're an emergent phaenomenon. Emerging from human nature.

There are commonly two human perceptions of violence : within the group, where it's closely regulated, and outside the group, where it's often applauded. Steal is an inside concept and bad, loot is an outside concept and good (if enough people get a tase). Murder is an inside concept, killing is an outside concept.

If alien explorers want to get a handle on HomSap they could do a lot worse than watch The Sopranos all the way through. Follow that with Deadwood and ain't never any of them grey-skinned big-eyed bastids coming back to this bad-ass neighbourhood, no sirreee!

[CapelDodger]

Since when are Jews violent? Israel isn't about Jews.

Do you fancy going to Hebron and lecturing the local settlers on that?

You're right, though, Israel isn't about Jews. It's no longer about anything, even the it of Israel is undefined. The old slogan of "Israel is the Army" can't cut it anymore and "Israel is Sharon" has severe problems.

Peres as President has to be the punch-line for the Israel joke.

Fortunately, Israel is not about Jews. Many Israelis think it is, but many Jews know better.

[CapelDodger]

... many times.

Every time. But waddaya gonna do? We're just killing time while waiting for evolution to get its act together.

[CapelDodger]

Really? That's an odd position to take, considering that Israel was created as a Jewish state after WWII, so it has everything to do with Jews.

The statehood of Israel is of symbolic significance only. To understand Israel you have to follow its peculiar time-line from Herzl's days in the 1890's - and Herzl's vision of Israel is not at all what we're seeing today. Herzl wanted to show that European Jews were as capable of having their own nation as other white people were. He saw it as the saving of what he (more German than Jew) regarded as a backward and superstitious "race".

There's nothing Jewish about Israel.

[Mark]

The statehood of Israel is of symbolic significance only. To understand Israel you have to follow its peculiar time-line from Herzl's days in the 1890's - and Herzl's vision of Israel is not at all what we're seeing today. Herzl wanted to show that European Jews were as capable of having their own nation as other white people were. He saw it as the saving of what he (more German than Jew) regarded as a backward and superstitious "race".

There's nothing Jewish about Israel.

May I ask what "More German than Jew" means? Not challenging it...just curious. That is a pretty intense statement.

[JoeEllison]

The statehood of Israel is of symbolic significance only. To understand Israel you have to follow its peculiar time-line from Herzl's days in the 1890's - and Herzl's vision of Israel is not at all what we're seeing today. Herzl wanted to show that European Jews were as capable of having their own nation as other white people were. He saw it as the saving of what he (more German than Jew) regarded as a backward and superstitious "race".

There's nothing Jewish about Israel.
Weird, man... just weird. It seems from a modern perspective that Israel is all about the mythological Hebrew as Yahweh's Chosen Ones, and little else. From their racist foundations to their racist and genocidal treatment of the Palestinians... well, OK, that's Zionism and not Judaism, but I hope you see what I mean. There's certainly a warped sense of "cultural/racial superiority" interwoven in the Israeli national character, at least for a certain number of extremists.

[Harpoon]

Israel of today is about as similar to the nation Herzl, Weizmann and and Ben-Gurion envisioned, as the USA of today is similar to Franklin's, Hamilton's and Adams' vision.

Herzl was willing to take whatever they could get for a Jewish state, but those Russian Jews were an insistent and persistent bunch.;)

Ah, if shoulda beens coulda been. But decisions were made. A people without a land for a land without a people.

I was raised to be pro-Israeli, and still am. But stabbing the Arabs in the back after WWII was asking for payback. Yet it was such a simple solution after WWI.

Our divide and conquer policy seems to be failing, or is at least being challenged. Will the reinstated Caliphate rule in Bahgdad or Damascus, in Tehran or Cairo?:rolleyes:

But blame religion for all you can; if you're wrong it doesn't matter -- there's so much else wrong you'll never be aware of. I'm sure if there was such a thing as the Judeo-xian god, his opinion of the church and its religion would be worse than anything ever expressed on this forum.

Religion isn't the root of violence by humans against humans. Empire is the game. And religion is a fine tool to craft one.

[a_unique_person]

Humanistic rationalistic philosophies have been resisted through the ages by all established powers, be they political or religious, since they basically postulate that there's no god-given right to rule the masses.

Hello Saudi Arabia.

[Flo]

Hello Saudi Arabia.

I was thinking more about the fight of the French royalists and the clergy at the turn of the 19th century against the separation of church and state and the notion of "freedom of conscience" (i.e. the right of the citizens to make up their own mind about religion instead of having the state paying for them to be indoctrinated) ...

