Religion/war/atrocoties

[Guest danny64]

“The anti-Cathar Albigensian Crusade and the inquisition which followed it entirely eradicated the Cathars. The Albigensian Crusade was undertaken by the French for mainly political purposes as it enabled France to conquer the until then independent principalities, such as Toulouse, of Southern France. The excuse of eradicating Cathars led to a massive genocide in the South of France from which parts of the South have still not recovered. The purpose of the genocide may well have been to remove the population resource from which the hitherto independent rulers of the South had drawn their armies and resources.” (Wikipedia)

 

Crusades, Witch hunts, the Inquisition, the persecution of Jews by Christians, Protestant vs. Catholic in Ireland, Muslim vs. Hindu in India and Pakistan, and the Jews vs. Christians vs. Muslims in Israel…just a short list to get you started. The inquisition and slaughter of the Cathar’s in 11th century France could be neatly labeled a “religious conflict” and indeed it was. But is also true that the genocide provided the monarchy with an opportunity to extend her power. Religion was an engine, greed was the motive.

 

As former Christians or non-believers, many will reference these and other atrocities and wars as part of an argument denouncing religion as a cause of violence and discord among families, communities, and nations. This argument, however, seems to place religiousness outside of the context where it was created and has all its ideals, structure, and modifications. Religion is man’s invention and it bears the fruit of his desires and motivations. Religion is not so much a cause as it is an engine; much in that way that art is, as both are a statement and an advertisement of a group’s beliefs and desires. Religion deserves all the blame for man’s evil acts no more than it deserves all the credit for his altruism.

 

Art is a reflection of the culture that creates the artist. While the artist has influence on society, she is more a reflection of the society than an agent of change. Painters, authors, singers and comedians of real genius find ways to tell us the truth about our society. John Lennon did not create the peace movement of the Vietnam era, but he was an important standard bearer. We probably like the music we like either because it speaks to our beliefs about who we are or about who we wish we were. The latter seems to promote more degeneracy because it is more about fantasy and lies than about truth, but art does not make us; we make art.

 

Religions reflect the groups that create and adopt them. War-loving people have a war-like god. Farmers have fertility gods. Chauvinistic societies have chauvinist gods. Undereducated homophobic gun-toting rednecks have a god that agrees with them (I like to think of southern Jesus as a cross between Dale Jr. and Hank Jr…two sons of gods). Among more educated, liberal minded groups, god seems to be ok with the gay people and more liberal in general. In the 19th century, the American abolitionist believed in a god that was an abolitionist; the southern slave owner believed that god was in favor of slavery. Granted, the scriptures were for the most part on the side of the slave owner, but scripture has never been a real determining factor when it comes to predicating a group’s beliefs. Beliefs are determined first, then scriptures are found and interpreted to support them.

 

Both art and religion can obviously have a big influence on a society. But in the end, both are a reflection of the people who create and embrace them. In Golding’s Lord of the Flies, Ralph and Jack represent logic/science and religion/superstition respectively. In this dark novel’s view of humanity, it is the primitive Jack with his rituals, dancing, and superstition that win the hearts and minds of the boys. Once the Ralph’s scientist Piggy is dead, the society falls apart and fear and superstition rule the tribe. Ralph is hunted like an animal, as if he is the object of Jack’s inquisition. The bureaucratic efficiency of Jack’s tribalism may seem to be the cause of the atrocities they commit, but it is even scarier when one realizes that underneath the painted masks, they are still just boys.

 

So if religion often acts as a mask, how much blame does the mask warrant? Isn’t that part of the usefulness of the mask? Antagonist will attack the mask; rail against the doctrine and against the bible instead of focusing on the belief and resulting behavior that is the problem. Having issues with a chauvinist or homophobe? Often attacking the bible or Christianity has no positive effect, whereas a discussion of how little girls and boys should not be raised to believe one is to have dominion over the other ignores their religion and focuses on their decency. A discussion of how homosexuals are our friends, neighbors and family can focus attention on how the rights to regular stuff like health insurance, hospital visitation, etc should be afforded to all. Once the decency of equality is recognized, the religion stuff will take care of itself. The Bible doesn’t change, but the interpretation does. It always has.

[florduh]

Hello, Danny.

 

Of course religion is the excuse for many things men want to do anyway. I think the power structure uses this tool to inspire the ignorant and faithful masses to do their bidding. For the bulk of the common population, religion is to blame because they think it's real. It has been explained/interpreted by their leaders and takes on a life of its own. It is not their king, but God himself asking them to further the ends of the faith.

[Guest danny64]

Hello, Danny.

 

Of course religion is the excuse for many things men want to do anyway. I think the power structure uses this tool to inspire the ignorant and faithful masses to do their bidding. For the bulk of the common population, religion is to blame because they think it's real. It has been explained/interpreted by their leaders and takes on a life of its own. It is not their king, but God himself asking them to further the ends of the faith.

i grant you the "power structure uses this tool" part. but when you say that "for the...population, religion is to blame" even there, dont the ordinary folks also use and shape their version of xianity to meet there ends? take bible belt fundies. souther baptists, etc. many are chavanistic,homophobic, and anti-science/education. so is their god. whereas in northern and coastal areas of the u.s. where other relgions are more prevelant (anglican, methodists, unitarian, whatever) their god is more accepting of homosexuals and many have women in leadership roles in the church. which came first, the chicken or the egg? do you think those with a more liberal religion shaped it thus to fit their beliefs, or do you think the more conservative fundy types are so because of their religion? did that make any sense?

[florduh]

True, people invent gods that suit them. Usually, most people don't read their holy texts and decide what it says. They take the word of someone more "learned." Then they pass it on to their children and any unsuspecting rube who will listen to them. In that sense, I can blame religion because it is really perceived as Truth. The guy who first said "Hey, this here Bible says we should hate queers" is to blame for that homophobic mindset catching on as a religious belief. Ex-Christians who never were homophobic subscribed to that idea because the religion they were immersed in said it was required. They weren't using religion to mirror or justify how they truly felt about the issue, but altered their natural inclinations to fit into the religion.

[Guest danny64]

True, people invent gods that suit them. Usually, most people don't read their holy texts and decide what it says. They take the word of someone more "learned." Then they pass it on to their children and any unsuspecting rube who will listen to them. In that sense, I can blame religion because it is really perceived as Truth. The guy who first said "Hey, this here Bible says we should hate queers" is to blame for that homophobic mindset catching on as a religious belief. Ex-Christians who never were homophobic subscribed to that idea because the religion they were immersed in said it was required. They weren't using religion to mirror or justify how they truly felt about the issue, but altered their natural inclinations to fit into the religion.

i think i agree with you. its a circular situation though. i think what i was trying to get across was that i like to address religious people as if their religion were nonexistant...just attack the behaviour as if it were their own idea. it may not have been, they may have been indoctrinated, but i prefer to attack the person. but i agree that religion is much to blame. but you know, its more fun sometimes to just go after the individual..."why do you choose to (hate queers, demean women) are you afraid you might be queer? does it bother you that she is actually smarter than you are? does the two men living next door to you having a legal document really affect your life in any way?" stuff like that. try not to let them even bring up their mythology book, make it seem like it was all their own idea. they choose to believe what they want to believe. that kind of thing.