Killing in the Name of God

[Oscuro_Sol]

Is God used as the means for justifying the slaughter of millions?

After briefly studying the Crusades, I now see this question everywhere. Why does war in the name of religion continue to happen?

[penguin_king]

IMO, its just a case of differing opinions, but in these cases the opinions are what the people base pretty much their entire way of life on.

if someone came and told you that everything you do in your life was wrong and misguided, wouldnt you be a bit annoyed? multiply that by an entire race of people on each side, and hey presto, you have a war.

[jklinders]

All too frequently I see religion used as an excuse to wage war in the name of greed. Many of the knights who went to the crusades were more interested in looting the holy land than saving it. Also there were others who really believed they were doing "right". History is all too frequently built on the bodies of those who just got in the way of those who were greedy.


Wanting what you don't have seems to sit at the heart of most wars. As far as I am concerned that is as true today as it was 1200 years ago. When the first crusade was called the Middle east was about 200-300 years more advanced in thinking than Europe. they had the wealth to show for it. Just go ahead and try to tell me greed was not in the equation. If greed was the motive then God was not.


By the way your thread title is very similar to a line from a dream theater song.

[fable]

It has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with people finding reasons to combat those that are culturally distinct from themselves.

[Dagoth_shel]

Think about this...

If God truly wanted us to kill in His name, he would tell us in "visions" or "prophecies", right? Maybe those people believed that God told them to do such things and acted on it.

I don't really know, I find it uncomfortable to talk about my religion in this way

[dragon wench]

Much of the time, it is not religion in and of itself. Rather, those within the hierarchy of a religion exploit it in order to pursue their own agendas. In other words, it is all about politics and grasping for personal and/or institutional power and gain. The Spanish Inquisition is a prime example.

[fable]

Much of the time, it is not religion in and of itself. Rather, those within the hierarchy of a religion exploit it in order to pursue their own agendas. In other words, it is all about politics and grasping for personal and/or institutional power and gain. The Spanish Inquisition is a prime example.

Not to make a big deal of it, but...no, the Spanish Inquisition wasn't about institutional power and the increase of that. It was about heresy among Christians, an issue that had been very important from the 14th century onwards to the Roman Catholic Church. The SI was neither virulent nor power-hungry--though the Vatican certainly was, at various periods during the European Renaissance. If anything, the Inquisition was methodical and far too slow for some populist leaders who rose during times of trouble and made their careers out of condemning others. If the populists won, the victims were usually hung, burnt, or decapitated at once. The SI was more interested in ascertaining whether heresy existed, and if so, seeing whether it could be removed, or punished on a limited basis. Contrary to it's image in popular culture (and due in large part to a Protestant smear press), the SI was--I won't say a good thing; it wasn't--but a force of far less extremism than der Volk.

[Bloodstalker]

War in the name of God is about the same as war in the name of Country, freedom, and about anything else you can name. Anything that can be used to motivate people to action will be used to move them towards a war their leaders want.

As far as the Crusades go, it wasn't simply a matter of either religious conviction or greed, although those did factor into things. The call to Crusade was a convenient way for the Papacy to use requests for asistance from the Byzantines as a way to refocus a lot of military men from warring between Christian states and send them off somewhere else. A very large proportion of those who led the fighting were sons of the aristocracy who had no inheritance coming to them. They tended to want to carve their own lands and titles out of existing states via military action. It was quite a problem, and the Crusades helped in some way distract those individuals. Interestingly enough, no one was prepared for the scale of the First Crusade. The numbers were far greater than anyone had hoped would answer the call. Scared the living daylights out of most people, including the Byzantines.

