I often hear the claim that all religions are the same in regard to violence. To me, that's like saying all ideologies are the same - Liberalism is no different from fascism from Marxism. If a religion opposes the death penalty*, for instance, how could it be as 'violent', assuming all other teachings are identical, as a religion that not only advocates the death penalty, but where the death penalty is practiced in many countries where this religion has a foothold in legislation? *Assuming the death penalty inspires an element of violence for adherents.
Since they all involve a DISCONNECT FROM REALITY, yes. (Modern Secular Humanism is reality-based, however.)
I suppose it is possible to use any religion as an excuse for violence. I certainly think it is easier to do with the Abrahamic religions. That said, Jainism is one of the oldest religions in the world and yet it doesn't have a history of violence.
I think there is a slight difference in different religions and how likely they are to produce violence, but I don't think that effect is large compared to other effects, such as location, history, natural resources and so on. There are those who criticise Islam for claiming to be a "religion of peace" while it produces suicide bombers and the like. However, I think it is short sighted to just blame Islam as a whole and then forget about the issue. Islam has produced a fair chunk of aggressive teachers which is probably what you'd expect from any religion having the history and location of Islam.
In my experience, that kind of statement is generally limited to the Abrahamic religions (by intent or ignorance). Within that limitation, I'd agree that they all have equal potential to influence or, more significantly, be used to influence aggression and violence. I think the differences in reality are much more down to circumstance and environment as the various faiths themselves. I could easily imagine a alternative history where Islam went though the reformation and modernisation in Europe while Christianity stagnated in the Middle East which would otherwise be very similar to where we are now. Different ideologies can have similar consequences, especially if they're not very specific. Taking your death penalty example, there are texts for pretty much all the Abraham faiths which can be read as opposing a death penalty but also texts which can be read as supporting it. The main issue with all these faiths is the combination of the principle that they represent the unquestionable word of their god with that word being massively open to interpretation and opinion (hence the countless denominations and sects they've all broken in to). They can basically be (ab)used to support or oppose pretty much anything.
How does believing in Santa Clause make you as prone to violence as believing you can perform human sacrifice to attain salvation?
What could have happened is irrelevant. Islam has different teachings from mainstream Christian denominations. I argue these theological differences pertaining to violence and militancy have real world consequences that outline the differences in teaching. The relevant issue are the interpretative tradition of religions, not what their texts teach. The Bible says Jesus had brothers, but Catholics strongly reject that interpretation. I haven't met a Catholic who is adamant that Jesus had siblings. It could happen, but the primary importance are the teachings of a denomination which override one individual member's personal interpretation of the texts.
While I find it accurate to state "All Religions CAN Produce Violence", it is relatively clear to me that cultural and societal influences allow for an increased tendency for sects to USE the religion as an excuse for greatly increased violent action. It is also pretty clear that the Abrahamic versions in some cases promote such behavior. This is one of the primary reasons I avoid all of them...Religion is bad for you.
Violence is part of the human nature , of course through evolution we have managed to suppress it and take control over our emotions and this is improving as time passes. Since religions are products of human fear of course they are extra charged with violent intentions .
I would be irrelevant if your question was "Have all religions generated at much violence?" but it was actually "Are they all equally capable?". What could have (or might yet) happen is the core of that question (unless the latter is only being asked as a mask to the former, which I very much hope isn't the case). I question that the religions themselves are fundamentally different, especially when you consider the massive diversity within each - I'm sure there are Christians with more in common with some Muslims than with some other Christians and vice-versa. The (multiple) environments in which they've developed are fundamentally different and so how the people in those environments apply the religions differ. In fact, I'd go as far as to say talking about "Islam" or "Christianity" in general is meaningless. I think there is an element of terminology here on how much what a religion is can be defined on what those people purporting to follow that religion do. While in general terms I would hold that a religion is it's followers, in the context of a question about the nature of adherents a religion is capable of generating, we have to separate the two by definition. The "teachings of a denomination" is nothing more than one or more individual members' (past or present) personal interpretation and they can and are both disputed and changeable.
Because religion and the concept of God come from humans the capability for violence will always be there. Religion like any other ideology is like a hammer, in one persons hands it can be used to build and in anothers it can be used to destroy. The fundamental problem with religion, the thing that separates it from all other ideologies is that it supposedly comes from a divine source, one that by its very nature creates fear in the minds of those who take it literally and even in some of those who don't. Eternal suffering must be the only thing worse than death. When a human creates and ideology it is much easier to dismiss and challenge but when its attached to something people can't even define but that has total authority over our existence it becomes much more difficult. Violence is not the worst thing about religion, it's the ability to control the minds of billions of people in such a way that the very nature of our being is up for grabs and anything that challenges their ideals even in the face of facts must be denied. Of course there are intelligent moral people who will create a much better version of their religion but they are of little use to those who consider their moderate views no different from the non-believers. Christianity lost its ability to impose its will on others when it lost its authority. Humans have a problem with power and when that power is absolute the danger is palpable.
There aren't any Pakistani Christian suicide bombers, but there are plenty of Pakistani Muslim. It isn't culture then; it's religion.
Both are Abrahamic, both are religions, and both are bad for you....there are very few suicide bombers in the United States....likely due to the cultural implications and influences. If either the culture or religion in Pakistan were different, so would be the violence.
No it isn't. The question would still be the same, I'd just ask it regarding Christianity being more inherently violent in its present form than Islam. Hence, it's an irrelevant question - the premise of this topic is that religions are not necessarily equally violent promoting. There is no doctrine in any current mainstream Christian denomination that teaches martyrdom by the sword. The sects of Islam that are less violent and militant produce fewer (or none) suicide bombers and terrorists in the name of religion. Sorry, what? Being subject to change doesn't mean that Catholics have certain teachings regarding birth control the Church prescribes its followers to adhere. So what if that teaching may change some point in the future? Right now is what matters, and certainly this has an influence amongst Catholic behavior regarding birth control. - - - Updated - - - I'm not following your response. Christians and Muslims in Pakistan both follow a very similar culture. You previously said culture was a big part of extremism. But Pakistani Christians are not suicide bombers while many Pakistani Muslims are. Therefore, suicide bombing in Pakistani is not strictly cultural, but most likely religious.
Nor did I state in any way this was a "Strictly" religious issue, I believe my comments expressed the tendency of society and culture to "Allow" for the increased violence seen within religions. But hey....feel free to add whatever interpretation you wish.
Most Pakistani Muslims aren't suicide bombers, either; it's a fairly small group of extremists belonging to an organization dedicated to the ouster of predominantly Christian nations from areas traditionally defined as Dar al-Islam. Pakistani Christians, contra, aren't part of Muslim extremist groups, for what are hopefully obvious reasons.
That's a senseless comparison. How many Pakistani Christians are there, compared to Pakistani Muslims? Which proportion of the total are these "plenty"?
Relative and absolute numbers are far higher for Muslim suicide bombers than Christian. But thanks for making the point for me. The issue isn't 'cultural', but religious. - - - Updated - - - You're looking at 0 Christian bombers vs. 100's of Muslim suicide bombers. If you think the comparison is 'senseless', pick a Christian majority nation w/ a Muslim minority and compare the number of religiously motivated Christian suicide bombers to Muslim.
Religion can justify anything because it can be interpreted. So it can justify complete violence and complete peace. As for irreligious ideologies, one would think reason would mitigate violence but the fact is it all comes down to human nature - people perpetrate acts of violence, not ideologies.
