Peaceful or not

[jokerthief]

[lehighguy]

All religion is inherintly violent. Luckily, a majority of the worlds people don't actually believe in religion. Even if they are ardent believers, they aren't 100% sure. I can't see how someone that is 100% sure of thier religion can't try to convert everyone.

[FishHooks]

[ QUOTE ]
Luckily, a majority of the worlds people don't actually believe in religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd love to see the figures on this.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
All religion is inherintly violent.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? What is there violent in the original teachings of the Buddha, or in Taoism? Absolutely nothing, as far as I can see.

[lehighguy]

When I say believe I mean that you think you are 100% right, with no doubts, and you therefore must believe everyone else is wrong.

I'd say 99.9% of people in the world have some doubt in their religion. Catholics that use condoms, Muslims that don't follow Sharia completely, etc. If you disobey a single precept of your religion then you can't be a total believer. And most people aren't. Most people simply read the Bible, Koran, etc, take what they want, and leave the rest. They view them as guidebooks rather then lawbooks.

I think the terrorists in every religion are the real believers. They have absolutely no doubt they are right. When you have no doubt of that, I can't see how you can't try to convert everyone. They aren't preaching a perversion of the religion, the religion itself is ugly. It's just that most people, wether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc. don't fully believe in thier religion, they believe in thier own philosophy which owes a great deal of its precepts to religous thoughts and books.

This is not to say religous believe is inherintly a bad thing. I have many devotely religous friends that study the bible and do lots of nice stuff. The Bible, Koran, etc. are very old books with a great deal of wisdom and history. Even a secularlist could learn much from reading them. I view the Bible the same way I view the Declaration of independence, a good read with lots of good ideas. However, the friends I speak of clearly operate on personal philosophies that are deeply dependent on religion, not pure religous believe.

When you have a personal philosophy, even one heavily dependent on religion, you have doubt. Doubt keeps you from comming to the conclusion that your believes are absolutely superior to anothers. After all, you are just a man, you can be wrong.

Pure religous belief allows people to bypass the "I'm just a man" thought pattern and remove doubt because God has to be right and he's told you exactly what to do.

When religion is used as a community builder, a guidebook, a way of transferring ideas and tradition from one generation to another it is productive. However, Religion with a capital R, which I consider to be real religion, is dangerous, intolerant, and violent.

[FishHooks]

Just because you have a doubt about one thing in your religion you they say, that person isn't religious or belong to a religon, thats absurd. Thats where there are hundreds of religions.

[lehighguy]

To be truly part of a religion you have to take 100% of it with no doubt. Using that definition, it isn't suprising I find most people really aren't religous.

As I said, most people have personal philosophies. In most cases those philosophies owe a great deal to religous thought. However, I don't consider those people religous.

My uncle john is a catholic priest. He disagrees with the church on certain matters. I don't consider him religous as such, I consider him a free thinker.

[FishHooks]

You dont have to in 100% agreement to belong to something, I belong to the republican party but I dont agree with 100% of what they do. The same example could go for religious people.

It's inherently violent and intolerant, and the sooner the G8 nations realize this, the better.

[lehighguy]

As I said, I'm differentiating between"true believers" and people with doubt.

I'm using a different definition for belong. My parents are Catholics, they belong to the political organziation of Cathloicism, but I don't consider them "true catholics".

I don't think its possible to have true repubs or dems. It really only applies to religous organizations in my mind.

[mmbt0ne]

Wow. I believe this to be one of the most ridiculous viewpoints I've seen on 2p2. Read into that whatever you may . /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[11t]

Yes, those buddhists are extremely violent.

They must be stopped!

[Bob Moss]

I answered other. By its nature of being a religion, Islam is a means of social control, and while it is not violent in the sense of shooting people, it does force on people a certain way of thinking, I'm just not sure if that's called violence.

Also, I know NOTHING about Islam, so in fact I'm only guessing that it is not physically violent, who knows, I don't know. It doesn't matter. My point is that, like Christianity, it is a tool used to control people.

B

[JoshuaD]

[ QUOTE ]
All religion is inherintly violent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Buddhism? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[ACPlayer]

The Khampa rebels fought the chinese occupation of Tibet in support of their religious beliefs.

Violence and buddhism (http://www.psa.ac.uk/cps/2000/Ardley%20Jane.pdf)

Scroll down to page page 2 where the author discusses the offered justification based on Buddhism for the violence. Like many "moderate" religious leaders, the Dalai Lama does not see eye to eye with the religions extremists.

Through out history violence is linked with occupation, oppression, economic conditions. Religion forms the justification but is rarely if ever the true cause.

[Felix_Nietsche]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All religion is inherintly violent.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? What is there violent in the original teachings of the Buddha, or in Taoism? Absolutely nothing, as far as I can see.