@fable. Most of what I've heard and read indicates that the Spanish Inquisition was a lot more terroristic and tied to the Spanish rulers than the Italian Inquisition. It's not something that I've spent a huge amount of time looking at, but that's the impression I've gotten anyway. The SI used it's authority to oust Jews as well as Muslims from parts of Spanish territories or force conversions as part of the consolidation of Spanish power during and after the Reconquest.The Spanish rulers forced the Papacy to give them the authourity to name their own Inquisitors, and much of the responibility for the actions of the SI were directly overseen and directed by the monarchs, not the Pope. It wound up being a lot more political than the Inquisition in other areas, where the Church retained control of Inquisition practices. There was very little Protestant activity in Spain in comparison to other areas of Europe, so the focus on rooting out Protestant ideals/ heresy was never really the prime directive in Spain like it was elsewhere.

[fable]

@fable. Most of what I've heard and read indicates that the Spanish Inquisition was a lot more terroristic and tied to the Spanish rulers than the Italian Inquisition. It's not something that I've spent a huge amount of time looking at, but that's the impression I've gotten anyway. The SI used it's authority to oust Jews as well as Muslims from parts of Spanish territories or force conversions as part of the consolidation of Spanish power during and after the Reconquest.

The Spanish rulers forced the Papacy to give them the authourity to name their own Inquisitors, and much of the responibility for the actions of the SI were directly overseen and directed by the monarchs, not the Pope. It wound up being a lot more political than the Inquisition in other areas, where the Church retained control of Inquisition practices. There was very little Protestant activity in Spain in comparison to other areas of Europe, so the focus on rooting out Protestant ideals/ heresy was never really the prime directive in Spain like it was elsewhere.

I see your point. I was referring more generally to the Inquisition, rather than its Spanish variety. That noted, however...

The SI was indeed an arm of the Castillian monarchy, but my reading indicates that their role expanded greatly into all areas that were suddenly considered heresy by a paranoid administration: not just Jews by any means, but sodomy, blasphemy, usury, polygamy, artistic license, etc. Protestants were few in number, but considered heretics all the same, as were all other minority groups at the time. So were gypsies. And Basque speakers. And those in Navarre who still sought independence or union with France: all heretics.

What's interesting is that there was widespread public support (from what we can tell, and it's quite a bit) across all class lines in this: the SI in effect reflecting the same populist sentiments that the Inquisition resisted, elsewhere. So if the onus for this activity is placed on the SI as the direct agent, the culture that supported that agent was broad in nature, and Castillian-controlled.

[LeoStarDragon1]

Greetings, Folks!

#00: Wow! It's nice to see youth still taking an interest in ancient history! (I'm middle aged so I don't think about such matters much anymore. Except in instances like this of course.) Hm. Movies like "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" and "Princess of Thieves" had me thinking it was Europe trying to impose their religion on Asia. Then movies like "The 300 Spartans" and "300" would have me think it is the reverse. While a movie like "Kingdom of Heaven" would have me think it is an equal opportunity chance for both sides to fight and become the primary political power. While a movie like "Alexander" and games like "Sid Meir's Civilization" would have me believe it is whomever is the best conquerer has the might that is right and the correct religion. Plus the game would have me believe it is all a part of the social evolution, economic progress, and technological progess to a hopefully better future under one world government, because we need to have our petty differences put aside so as to be united against any possible galactic menaces. (As a Trekker, I lean towards that goal myself.) The trouble there is, which current powerful nation's model of government shall serve as the idea model for a world government. Many have tried and failed to be the world government. However, right now, we are involved in a war with people holding centuries hold grudges because of the never ending Catch-22 loop of revenge. So that would make it seem that right now it is like the old Crusades but with better weaponry. At least, that's my observation of the situation.

#02: The Inquistion! Nobody stops the Inquistion! The Inquisition! What a show! :laugh:

#03: The Puritans failed at their attempt to force their religion on England, or so Paul from Doncaster told me. So they went on a Pilgrimage to the New World. Now look at how that got us where we are today.

