am trying to get a better understanding of exactly what the relationship is between religion and violence. There appears to be a divide, one side believing that religion promotes violence, and the other side believing religion actually decreases violence. How do you feel about these statements and question?

Whether religion increases or decreases violence is a subjective argument. We can easily ask a similar question; "Does having a gun increase or decrease violence around us?" The real question that we need to ask, in this case, is whether we need to have a gun at all. This question is transferable to the religion and violence issue.

Violence generally stems from individuals who do not have a function in society and have been isolated to such a degree that the only way they can obtain self-esteem is by engaging in destructive activities which include physical, mental, and emotional violence towards others. The extend of this destructive behavior depends on their upbringing, environment, and the belief systems that they have been exposed to. Some would argue that there are innately bad/evil/abusive people in the world. Although there may be individuals who have in-born tendencies for violence, this argument is a great example of fundamental attribution error. In short, the fundamental attribution error is a tendency that we attribute the cause of an event/incident solely to the individual and ignore the circumstances and situation that individual is in as part of his/her actions. Hence, we label others from this one dimensional and incomplete worldview which continues foster our ignorance, leading to unnecessary hatred and furthering violence in many forms.

Religion is a complex (due to many so-called interpretations) belief system that failed to induce in people what its original message/teaching was, primarily to help individuals to grow their potential and lead productive lives. The main reason for such a colossal failure was the institutions that had been established in the name of these ideals had no interest in these fundamental elements necessary for a productive, functioning, and progressive society. These institutions' goal was very simple; to control the masses and destroy those who opposed. This behavior had been fueled by thirst for power and greed.

Today, most individuals would argue fiercely that greed, power, and ambition were the essential elements of our progress. It is certainly NOT THAT CLEAR whether we have progressed so much due to such characteristics which are arguably borderline mental disorders. These characteristics combined have had many names throughout our history; feudalism, colonialism, imperialism, communism, and capitalism. When we have millions people who live below poverty line without access to basic services such as healthcare and education, rapidly eroding middle-class, and increasingly centralized power in the U.S. alone which is deemed to be the most advanced industrial country in the world, we need not be surprised about social unrest and violence in this country and around the world. By and large, corporations do a very good job at keeping the masses docile and ignorant to what is happening in this country and the world. The goal of controlling the masses hasn't changed, now more sophisticated techniques are being used (one can argue very soundly that the PR industry was invented just for that).

We are, in developed countries and very soon in developing countries once they are assimilated, becoming more isolated and alienated members of society. We are living in an increasingly abstract world where we do not have a direct connection to things around us and exist for the sole purpose of being consumers with manufactured mass behavior, common taste, and obedience that is achieved without the use of force. The same methods are used in cults, except in this case at a much larger scale with greater amplification. The violence that seems to mount everyday in and from developing countries is a reflection of developed countries' foreign policies and direct actions (covert and military). There is no question that there are people who most definitely take advantage of this situation to recruit individuals for very violent and destructive acts and as a result many innocent people are killed. Religion, similar to other belief systems, are used as a vehicle to promote violence, since they claim they are fighting for a higher purpose. However, those use it in this way, just like they would use a gun, have a different agenda. The violence supported by fundamental religious groups nowadays heavily rely on inequalities mentioned above to justify their actions (before violence was justified as a way to "civilize" savages, etc.).

Nevertheless, before we blame or accuse others, we need to be more vigilant about finding out factual information about their situation and circumstances to understand the root causes of their actions.

I don't think there is a clear yes/no answer for this.

Have certain religions or religious sects encouraged people to perform violent acts? Yes, certainly! There have been human sacrifices, suicides, murders, and wars, all in the name of religion.

But on the other hand, many religions and religious sects have teachings on non-violence. So it could also be argued that religion promotes non-violence.

It depends upon how you look at it. An individual already prone to violence is more likely to be drawn to a particular religious path that encourages or teaches violent means to an end.

Unquestionably some religions have promoted violence to further their goals. The bigger problem seems to be that few are willing to stand up and say that it is wrong. This includes both people within the particular movement and without. In other words, Christians do not seem very quick to say that the Crusaders were acting against what is taught in the Bible, therefore should be condemned. The same is true for what is happening today with Muslim extremists, or any other violent group. We get "of course what they are doing is wrong, but..." BUT? Everything before the "but" is what SHOULD be said, and everything after the "but" is what is really meant. It still amounts to covering for like-minded people.

The original message/teaching of religion is spiritual, not "to help individuals to grow their potential and lead productive lives." That can be left to Anthony Robbins and numerous other motivational speakers. When religion fails to focus on the "spiritual", then the door is opened for their behavior to to be fueled by a "thirst for power and greed." My point is that those qualities are not inherent in "religion" but in men. It is at this point that violence could surface.

To say that violence is a result of poverty, environment, upbringing, etc. can be a slippery slope in itself. While it is true that those conditions might increase opportunities for committing violent acts, to say that they are causes is a reach. If poverty causes violence, then one might expect to not see violent acts in more affluent areas. Sadly this is not the case. People need to stand against violence when they see it rather than make excuses for it. Condemn the violence but try to change the situation to limit it's spread.

To answer, then, the original question...violence is objectively wrong. There is pain in someone's life and family as a result of it. If a religion promotes it, then stand against it. ESPECIALLY if one is practicing that religion.