[/ QUOTE ]

*******************************************
What about when the Buddist used artillary to destroy those Buddist statues in Afganistan?.....Oh wait those were the muslims.

Well.....how about when the Buddist chopped off Daniel Pearl's head?.....Huh! What do you say now? Oh....those was muslims too.....weren't they.

Well....what about when the Buddists danced in the streets after 9/11. So what do you say about that...huh? Wait. those were muslims too. Mmmmmm......

Ummmmmm........Ummmmmm.......Islam is the religion of peace?

[Felix_Nietsche]

How can anyone look at these numbers and not see that the muslim culture shows SIGNIFICANT support for terrorism. If Saudia Arabia was in the poll their numbers would be HIGHER than Jordan's numbers.

Pew Global Attitude project
Percentages represent:
(1) Confidence in Osama Bin Laden
(2) Supports suicide bombings and other violent methods to further Islam

Jordan 60% 57% (up 14% from 2002)
Lebanon 2% 39% (down 34%)
Pakistan 51% 25% (down 8%)
Indonesia 37% 15% (down 12%)
Turkety 7% 13% (up 1%)
Morocco 25% 13% (down 27%)

******I realize the emotionally blinded will continue to say Islam is a religion of peace but some of them may actually look at these numbers and wake up to the ugly truth.

[JoshuaD]

[ QUOTE ]
Religion forms the justification but is rarely if ever the true cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

You made my exact point. Most religions aren't fundamentally violent, but they're very easy to use to accomplish violent ends.

[MMMMMM]

While I don't think those examples suffice to say Islam is inherently violent, I do think that the Koran itself clearly advocates that violence and force be used against non-believers (at least until they are subjugated).

Islam strikes me as being peaceful only as long as it gets its own way--and its own way is absolutist and dominant. Ideologically speaking that is not exactly conducive to playing well with others.

There undoubtedly have been some violent Buddhists before--but there is nothing in the Buddha's teachings espousing any sort of violence. Nor have I found any exhortations to violence in the Lao Tsu or Chuang Tsu, the two basic texts of Taoism.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The Khampa rebels fought the chinese occupation of Tibet in support of their religious beliefs.

Violence and buddhism

Scroll down to page page 2 where the author discusses the offered justification based on Buddhism for the violence. Like many "moderate" religious leaders, the Dalai Lama does not see eye to eye with the religions extremists.

Through out history violence is linked with occupation, oppression, economic conditions. Religion forms the justification but is rarely if ever the true cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

ACPlayer,

You are greatly misunderstanding something, I fear.

The Tibetan rebels do not have any religious justification for their actions; they have just reached the conclusion that they are willing to fight. There is no justification based on Buddhism for these actions. There is only the decision of the Tibetan rebels to fight because they do not want their religious heritage to be destroyed.

Even the article you linked says that their guerilla struggle is ideologically opposed to Tibetan Buddhism and to the teachings of the Dalai Lama (page 3, paragraph two. Read this paragraph closely).

You can find examples of some religious persons committing violence. That does not mean the religion itself is violent, however.

To discern whether the religion itself is violent, one needs to read the actual texts of the religion.

There are no violent instructions in the most essential Buddhist texts. There is no basis in the religion of the Tibetan rebels for them to fight. They have simply decided their religious heritage is worth fighting for. HUGE difference there.

In Islam however, the Koran in numerous places specifically instructs Muslims to fight non-believers and subjugate them.

[ACPlayer]

I dont misunderstand anything on this subject.

But, I do understand your mindset on this subject.

The Khampa rebels is a good example here. We have a religion that is being misused by a bunch of people to further their objectives, in this case to fight oppression and occupation.

This is exactly what extremists in Islam do. They misuse their religion to further their objectives, in this case to fight oppression and occupation and, I believe, economic considerations.

In both cases highly respected voices of either religion condemn the action as not being in keeping with their faith.

The analogy is clear and accurate.

The discussion of whether a religion is more or less, inherently, violent is entirely outside the main point. Even granting your conjecture about Islam being inherently violent (which I dont), applying that to the current situation is wrong.

I will spell it out again, but only for those who who are open to discussion, the primary or even secondary cause of the terrorist behaviour is NOT Islam per se.

I dont expect you to get it.

[lehighguy]

1) High ranking members of Islam, on the whole, do not condemn terrorists in any meaningful fashion. If you did a went to an average Mosque in Saudi Arabia do you think the sermon would favor or disfavor violence and radicalism?

2) All religion, at least ones with an all-knowing God that is infallible and has set down iron clad rules are inherntly intolerant, which leads to violence. I consider Christianity, Judaism, and Islam inherintly violent. The only reason we don't see more acts of violence is that people, even the devoutly religous, don't entirely buy into thier religion. They have doubts, and those doubts allow them to be more tolerant, because after all they could be wrong.

