5 ms·

Religion of peace and all that...

by seesomesense 11y ago

contingencies 11y ago
There are nutcases (organized or otherwise) professing allegiance to all religions.
- chroma 11y ago
  Yes, but different religions inspire different propensities towards violence in their hosts. Remember the Broadway musical The Book of Mormon? I doubt the Mormons liked the play's content, but they responded to it positively. In some venues, they even took out ads in the playbill. Do you think it would be possible for Trey Parker and Matt Stone to make a similar production about the Qu'ran? Even in the US, it would be a security nightmare. Venue owners, audiences, and production staff would all fear attacks.
  - seren 11y ago
    >Yes, but different religions inspire different propensities towards violence in their hosts. It is more complex than that. There is no on one side "good religions" and on the other side "bad religions". It is rather a combination of social and economics factors (education, poverty, exposure to other cultures, frustration, feeling of injustice (real or imagined), corruption, etc) The debate does not really interest me, but since you mentioned Mormon particularly, you are probably familiar with the following story : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre
    - chroma 11y ago
      I totally agree that Mormonism used to be a rather terrible and violent religion. But please notice that you had to go back over 150 years to find such an atrocity committed by the Mormons. Their religion has changed drastically since then, thanks to collisions with secularism. Christianity used to be more barbarous as well, but centuries of progress have tamed it significantly. Let me give a more obvious example of religion's role in encouraging/discouraging violence: Jainism. The core contributor to Jainism, Mahavira, said, "All breathing, existing, living, sentient creatures should not be slain, nor treated with violence, nor abused, nor tormented, nor driven away." It is really hard to be violent as a Jain. Jains protest by fasting. In fact, Gandhi got many of his ideas about nonviolent resistance from the Jains. Also, you didn't answer my question. Do you honestly think there is any religion besides Islam that would raise such security concerns if mocked in a Broadway musical? I agree that culture and other factors matter, but the doctrines of religions are quite different. Some of those doctrines call for violence more than others. The sooner we admit that, the sooner we can try to fix the problem.
      - seren 11y ago
        > Do you honestly think there is any religion besides Islam that would raise such security concerns if mocked in a Broadway musical? In 2015, I can't think of any other. But I don't think there is something fundamentally and radically different with Islam as its core. In some country, you could not mock the official religion or the (despotic) head of state either. I used to believe that some religions were exempt of violence, but since I learned about "Buddhism fundamentalism" I am much more circumspect.
    - makeitsuckless 11y ago
      That's just the usual faux complexity and "fair and balanced" smokescreen. Any religion that fundamentally doesn't tolerate the existence of other religions and calls its followers to slaughter those who don't convert is "bad religion". Islam is a "bad religion". There is a fundamental difference between the violent excesses of an ideology, an ideology than almost inevitably leads to violent excesses and an ideology the prescribes violence. The Islam is all the way at the extreme end of that spectrum.
      - dghf 11y ago
        > Any religion that fundamentally doesn't tolerate the existence of other religions and calls its followers to slaughter those who don't convert is "bad religion". Islam is a "bad religion". Well, if that's what Islam calls its followers to do, it's a good job most of those followers don't pay any attention. Even Iran permits Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians to worship within its borders: they are subject to discrimination and harassment, but not forced to convert to Islam under pain of death.
        cygx 11y ago
        You're aware what happens to apostates in Iran? Also note that there are special allowances made for people of the Book, so Jews and Christians are not quite as bad off as others, theologically speaking.
        dghf 11y ago
        Yes, I'm aware of the penalties for apostasy in Iran, and that the toleration shown to Jews and Christians is not extended to other faiths (it would seem the Bahá'í get a particularly rough time of it). But the comment I was replying to made a blanket statement that Islam calls for the slaughter and forced conversion of those of other religions, when the facts simply don't bear that out. Yes, some Muslim individuals and groups do hold to such an extreme interpretation of Islam; and media reports do suggest that most religiously inspired killings are committed by Muslims. But most Muslims don't hold such a stance, and most Muslim countries do allow at least some measure of religious toleration -- even a theocracy like Iran. The most notable exception, of course, is the West's ally Saudi Arabia.
    - cygx 11y ago
      There is no on one side "good religions" and on the other side "bad religions". But not all religious doctrine is equally toxic. It is rather a combination of social and economics factors (education, poverty, exposure to other cultures, frustration, feeling of injustice (real or imagined), corruption, etc) But ideology is part of the package. Totalitarianism has to be opposed, whether its doctrine is based on religion (eg Salafism) or secular concepts (eg Nazism).