[CapelDodger]

May I ask what "More German than Jew" means? Not challenging it...just curious. That is a pretty intense statement.

Herzl indentified strongly with Germany and German culture, but hardly at all with traditional European Jewish society, which he regarded as petit-bourgeois, backward-looking and mired in superstition. He saw Israel as a way to forge a new Jewish "nation" in the heroic image of the Germans, who had created (through war) their own nation-state in 1871. Everything about him reflects the German attitudes of the time - including German attitudes to Jews, although he blamed Jewish deficiencies on their situation rather than their "blood".

The Israel he envisioned was to be another secular European nation-state, just not actually in Europe (which was fully-booked). One ethnic population, one language, one mythos, one culture, one dress-code (which did not include ringlets and kaftans). Nothing like the Israel of today. Herzl said of religious Jews "We shall know how to keep them in their synagogues". The recent evidence from Hebron suggests he was wrong about that.

[CapelDodger]

I was raised to be pro-Israeli, and still am. But stabbing the Arabs in the back after WWII was asking for payback. Yet it was such a simple solution after WWI.

The stab-in-the-back came after WW1 when promises of independece made to the Arabs were dropped while the promises in the Balfour Declaration were confirmed. The fighting started shortly after and has never really stopped. Nor is there must prospect that it will.

Our divide and conquer policy seems to be failing, or is at least being challenged. Will the reinstated Caliphate rule in Bahgdad or Damascus, in Tehran or Cairo?:rolleyes:

Best we get out and watch what happens from a safe distance :) .

[CapelDodger]

Weird, man... just weird. It seems from a modern perspective that Israel is all about the mythological Hebrew as Yahweh's Chosen Ones, and little else.

Herzl's Zionism was secular, as was Ben-Gurion's (the true "Father of the Nation"), Golda Meir's, Begin's, even Sharon's. These were major egos who didn't want Yahweh overshadowing them :) . The conflict in Palestine cannot be attributed to religion. It's a nationalist conflict. Even on the Arab side Islam has only come into the picture quite recently - Fatah, for instance, is a secular organisation.

There was (still is) a religious Zionism that saw the Return in purely spiritual terms, which is the Jewish tradition. The only state they were concerned with was the Kingdom of Heaven, the only sovereignty that of Yahweh. The idea of Return by force - or even by purchase - was entirely alien to them.

From their racist foundations to their racist and genocidal treatment of the Palestinians... well, OK, that's Zionism and not Judaism, but I hope you see what I mean. There's certainly a warped sense of "cultural/racial superiority" interwoven in the Israeli national character, at least for a certain number of extremists.

19thCE European attitudes to race have been perpetuated in Zionism while they've faded in Europe - not least, ironically, because of the Holocaust. Israel's stuck in a kind of time-warp.

[JoeEllison]

Herzl's Zionism was secular, as was Ben-Gurion's (the true "Father of the Nation"), Golda Meir's, Begin's, even Sharon's. These were major egos who didn't want Yahweh overshadowing them :) . The conflict in Palestine cannot be attributed to religion. It's a nationalist conflict. Even on the Arab side Islam has only come into the picture quite recently - Fatah, for instance, is a secular organisation.

There was (still is) a religious Zionism that saw the Return in purely spiritual terms, which is the Jewish tradition. The only state they were concerned with was the Kingdom of Heaven, the only sovereignty that of Yahweh. The idea of Return by force - or even by purchase - was entirely alien to them.



19thCE European attitudes to race have been perpetuated in Zionism while they've faded in Europe - not least, ironically, because of the Holocaust. Israel's stuck in a kind of time-warp.
I'm not exactly disagreeing with you... I just feel like the religious and the nationalist are more interwoven than you seem to. I will agree with you that Israel seems locked into a cycle that perpetuates the conflicts of a half-century ago, with little sign that the powers-that-be are willing to act to break that cycle.

And, certainly, those same people in charge of Israeli policy exploit the religious side of things, especially when using their Christian allies in America to exploit our resources for their ends... not in a "evil Jewish conspiracy" sort of way, but in the normal hiring of lobbyists and latching onto the Dominionist Christian movement.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh, like Hindus aren't violent. :rolleyes:

1993 Mumbai riots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_Riots)The riots started as a result of communal tension prevailing in the city after the Babri Mosque demolition on 6 December 1992. It is commonly believed that the riots occurred in two phases. The first was mainly a Muslim backlash as a result of the Babri Masjid demolition in the week immediately succeeding 6 December 1992 by Hindu nationalists in the city of Ayodhya.