[ACPlayer]

The moderates in Islam do condemn the actions as being incompatible with Islam. I posted a link with many documented condemnations earlier in a thread.

You are correct that all religions are inherently violent (with the exception of Buddhism, etc as pointed out by others and extremists even there find a religious justification!). The reason you dont see the Christian community violent today -- is because they have no reason to be led down that path by the extremists. Thorugh history when they had reason (usually economic or political) the extremists had no trouble recruiting average christians to the task by misusing the bible.

If tomorrow this should change and the christian societies get a reason then they too would be willing to join up in a biblical crusade again, IMO.

One reason, I deplore making Islam the culprit in terrorism is because I fear that this would make it easier for the extremists to leverage the fear of terrorism to advance a christian theological agenda (both politically, and possibly militarily).

[lehighguy]

1) That link was bogus. I don't care if Muslims in the west condemn it. When the majority of Muslim clerics in Saudi Arabia and Iran get on TV and declare a fatwa against violence I'll be impressed.

Of course there are equivilants in the west. The Pope thinks he can tell me wether or not I can use condoms or get a blowjob. But at least he isn't calling for a crusade to kill condomn wearers. The ratio of sane people to religous nuts is much better in the west.

2) It's important we start getting religion out of the Middle East. Liberal Democracy is impossible without seperation of church and state. And seperation of church and state is impossible without the support of the population. They have to believe in it, and its impossible for a truly religous person, who believes his God infallible, to support seperation of church and state. Only when people become less religous is it possible.

I fear that the "Islam isn't the problem" PC attitude is going to sabotage our efforts in Iraq. Instead of setting up important liberal democratic institutions, which necessarily requires forcing idealogical change as we did in Japan (deposing the emporer), Germany, SK, and elsewhere, we are simply going to turn the country over to a bunch of religous extremist. Iraq will become the new Afghanistan if we don't start realizing the truth:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/opinion/31vincent.html?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The Khampa rebels is a good example here. We have a religion that is being misused by a bunch of people to further their objectives, in this case to fight oppression and occupation.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not what is occurring here. They are not using (or misusing) their religion to fight oppression, because there is absolutely nothing in their religion that could be so used or misused for that purpose. They are acting entirely OUTSIDE their religion, for the peculiar purpose of defending it from feared destruction. THAT is their justification--not some scriptural verses instructing them to fight, because there aren't any such verses.

Their religious leader, the Dalai Lama, has also spoken against this.

Sakyamuni Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, was a peaceful man although many people were unfavorably disposed towards him during his lifetime, even sometimes doing cruel things such as throwing glass before his feet when he went out with his begging bowl.

Contrast that with Islam, wherein:

1) there are myriad Koranic verses instructing Muslims to fight non-believers

2) there are many Islamic religious leaders today espousing violence--and some against violence, too

3) Mohammed himself espoused violence in the name of Allah, and espoused fighting non-believers, and personally led many military campaigns of violent conquest

How can you say "In both cases highly respected voices of either religion condemn the action as not being in keeping with their faith" with a straight face, when THE most respected religious leader in all of Islamic history, Mohammed himself, led many war parties into battle (and promised his soldier-followers booty in this world and sensual delights in the next)?

Clearly THAT highly respected Islamic leader did not condemn violence: he participated in many dozens of military campaigns, and personally led over a dozen, all in the name of Islam.

Your claims are just not supported by the facts.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I consider Christianity, Judaism, and Islam inherintly violent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to get too far off on a tangent here, but if one considers Christianity *to be the teachings of Jesus* then Christianity is utterly opposed to violence. Most Christians today however do not view Christianity in such a limited manner (as to why they don't, I'm not sure). It should be noted that nearly all the Early Christians were pacifists.

[tolbiny]

Jehova's witnesses, and the Amish.

[MMMMMM]

Quakers.

[tolbiny]

10 frames - That's for Quakers.

[MuckJagger]

No, 15 frames for Quakers.

[lehighguy]

This is one of the things that makes Christiantity a bit more tolerant. Jesus invented a religion to help Jews deal with being a minority under occupation.

Mohammed was a statesmen and the Koran is written from the viewpoint of running a state.

It is not much of a surprise that Islam has a much harder time with seperation of church and state, after all Islam is based around the idea of church and state being one.

I think all religions that believe in an infallible all-knowing God are by nature prideful and arrogant. Therefore, this leads to intolerance, which can easily lead to violence. Some religions are more prone to this for various reasons (see above), but I think the core problem is the belief that your right and everyone else is wrong.

Also, I think size is the major limiting factor behind smaller religions bein militant. The bigger and more powerful a religion gets, the more prone to violence and conquest. That is what happened to Christianity when the romans converted.

For sure is NOT

[LargeCents]

Religion is being used as a political tactic. Violence is being used as a political tactic. Wake up, people.