I've gone back and forth dozens of times about how much religion is responsible for the awful stuff in history vs. just a bunch of selfish and/or very stupid people using it to justify what they wanted to do anyway.
It's easy to say "Deuteronomy says to murder all non believers!" and then point to an example of a Christian killing a Muslim (or something) and assume that that was their motivation, and maybe it was, but also maybe it was just a homicidal maniac who gravitated to this book specifically because they could use it to justify what they were going to do anyway.
It's really tough to say, and I'm not going to pretend I know the answer.
Suicide bombers (e.g. the 9/11 terrorists) might be an example in your favor though. You're probably not driving airplanes into buildings if you don't really believe in what you're doing.
I don't know. As I said, I've gone back and forth.
> when the violence is occurring the author's work is used as a justification. If not their work, someone else's would do
This statement falls on its face with any examination. You're implying the Bible is on the same level as, say, Catcher in the Rye. As in, a book that was used as an excuse to kill by an already deranged outlier.
The Bible was explicit law in the history of many countries. Non-practitioners were considered second class citizens. Entire economies were thrown into crusades to rape and pillage people specifically in the name of Christ. Generations of children were indoctrinated into believing this was okay. It's not remotely accurate to say "well if it wasn't this, it would be something else." This is a system, not an accident.
I have conversations to this day with relatives that the crusades were completely okay because it was in the name of God. This is not ancient history, this is what religion does. It's just uncomfortable to say out loud because then we'd be admitting that Christians are, mostly, okay with dehumanizing everyone else.
tombert|11 months ago
It's easy to say "Deuteronomy says to murder all non believers!" and then point to an example of a Christian killing a Muslim (or something) and assume that that was their motivation, and maybe it was, but also maybe it was just a homicidal maniac who gravitated to this book specifically because they could use it to justify what they were going to do anyway.
It's really tough to say, and I'm not going to pretend I know the answer.
Suicide bombers (e.g. the 9/11 terrorists) might be an example in your favor though. You're probably not driving airplanes into buildings if you don't really believe in what you're doing.
I don't know. As I said, I've gone back and forth.
themaninthedark|11 months ago
More to the point though; when the violence is occurring the author's work is used as a justification. If not their work, someone else's would do.
Capricorn2481|11 months ago
This statement falls on its face with any examination. You're implying the Bible is on the same level as, say, Catcher in the Rye. As in, a book that was used as an excuse to kill by an already deranged outlier.
The Bible was explicit law in the history of many countries. Non-practitioners were considered second class citizens. Entire economies were thrown into crusades to rape and pillage people specifically in the name of Christ. Generations of children were indoctrinated into believing this was okay. It's not remotely accurate to say "well if it wasn't this, it would be something else." This is a system, not an accident.
I have conversations to this day with relatives that the crusades were completely okay because it was in the name of God. This is not ancient history, this is what religion does. It's just uncomfortable to say out loud because then we'd be admitting that Christians are, mostly, okay with dehumanizing everyone else.