The second phase was a Hindu backlash occurring as a result of the killings of Hindu Mathadi Kamgar (Workers) by Muslims in Dongri (an area of South Mumbai). This phase occurred in January 1993 (most incidents reported between 6 January to 20 January).

Overall around 900 people were killed in these riots. Arson, killings and the destruction of property occurred in distinctively different kinds of areas. The areas of Pydhonie, Dongri, Agripada, Gamdevi, V.P.Road, Byculla, Bhoiwada, Nagpada, Kherwadi, Nehru Nagar, Dharavi, Ghatkopar, Kurla, Deonar, Trombay, Bandra, Vakola and Jogeshwari were largely affected amongst others. Violence affected not only slums but also apartment blocks and chawls.



Violence erupts in Delhi after truck kills 2 kanwarias (http://www.ibnlive.com/news/violence-erupts-in-delhi-after-truck-kills-2-kanwarias/46476-3.html)New Delhi: Delhi and the adjoining areas witnessed unprecedented violence by Kanwarias, devotees of Lord Shiva.

Hindu vs. Hindu: Caste Violence in India (http://www.shopware-usa.com/id/13347/Hindu_vs_Hindu_Caste_Violence_in_India.htm?WT.cg_n =Religion_and_Philosophy_NEWRELEASE&WT.cg_s=Hindu_vs_Hindu_Caste_Violence_in_India)

Violence Against "Untouchables" Growing, Says Report; Indian Government Fails to Prevent Massacres, Rapes, and Exploitation (http://hrw.org/english/docs/1999/04/14/india879.htm)


Face it, some humans are violent. It manifests itself in religion and ethnicity and war because 'us vs them' facilitates morality dissonance. One excuses immorality by excluding 'them' from humankind.

[CapelDodger]

Oh, like Hindus aren't violent.

The recent (but hopefully fleeting) re-emergence of the Hindu-nationalist-fundamenatlist BJP - it was one of their guys that killed Ghandi, not everybody knows that - seems almost to be a "me-too" thing in response to all the publicity Abrahamic fundies have been getting recently. India does seem to have learnt its lesson pretty damn' quick.

That might change when they go in for the kill in Pakistan ... But religion won't be behind that little exercise, whatever the rhetoric might be when the time comes.

[CapelDodger]

I'm not exactly disagreeing with you... I just feel like the religious and the nationalist are more interwoven than you seem to.

They have become so; inevitably, really, considering how half-assed the whole project was. Herzl paid no attention to Middle Eastern and Sephardic Jews, he saw Israel in purely Ashkenazi terms but that was never going to happen. Ashkenazis have continued to run the place but they've had to make concessions to the more traditional groups. At the same time a militant and explicitly racist pseudo-Judaism has emerged, mostly in the US, which is what's driving the settler movement that's become a state-within-a-state and still gets state funding ...

Israel is one weird place, and even what the "place" is is undefined. I can't see it ending well, but on the other hand, it may just never end. Israel, the first Asymptotic State :) .

I will agree with you that Israel seems locked into a cycle that perpetuates the conflicts of a half-century ago, with little sign that the powers-that-be are willing to act to break that cycle.

The Israeli electoral system is designed to create fractions, and it's worked. The reasoning behind that was to emasculate the representative body - the Knesset - leaving power in the hands of the executive, which in turn was to be dominated by an autocrat. The executive being the upper echelon of the Labour Party, and the autocrat being Ben-Gurion. Who was a Leninist, and a damn' good one.

Time and events have eroded that central authority to the extent that there aren't any powers-that-be any more, except in the most fleeting sense and for very specific issues. Sharon was able to pull Israel out of Gaza, for instance, but he had to give way elsewhere to do it.

Sharon was the last of the Big Men, and his not-dead, not-alive state seems very symbolic of Israel today. Unfortunately, that headless chicken can do some serious damage as it runs around the yard. As we all saw in Lebanon last summer.

And, certainly, those same people in charge of Israeli policy exploit the religious side of things, especially when using their Christian allies in America to exploit our resources for their ends... not in a "evil Jewish conspiracy" sort of way, but in the normal hiring of lobbyists and latching onto the Dominionist Christian movement.

