Religion and War

[Why Syzygy]

Inevitable. Why is religion always about killing?

This enrages me:

(...) What is the testimony of Scripture as to the primary cause of war? It’s our wicked hearts. Religion and ideology are simply the means through which we exercise the wickedness in our hearts. To think, as many outspoken atheists do, that if we can somehow remove our “silly need for religion,” we can somehow create a more peaceful society, is to have a mistaken view of human nature. The testimony of human history is that if we remove religion, something else will take its place, and that something is never positive. The reality is that true religion keeps fallen humanity in check; without it, wickedness and sin would reign supreme.

Even with the influence of true religion, Christianity, we will never see peace in this current age. There is never a day that goes by without some conflict going on somewhere in the world. The only cure for war is the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ! When Christ returns as He has promised, He will close this current age and establish eternal peace: (...)

http://www.gotquestions.org/

According to the book's author, Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, "Non-Jews are
"uncompassionate by nature" and should be killed in order to "curb their
evil inclinations." "If we kill a gentile who has has violated one of
the seven commandments… there is nothing wrong with the murder," Shapira
insisted. Citing Jewish law as his source ...

http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2010/09/01/how-to-kill-goyim-and-influence-people-israeli-rabbis-defend-books-shocking-religious-defense-of-killing-non-jews-with-video/

Of course peace is good. There is no doubt about it. And war, for the sake of aggression against other people - people who have no intentions against the aggressor, no intentions against that aggressive society - war for the sake of occupying that unsuspecting nation's lands and of grabbing their property, for the sake of enslaving its people, for the sake of subjecting them to the influence and laws of the aggressors, is undoubtedly bad. That which is bad is transgression and aggression. Aggression is bad.
But all war, on all sides, is not always aggression. War can be aggressive and it can also be a reply to aggression, for sometimes the reply to aggression must be given by force. There are times that force is the only reply that can be given.

http://www.al-islam.org/short/jihad/

[dimbear]

1. Good question.

Why is religion always about killing?

Religion, by its very definition, is a way of controlling the supernatural. If everyone could control the supernatural, there would be no advantage in it. So only part of the whole, the 'in' group, the 'us,' can control the supernatural. What's left is the 'they', the 'outs,' the 'remainder,' the 'pagans,' the 'heretics,' the 'left behind,' whatever.

Now certainly in any human group, the 'we' is better and more valuable than the 'they.'

Hence the killing. The most compelling sort of argument, since there is no rejoinder.

[Igel]

3. It's not.

The church I was in was openly and explicitly pacificist. Killing Japanese or German soldiers, or even working in support roles to help those sent to kill Japanese or German soldiers, was morally repugnant. If the Axis won or if the Allies won, so be it: The difference was not one to kill over. The injustice of FDR and Hitler was a matter of degree, not quality: Both were godless and served the wrong master.

So religion is not always about killing.

Nor is it always a way to control the supernatural. This church was not about controlling the supernatural; it was submitting to it. The "in group" acknowledged this; the others didn't.

At the same time, this church taught that it was every bit as worthwhile to give your life for or serve those not in the church as those in the church. Those inside had no greater merit or worth than those outside. There were surely people more righteous outside the church than in it.

It even denied the usual partisan touchstone usually seen as critical to American Xianity: The cavilling about governmental policies and politics--SCOTUS, POTUS, and Congressional--altered little from Carter to Reagan to Bush I to Clinton to *. Members didn't vote.

Lose the absolutes, and I think your argument would be spot on. Keep them, and a single counterexample--any counterexample--disproves your claim, serving as a rejoinder. Of course, then there'd be the difficult position of having to understand others and talk to them instead of having a knee-jerk reflex of opposition and judgmentalism.

[dimbear]

4. For myself, I wouldn't have broadbrushed so wide,

but it was certainly fair to repeat the OP's contention. This is the interweb, overstatement is a common device. No harm done.

Now as to my own contention that religion is always about influencing the supernatural, that's pretty much a tautology. Religion asserts that there is a supernatural, and that by human actions it can be influenced. Perhaps to bring the devotee salvation, a nicer reincarnation, material wealth, or just a divinely inspired inner peace. It's quid pro quo in all the religions I'm familiar with. I admit it's not a logical impossibility, but what would be the purpose of such a religion? And to speak precisely, wouldn't such a system really be a philosophy instead?

[struggle4progress]

2. The Israeli political landscape is diverse and complicated: it's conditioned by

by the history of WWII Germany, by the history of British imperial divide-and-conquer politics, and by the dynamics of the world petroleum economy

Yitzhak Shapira sounds like a wingnutcase, and there certainly seem to be enough of his crazy ilk across the Middle East -- but one will never understand the political situation by examining only the nutcases