Standing against violence is certainly a necessary initial action and it needs to go further. Willingness to stand against violence does not automatically prevent later acts or eliminate it. This is very similar to a medicine that only addresses the symptoms of a disease rather than the cause of it.

"Anthony Robbins and numerous other motivational speakers" do not know the meaning of "growing to their potential and leading productive lives" and nor are they interested in that. Their real intentions, especially Anthony Robbins' can be easily found, if one were to do a quick search on this very forum. Unfortunately, the term "productive" has a very specific (and conditioned) meaning in our culture and in most developed countries. So, it is rather difficult to see it in a larger context. If we look at the teachings of Christ (not the numerous interpretations of various denominations or sects), as an example, we see that he is trying to teach people to become real human beings (which include "grow their potential and lead productive lives") in the image of a higher being. Some people call it spirituality, if they believe in the after life (depends on how much they believe in a particular religion or a belief system). Others may call it something else. In addition, the argument that "thirst for power and greed are not inherent in religion but in men" is debatable because it is based on the assumption that religions are not man-made concepts.

Crafting "poverty" out of this statement of "upbringing, environment, and the belief systems" to try to debunk it is quite a stretch as this statement addresses the broader question about violence and human nature. Poverty is neither the only source nor the cause of violence. In our culture, we seem to associate "good" with affluence and expect people with a certain economic wealth to somehow automatically posses the necessary basic human qualities such as integrity and ethics. In reality, nothing can be further from the truth as you point out that there are numerous examples of violent acts in "more affluent areas" in many forms.

None of the factors mentioned (e.g. upbringing, environment, and the belief systems) are to promote excuses for violence, rather to point out that we are often surprised by the acts of violence, appearing as if they occurred suddenly out of nowhere when in fact there are root causes which have been ignored or even worse, in some cases, intentionally put in place. The original point is to encourage people to evaluate the assumptions they operate under, try to see ideas/concepts in a larger context, and question rigorously the information they obtain and receive.

Violence takes many forms.

If a religion promotes an "us vs. them" mindset, it has already laid the foundation for violence, if only the violence of a philosophy of exclusivity.

I’d like to get back to the original question if I might. But first I’d like to apologize for going down “rabbit trails” instead of addressing the question. Staying focused is a good way to be helpful. I think we are in more agreement than disagreement and I think it is because I have not expressed myself as clearly as I would have liked. I agree there are many systemic problems that exacerbate violence but the original query was to the relationship between religion and violence.

To start to get at the issue we should tighten up what is meant by the term “religion”. It seems that its usage is too broad here. It presupposes that all religions are equal. By this I DO NOT mean that one is better than another. I mean it in the sense that all religions do not have the same goals and/or commonalities. I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but religion is too complex. By way of example, it should not be used like the term “currency”. In a formal sense dollars, pounds, yen, etc. are all currency. There is precious little argument over whether something is or is not “currency.” All serve the same purpose wherever they are used and whatever they are called. Not so with religion. While it is reasonable to say, for instance, that Buddhism and Islam are both religions it is less so to say that they share the same goals and serve the same purpose. The same goes for Christianity, Wicca, etc.

All of that to say this: It might be more interesting to approach the subject with a series of questions such as: Does Christianity promote or encourage violence? If the answer is no then how do Christians deal with people who commit violent acts in the name of Christ? Or can someone rightly call himself or herself a Christian if they knowingly practice tenets that are not part of their belief? We can insert any religion here, especially those that claim “peace” at its root. Zealotry can also take many forms. Some pray, some kill. That’s an interesting thought also. So, one might ask how each particular religion should deal with violent zealots to maintain the integrity of their religion. I think these questions are all part of the relationship between religion and violence. I’d love to read some other specific questions and even some answers. If we approach this serious subject step by step we might all be able to learn something.

Finnster: I have found your posts interesting and informative. I think we agree more than disagree. I would love to continue discussing with you the systemic problems that plague our world. There is much to talk about and do. This board rightly does not allow theological debate, but I would respectfully challenge the assertion made about the teachings of Christ. Perhaps we could continue these discussions via e-mail? Let me know.

Keep thinking and encouraging me to do the same.

Ever Onward!

Skinnyfatts,

I certainly enjoyed reading your posts. You can reach me at finn147@hotmail.com to discuss further about the systemic problems that plague our world.

Cheers :)

I don't think it is necessarily religion that promotes violence, but rather that humans tend to be very conscious of differences. Religion is something that is close to many people's hearts, and therefore it is easy for them to get offended and react when they perceive an attack or threat to their dearly held beliefs. Many of the world's worst wars have been over religion, probably due to the ability of a common faith to foster a sense of togetherness, inevitably leading to the "us vs. them" mentality when put under pressure by an outside force.

This is not to say that religious people have a stronger propensity towards violent behavior. I haven't really looked into facts and numbers on that, so I couldn't give an intelligent opinion. It just seems logical to me that any factor in life about which people feel strongly enough could lead to a violent reaction if a threat is perceived. For example, I love my dogs. They are like my children and I take their welfare very seriously. I have gotten into altercations with neighbors (not violent, but arguments) because I felt that statements they made implied a threat to the safety of my dogs. If someone were actually to hurt my dogs, I could see myself at least considering a violent reaction. (If you have kids instead, substitute the idea of someone hurting your child instead and see how you might feel about it.) Religion is another one of those things in life that people hold very dearly, wrong or right.