That alliance may well end in tears. How long will it be before the Rapturists start blaming the delay on Jews that insist on staying at home instead of heading of towards Megiddo and their god-given destiny? Some Israelis have wet dreams about New York's Jewish community being forcibly "re"-patriated, but the sane majority would be aghast, to say the least.

Let's face it, fundie Christians have not revised their opinion of the Christ-Killers. They really really wouldn't like their daughters to marry one, know what I'm sayin'? But it's seen as a short-term arrangement by both sides.

[Mark]

Herzl indentified strongly with Germany and German culture, but hardly at all with traditional European Jewish society, which he regarded as petit-bourgeois, backward-looking and mired in superstition. He saw Israel as a way to forge a new Jewish "nation" in the heroic image of the Germans, who had created (through war) their own nation-state in 1871. Everything about him reflects the German attitudes of the time - including German attitudes to Jews, although he blamed Jewish deficiencies on their situation rather than their "blood".

The Israel he envisioned was to be another secular European nation-state, just not actually in Europe (which was fully-booked). One ethnic population, one language, one mythos, one culture, one dress-code (which did not include ringlets and kaftans). Nothing like the Israel of today. Herzl said of religious Jews "We shall know how to keep them in their synagogues". The recent evidence from Hebron suggests he was wrong about that.

Thank you.

[a_unique_person]

But did the issues in that battle have anything to do with being Buddhist? Buddhists will fight, if motivated...they just generally do not fight to punish blasphemers or convert/kill infidels. In other words, they don't, as a rule, fight "holy" wars.

That said, I do not know about this particular battle. I would be interested, though.

Wikipedia is your friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayutthaya_kingdom complete with some photos. Well worth a visit. The irony is, it's pretty well empty of tourists.

[Civilized Worm]

No religion is "inherently" more violent than another.


I think you'll find that Islam is substantially more violent than Jainism.

[Harpoon]

They have become so; inevitably, really, considering how half-assed the whole project was. Herzl paid no attention to Middle Eastern and Sephardic Jews, he saw Israel in purely Ashkenazi terms but that was never going to happen. Ashkenazis have continued to run the place but they've had to make concessions to the more traditional groups. At the same time a militant and explicitly racist pseudo-Judaism has emerged, mostly in the US, which is what's driving the settler movement that's become a state-within-a-state and still gets state funding ...

Your statement about Herzl being more German than Jewish, me thinks was also true of the majority of German Jewry. The Russian and other Slav Jews were a different stripe and very insistent that any Jewish state must be in Palestine. There's certainly a racist, pseudo-Judaic militarism among many East Coast American Jews and their fundie friends. But have the Tzabar all become bovine, middle class? I had presumed the Sabras were the thorns covering the settler movement -- manifest destiny, et al.

Israel is one weird place, and even what the "place" is is undefined. I can't see it ending well, but on the other hand, it may just never end. Israel, the first Asymptotic State.

Lest we forget the duration of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

The Israeli electoral system is designed to create fractions, and it's worked.

And reinforced the need for separation of church and state.

Let's face it, fundie Christians have not revised their opinion of the Christ-Killers. They really really wouldn't like their daughters to marry one, know what I'm sayin'? But it's seen as a short-term arrangement by both sides.

The fundies don't necessarily like Jews as individuals; it's Israel that's the thing. They teach that although the Jews are stiffed-necked and disobedient to god, they are the chosen people. And nations that have treated Israel poorly end up on god's crap list. Because America has treated immigrant Jews well and now supports Israel, the U.S. remains on god's Christmas card list.

As well as all these blessings for being Jewish-friendly, the fundies ALL believed that the establishment of Israel was THE sign. This would be the last generation before the 2nd coming. But time does fly by. The last generation thing is wearing a little thin.

So some extremely extreme fundies now teach, that Israel hasn't REALLY been established yet. It won't REALLY be Israel, until the New Temple gets built you know where and the fundies can all rapturize.

It's possible if Israel continues to come across less as the victim and more as the victimizer, the general American public may drop its unflinching support for the country -- it's even possible many America Jews could turn their backs.

But not the fundies. Israel is their ticket to ride.

[Mark]

Wikipedia is your friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayutthaya_kingdom complete with some photos. Well worth a visit. The irony is, it's pretty well empty of tourists.

At first glance this does not appear to be a Buddhist holy war. Just my first glance opinion; I am prepared to change it upon further reading.

[CapelDodger]

Thank you.

Always happy to pontificate :) .

[CapelDodger]

Your statement about Herzl being more German than Jewish, me thinks was also true of the majority of German Jewry. The Russian and other Slav Jews were a different stripe and very insistent that any Jewish state must be in Palestine.