  - krig 11y ago
    Disgusting. Other religions are perfectly capable of inspiring similar acts. Look at all the atrocities committed throughout history in the name of christianity: The imperial conquests of Africa and America were conducted in the name of spreading christianity and with the blessing of the church. American fundamentalists regularly murder abortion doctors in the name of religion. Breivik is a "christian warrior" defending christianity. Second of all, Mormons? "On Sept. 11, 1857, a group of California-bound pioneers camping in southern Utah were murdered by a Mormon militia and its Indian allies. The massacre lasted less than five minutes, but when it was over, 120 men, women and children had been clubbed, stabbed or shot at point-blank range. Their corpses, stripped of clothes and jewelry, were left to be picked apart by wolves and buzzards." The truth is this: Humans are really not creatures of love. Murder is as natural to us as anything else, and history proves it. Killing is easy. It doesn't take much. If there's any lesson to be learned from genocides like the Rwanda massacres, civil wars like the breakup of Yugoslavia or the Nazi era, it is that a large proportion of humanity will readily become mass murderers for almost no reason at all. It really doesn't take that much. Read about King Leopolds campaign in Congo. There's no need for islam to make people into murderers. People are murderers already. Religion is simply another excuse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State#King_Leopold.27s_campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State#King_Leopold.2...
    - madez 11y ago
      Disgusting. Other religions are perfectly capable of inspiring similar acts. Though I'm not at all friends of religions in general, the Abrahamic religions are definitely of the more violent and dangerous kind. Sure, killing is part of human nature. Just some religions motivate more to do it than others.
      - Bladegunner 11y ago
        umm.. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/un-dozens-of-rohingya-muslims-massacred-by-buddhists-in-rakhine-burma/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/un-dozens-of-rohingya-muslims-ma...
        11y ago
  - notahacker 11y ago
    Interesting you should pick the example of the Mormons, a religious organization whose founder was killed by an angry mob of seceders from his church... Anyone that would suggest that the propensity of Islamic fundamentalists towards violence is particularly unusual amongst religious adherents has a remarkably inadequate grasp of history.
    - reinhardt 11y ago
      Even if historically all religions have had their share of atrocities, the point is that Islam today is like the rest of the world has been in the Middle Ages. Hopefully they'll get there in a few centuries, at least if they haven't conquered (explicitly through wars or implicitly through immigration) the West by then.
    - jqm 11y ago
      He was killed by a mob, but not by a mob of seceders from his church. (Incidentally, he had a pistol and killed a few of the mob members before going down.)
subliminalpanda 11y ago
Saudi money at work
ramblerman 11y ago
Why is it taboo to mock a religion? I'm genuinely curious about the downvotes.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- probably_wrong 11y ago
  It goes against HN's commenting policy of putting arguments above insults. I also think it's not productive, does not lead to a productive discussion, and displays gratuitous negativity.
  - davidw 11y ago
    If the conversation is mostly about religion, the article is probably off-topic.
- waps 11y ago
  Is it so difficult to see that attitudes toward mocking political/moral systems are simply part of those political/moral systems ? For instance, communism takes a very dim view of mocking communism. This is extremely well known, and pretty accurately describes the various communist communities' attitudes, even today. Mocking communist ideals or characters will get you at least ostracised from most of those communities. Hell, linking to other's jokes about them is dangerous at best. By contrast, free market capitalists, their "enemy", are pretty well known for being extremely tolerant of humorous take-downs of their ideology, and engage in it themselves on a regular basis inside their communities. Of course, most leftists then criticize this as indicating they don't believe in the free market after all, which isn't true. Islam is a political and a moral system. It's attitude towards mocking is defined in writing. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Asma%27_bint_Marwan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Asma%27_bint_Marwan and you will get a basic idea of how it works. Christianity is relatively tolerant of criticism. Given how this religion has had it's canonical texts written by Greek philosophers, it's quite easy to understand why this is so. You will find lots of books written by saints, priests, monks, ... that criticize the church and even the faith itself. This is done mostly in self-reflection with the intent to improve matters and not absolutely not meant for wider dissemination (on occasion the wide dissemination of such texts has been fought with violation), but it certainly exists. These books have, on occasion, resulted in large shifts in attitudes within Christianity.

