The Paris Attack Debate Thread

[grumbler]

the Bible calls for violence, Christians do a shitload of violence.
Israel's more militant factions relies on their sacred texts to justify Israel's expulsion of the Palestinians.

The New Testament most definitely does not call for violence.  Exactly the opposite.

Matthew 10:34: "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35"For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;..."

[Valmy]

George Washington's ancestors had to leave Britain because of angry Puritans.  They also invaded Maryland to stamp out "Poppery".

Why the quotes? It was quite literally Poppery.

[Malthus]

George Washington's ancestors had to leave Britain because of angry Puritans.  They also invaded Maryland to stamp out "Poppery".

Why the quotes? It was quite literally Poppery.

Popery? "Poppery" sounds like a crusade for chewing gum. 

Edit: though the Puritans would have stamped that out as well! 

[Valmy]

the Bible calls for violence, Christians do a shitload of violence.
Israel's more militant factions relies on their sacred texts to justify Israel's expulsion of the Palestinians.

The New Testament most definitely does not call for violence.  Exactly the opposite.

Matthew 10:34: "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35"For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;..."

Bah you don't need Jesus to set a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.

Lots of cool stuff like that in Matthew especially when Jesus denounces his family. But of course he was not talking about a literal sword or literal violence so I assume you are kidding here.

[Valmy]

George Washington's ancestors had to leave Britain because of angry Puritans.  They also invaded Maryland to stamp out "Poppery".

Why the quotes? It was quite literally Poppery.

Popery? "Poppery" sounds like a crusade for chewing gum. 

Edit: though the Puritans would have stamped that out as well! 

Only if you enjoyed chewing it.

I wish Sheilbh was around to defend the Puritans, he always did a great job at that. I miss him.

[Malthus]

Hey, anyone who wants incitement to violent lunacy can find it in the Book of Revelations. 

[Razgovory]

George Washington's ancestors had to leave Britain because of angry Puritans.  They also invaded Maryland to stamp out "Poppery".

Why the quotes? It was quite literally Poppery.

Because it's a pejorative, that the Puritans applied to non Catholics on occasion.

[Eddie Teach]

Popery? "Poppery" sounds like a crusade for chewing gum. 

Perhaps a portmanteau of poppycock and foppery? 

[Valmy]

Because it's a pejorative, that the Puritans applied to non Catholics on occasion.

In the same way leftwing non-Communists were pinkos.

[Berkut]

Even if we abolished all religions, we would still slaughter ourselves for various reasons.

I actually do not at all believe that to be true.

At least, I don't think we would do so to anywhere near the same extent.

Absent religion, I posit a measurable decline in the percentage of human deaths resulting from violence.

Indeed, I think we can show that this is already happening, as the pervasiveness and power of religion has declined over the last several centuries.

Now, it is certainly relevant to note that some of the most horrific orgies of human on human violence have had very non-religious foundations (the world wars and Communist pogroms in the USSR/Cambodia/North Korea for example) - but the difference is that we can (and I think have) actually learned from them, and are less likely to repeat them as a consequence. The people and nations that participated in WW1 and WW2 are very, very unlikely to repeat the experience. Can anyone another France versus Germany total war?

[Admiral Yi]

Depends on how you see it.  The Crucifixion of his son is ordered by God.  Some Christians feel compelled to crucify themselves every Easter day.  I'd call this violent.  People are pressured into doing it to be be a good christian, even if disavowed by the Pope.
Eradicating other factions of Christianity in the name of God is a very religious thing to do.  Let's kill 'em all, let God sort 'em all, and all that kind of things.
Bominb abortion clinics is a religious thing to do, killing murderers, dispensing God's justice and all.

None of these are actions that have any basis in the acts or words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels.  He never said a person would reach the kingdom of heaven by blowing up abortion clinics or killing Albigensians.

[crazy canuck]

Sikhs have been violent too, committing terrorist act in the name of their ideology.
The IRA committed numerous terrorist acts in the UK, and they got support from the local Catholic clergy.  And it wasn't until the very recent events that a Pople officially condemned the acts.
There were numerous anti-abortion terror acts committed by Christians.
Christian Terrorism has a dedicated page on Wikipedia.
There's even a case about buddhism and violence

So, yes, it is unfair to say that Islam is more prone to violence than other religions.  You could say it is more prone to violence today, that might be accurate.  It's also the second most numerous religion in the world, and I think the majority of them lives in 3rd world or developping countries, more fertile grounds for extreme ideologies to emerge.

You are making the same mistake Yi is making by blaming a religion for the acts of people who happen to belong to that religion but whose actions are motivated by other things.

The Sikh example illustrates the point well.  While it is true that there have been terrorists who are also Sikh the terrorism was certainly not committed in "the name of their ideology" (assuming for a moment that you thought the Sikh religion was an ideology).  Those terrorists committed their acts for the same reason the IRA did (and for the same reason as the FLQ  )  They wanted an independent homeland. 

[Razgovory]

Even if we abolished all religions, we would still slaughter ourselves for various reasons.

I actually do not at all believe that to be true.

At least, I don't think we would do so to anywhere near the same extent.

Absent religion, I posit a measurable decline in the percentage of human deaths resulting from violence.

Indeed, I think we can show that this is already happening, as the pervasiveness and power of religion has declined over the last several centuries.

Now, it is certainly relevant to note that some of the most horrific orgies of human on human violence have had very non-religious foundations (the world wars and Communist pogroms in the USSR/Cambodia/North Korea for example) - but the difference is that we can (and I think have) actually learned from them, and are less likely to repeat them as a consequence. The people and nations that participated in WW1 and WW2 are very, very unlikely to repeat the experience. Can anyone another France versus Germany total war?

How absurd.  It's sad that a full grown man believes such nonsense.  If we roll back time to 30 years ago, the biggest single danger to Westerns comes from materialists like yourself.  It's arguable that in the last 30 years religion has failed to superseded other motives for murder.  Well known anti-religious atheist Sam Harris has argued for the murder of people based solely on what that they believe, and he sells lots of books.  So clearly we haven't learned.

[KRonn]

Are you trying to hit all the dumbest argument ever in one day?

No, I was sarcastic.

Even if we abolished all religions, we would still slaughter ourselves for various reasons.

Agreed, and humans have been doing so. I don't think more people have died from religions. Seems more have died from other reasons. WW1, WW2, , various Euro wars, US Civil War, just to name a few. Communists killed a hundred million at least, and many other wars and conflicts that have nothing to do with religion.

[Valmy]

Man both of the Paris attack threads got hijacked by religion.