The bulk of Herzl's followers were Russian Jews studying at German and Austrian universities. They were also the great majority at the First Zionist Congress. Zionism is actually a student movement. Beggars belief, doesn't it?

These Russian Jewish students were from the urbanised Russian upper-middle class, which was strongly Germanised. In the context of the late 19thCE, Germany was the obvious model to emulate. Even many Brits, particularly in industry, felt the same. With the Germanism came theoretical nationalism, which was essentially a German invention. Theoretical nationalism prescribes ethnic homogeneity and a defined territory. Ergo, Germanised European Jews (such as Herzl and his student followers) wanted their own territory just for Jews. The symbology of the Holy Land meant nothing to them.

The Holy Land became a deal-breaker because the symbology of the Holy Land mattered to the Christians that made it all happen. And opened the wallets of diaspora Jews who'd never dream of actually moving there.

Apart from that, nation-building - theoretically - needs a mythos, something that Herzl and his adolescent flock didn't register, and superior tailoring ain't gonna cut it for the Jewish State :) . It had to be the Holy Land, which might mean many things but they all include Jerusalem. So whatever happens, it won't happen quietly.

There's certainly a racist, pseudo-Judaic militarism among many East Coast American Jews and their fundie friends. But have the Tzabar all become bovine, middle class? I had presumed the Sabras were the thorns covering the settler movement -- manifest destiny, et al.

The last time I was in-the-loop (late 80's, North London) the settlers were mostly yuppies after cheap ranch-style housing within easy commuting range of Tel Aviv.

"Promised Land" is a lawyer's dream; exactly what was promised, and exactly what land?

Lest we forget the duration of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Or (with reference to the thread for a change) how violent was its establishment. With Papal blessing and even instigation, which makes it Christian by any reasonable definition.

[Verde]

So some extremely extreme fundies now teach, that Israel hasn't REALLY been established yet. It won't REALLY be Israel, until the New Temple gets built you know where and the fundies can all rapturize.



For those that can wade through the eclectic writing style of Tom Robbins, I'd recommend a reading of 'Skinny Legs and All'.

With the current tribulations of the fundie movement, such a MIHOP approach is likely being considered.

V.

[Smoke TNT]

Is this honestly a serious question? Over 10,000 terror attacks have occurred in the past 6 years in the name of Allah all over the globe, and there are numerous verses in the Quran that instruct Muslims to kill unbelievers. You don't get many (any) reports of Christians killing large groups of people "in the name of Jesus". And also, I could be wrong but I'm not aware of any verses in the Bible that equates to "slay the unbelievers wherever you may find them". Sura 4:89

[ravdin]

And also, I could be wrong but I'm not aware of any verses in the Bible that equates to "slay the unbelievers wherever you may find them". Sura 4:89

There are plenty of exhortations in Leviticus to kill unbelievers and heretics. But almost no fundie Christians in the US seem to take them seriously (e.g. by calling for the death penalty for those of us who fail to observe the Sabbath).

[Apology]

Having read both the Koran and the Bible, I'd have to say it was a tie. That was my general impression, not being a scholar or a layperson of either religion.

I'd also say that most acts of religious violence were due to misinterpretations or misuses of both books. Neither book has instructions to carry out an Inquisition or bomb a major landmark full of people. Both books were twisted and taken out of context to achieve these end results.

Even when one of them suggests that believers deal harshly with "the enemy", both attempt to make it clear that "the enemy" is an aggressor and not simply someone who believes differently than you. Obviously this part of the message has failed on a grand scale worldwide.

[TX50]

Christianity is inheritantly orthodox and intolerant, as was the Roman Imperial mindset it derives from.

"Inherently orthodox and intolerant" is a rather innaccurate description of the
"Roman imperial mindset". Roman authorities were notably tolerant of foreign
religions (only in cases where they started to become a threat to public order
would measures be taken). The Roman empire accepted other cultures (look
at the Roman army as a very obvious example) and imperial Roman society
was, perhaps surprisingly, generally free of racial prejudices.

Archaeology continually turns up evidence for the cultural diversity of the
Roman empire and shows that different ways of life and value systems were
accepted and could coexist happily with the Roman culture of the elite. The
social elites of conquered peoples were generally delighted to adopt Roman
ways, and it was largely they who drove the process of Romanization.

Intolerance and forced orthodoxy would never have allowed the Romans to
control such a vast empire for as long as they did.