Religion of peace and all that...

contingencies 11y ago

There are nutcases (organized or otherwise) professing allegiance to all religions.

chroma 11y ago
Yes, but different religions inspire different propensities towards violence in their hosts. Remember the Broadway musical The Book of Mormon? I doubt the Mormons liked the play's content, but they responded to it positively. In some venues, they even took out ads in the playbill. Do you think it would be possible for Trey Parker and Matt Stone to make a similar production about the Qu'ran? Even in the US, it would be a security nightmare. Venue owners, audiences, and production staff would all fear attacks.
- seren 11y ago
  >Yes, but different religions inspire different propensities towards violence in their hosts. It is more complex than that. There is no on one side "good religions" and on the other side "bad religions". It is rather a combination of social and economics factors (education, poverty, exposure to other cultures, frustration, feeling of injustice (real or imagined), corruption, etc) The debate does not really interest me, but since you mentioned Mormon particularly, you are probably familiar with the following story : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre
  - chroma 11y ago
    I totally agree that Mormonism used to be a rather terrible and violent religion. But please notice that you had to go back over 150 years to find such an atrocity committed by the Mormons. Their religion has changed drastically since then, thanks to collisions with secularism. Christianity used to be more barbarous as well, but centuries of progress have tamed it significantly. Let me give a more obvious example of religion's role in encouraging/discouraging violence: Jainism. The core contributor to Jainism, Mahavira, said, "All breathing, existing, living, sentient creatures should not be slain, nor treated with violence, nor abused, nor tormented, nor driven away." It is really hard to be violent as a Jain. Jains protest by fasting. In fact, Gandhi got many of his ideas about nonviolent resistance from the Jains. Also, you didn't answer my question. Do you honestly think there is any religion besides Islam that would raise such security concerns if mocked in a Broadway musical? I agree that culture and other factors matter, but the doctrines of religions are quite different. Some of those doctrines call for violence more than others. The sooner we admit that, the sooner we can try to fix the problem.
    - seren 11y ago
      > Do you honestly think there is any religion besides Islam that would raise such security concerns if mocked in a Broadway musical? In 2015, I can't think of any other. But I don't think there is something fundamentally and radically different with Islam as its core. In some country, you could not mock the official religion or the (despotic) head of state either. I used to believe that some religions were exempt of violence, but since I learned about "Buddhism fundamentalism" I am much more circumspect.
  - makeitsuckless 11y ago
    That's just the usual faux complexity and "fair and balanced" smokescreen. Any religion that fundamentally doesn't tolerate the existence of other religions and calls its followers to slaughter those who don't convert is "bad religion". Islam is a "bad religion". There is a fundamental difference between the violent excesses of an ideology, an ideology than almost inevitably leads to violent excesses and an ideology the prescribes violence. The Islam is all the way at the extreme end of that spectrum.
    - dghf 11y ago
      > Any religion that fundamentally doesn't tolerate the existence of other religions and calls its followers to slaughter those who don't convert is "bad religion". Islam is a "bad religion". Well, if that's what Islam calls its followers to do, it's a good job most of those followers don't pay any attention. Even Iran permits Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians to worship within its borders: they are subject to discrimination and harassment, but not forced to convert to Islam under pain of death.
      - cygx 11y ago
        You're aware what happens to apostates in Iran? Also note that there are special allowances made for people of the Book, so Jews and Christians are not quite as bad off as others, theologically speaking.
        dghf 11y ago
        Yes, I'm aware of the penalties for apostasy in Iran, and that the toleration shown to Jews and Christians is not extended to other faiths (it would seem the Bahá'í get a particularly rough time of it). But the comment I was replying to made a blanket statement that Islam calls for the slaughter and forced conversion of those of other religions, when the facts simply don't bear that out. Yes, some Muslim individuals and groups do hold to such an extreme interpretation of Islam; and media reports do suggest that most religiously inspired killings are committed by Muslims. But most Muslims don't hold such a stance, and most Muslim countries do allow at least some measure of religious toleration -- even a theocracy like Iran. The most notable exception, of course, is the West's ally Saudi Arabia.
  - cygx 11y ago
    There is no on one side "good religions" and on the other side "bad religions". But not all religious doctrine is equally toxic. It is rather a combination of social and economics factors (education, poverty, exposure to other cultures, frustration, feeling of injustice (real or imagined), corruption, etc) But ideology is part of the package. Totalitarianism has to be opposed, whether its doctrine is based on religion (eg Salafism) or secular concepts (eg Nazism).
- krig 11y ago
  Disgusting. Other religions are perfectly capable of inspiring similar acts. Look at all the atrocities committed throughout history in the name of christianity: The imperial conquests of Africa and America were conducted in the name of spreading christianity and with the blessing of the church. American fundamentalists regularly murder abortion doctors in the name of religion. Breivik is a "christian warrior" defending christianity. Second of all, Mormons? "On Sept. 11, 1857, a group of California-bound pioneers camping in southern Utah were murdered by a Mormon militia and its Indian allies. The massacre lasted less than five minutes, but when it was over, 120 men, women and children had been clubbed, stabbed or shot at point-blank range. Their corpses, stripped of clothes and jewelry, were left to be picked apart by wolves and buzzards." The truth is this: Humans are really not creatures of love. Murder is as natural to us as anything else, and history proves it. Killing is easy. It doesn't take much. If there's any lesson to be learned from genocides like the Rwanda massacres, civil wars like the breakup of Yugoslavia or the Nazi era, it is that a large proportion of humanity will readily become mass murderers for almost no reason at all. It really doesn't take that much. Read about King Leopolds campaign in Congo. There's no need for islam to make people into murderers. People are murderers already. Religion is simply another excuse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State#King_Leopold.27s_campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State#King_Leopold.2...
  - madez 11y ago
    Disgusting. Other religions are perfectly capable of inspiring similar acts. Though I'm not at all friends of religions in general, the Abrahamic religions are definitely of the more violent and dangerous kind. Sure, killing is part of human nature. Just some religions motivate more to do it than others.
    - Bladegunner 11y ago
      umm.. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/un-dozens-of-rohingya-muslims-massacred-by-buddhists-in-rakhine-burma/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/un-dozens-of-rohingya-muslims-ma...
      - 11y ago
- notahacker 11y ago
  Interesting you should pick the example of the Mormons, a religious organization whose founder was killed by an angry mob of seceders from his church... Anyone that would suggest that the propensity of Islamic fundamentalists towards violence is particularly unusual amongst religious adherents has a remarkably inadequate grasp of history.
  - reinhardt 11y ago
    Even if historically all religions have had their share of atrocities, the point is that Islam today is like the rest of the world has been in the Middle Ages. Hopefully they'll get there in a few centuries, at least if they haven't conquered (explicitly through wars or implicitly through immigration) the West by then.
  - jqm 11y ago
    He was killed by a mob, but not by a mob of seceders from his church. (Incidentally, he had a pistol and killed a few of the mob members before going down.)

subliminalpanda 11y ago

Saudi money at work

ramblerman 11y ago

Why is it taboo to mock a religion? I'm genuinely curious about the downvotes.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
probably_wrong 11y ago
It goes against HN's commenting policy of putting arguments above insults. I also think it's not productive, does not lead to a productive discussion, and displays gratuitous negativity.
- davidw 11y ago
  If the conversation is mostly about religion, the article is probably off-topic.
waps 11y ago
Is it so difficult to see that attitudes toward mocking political/moral systems are simply part of those political/moral systems ? For instance, communism takes a very dim view of mocking communism. This is extremely well known, and pretty accurately describes the various communist communities' attitudes, even today. Mocking communist ideals or characters will get you at least ostracised from most of those communities. Hell, linking to other's jokes about them is dangerous at best. By contrast, free market capitalists, their "enemy", are pretty well known for being extremely tolerant of humorous take-downs of their ideology, and engage in it themselves on a regular basis inside their communities. Of course, most leftists then criticize this as indicating they don't believe in the free market after all, which isn't true. Islam is a political and a moral system. It's attitude towards mocking is defined in writing. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Asma%27_bint_Marwan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Asma%27_bint_Marwan and you will get a basic idea of how it works. Christianity is relatively tolerant of criticism. Given how this religion has had it's canonical texts written by Greek philosophers, it's quite easy to understand why this is so. You will find lots of books written by saints, priests, monks, ... that criticize the church and even the faith itself. This is done mostly in self-reflection with the intent to improve matters and not absolutely not meant for wider dissemination (on occasion the wide dissemination of such texts has been fought with violation), but it certainly exists. These books have, on occasion, resulted in large shifts in attitudes within Christianity.