#04: "No nation can exist or shall exist without the force of arms." The Chickasaw Nation has the "Lighthorse Police", but we lack even having something like the Swiss Guard that Vatican City has. So uh, hm. (*Shrugs*)

#05: Somebody somewhere, pointed to having seen pictures of Joan of Arc as his or her idea of what feminine body armor was or is, realisticaly. I don't know where that thread is. But I wanted to eventually point out, that despite how well she performed on behalf of France and the Dauphine, that she was still executed by being burned alive at the stake. According to her persecutors and prosecutors, one of the worst crimes she did, and the only one that they had undeniable proof of, was that she "dressed like a man" and that was including her hair style and her suit of armor! On behalf of the Lord God Jehovah and His Son Jesus Christ, she was killed for that as a prisoner of war. After seeing movies like "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure", and Milla Jovovich's and Leelee Sobieski's versions of her story, I've had a "Millenium" movie inspired fantasy of going back and saving her. But thanks to having seen dudes in drag disguised as Madonna and Britney Spears, I now think I have a better understanding of the emotional betrayal they must have felt and the need to lash out in anger at someone. :speech:

#06: So in summary, deities or not, humanity will still wage war over one cause or another, from the individual one on one level, to whole societies.

[fable]

According to her persecutors and prosecutors, one of the worst crimes she did, and the only one that they had undeniable proof of, was that she "dressed like a man" and that was including her hair style and her suit of armor! On behalf of the Lord God Jehovah and His Son Jesus Christ, she was killed for that as a prisoner of war.

Oh, no, not at all, LSD! This wasn't a charge against her. Rather, it was evidence that she stood against the social order--that's all. The charge was heresy--and in fact, under examination without torture (how old-fashioned, compared to modern democratic methods!), she said that she put her vision that was supposedly of a saint above the word of her god. Now, however you might feel about the bible, Roman Catholicism, or Pentacostal preachers demanding money on television to cover their drug habits, the fact is that this was...heresy, by definition. She recanted once, then recanted her recantation. Then she wouldn't recant the recanting of her recantation. So the local RCC, more or less held hostage by the secular English government, found her guilty and turned her over to the English, who burnt her.

Mind you, I'm not trying to excuse the RCC, which did it's level best to live down to the precepts of that hypocritical bigot, Augustine of Hippo. And it's worth remembering that when it was very politic for the Vatican to get in good with the French, again, they spontaneously recognized Joan as a Saint. How noble of them! Just as it was noble for Augustine to chase down and persecute all those semi-Pelagians, because they were Christians of a different stripe, and we just can't allow pollution of the religious gene pool in that fashion, can we?

#06: So in summary, deities or not, humanity will still wage war over one cause or another, from the individual one on one level, to whole societies.

Much as I wrote, above. I knew we'd be singing on the same page, but in descant, and at the sixth? Is this still the late 13th century, or is that just the long shadow of monotheism making it hard to tell?

[LeoStarDragon1]

Confusion!

Hello, Fable!

#00: Uh, thanks for the quick reply here. You provided the same details as the movies and what I read at a Joan of Arc museum site. I was just trying my best to summarize in as few words as I could without going into too many details hopefully and thus maybe even spoiling the movies. But anyway, other readers, what Fable wrote!

#01: But it still left me angry enough that I wrote a fan fiction chapter about how my hero character saved her as a damsel in distress, from at least those three movies about her. I'd like your beta reader input if I can find it.

#02: Here's my confusion! I clicked on the reply button and waited an hour for the reply to post. (I switched monitor modes so that I could watch "Knight Rider".) For when I returned, it was still stuck at 1% or so! I had to use "Ctrl", "Alt", "Delete" to get out of it. Then I got back on line to this forum to see what had happened. The message that you replied to was posted and you had already replied to it! So I guess you were replying to me while I was replying to you elsewhere at the same time, but you were slightly faster I guess. So could that cause my end of this line of communication to freeze up like that? I wonder if my other post is even there now and if not, can I recall what I wrote to try again.

[fable]

#01: But it still left me angry enough that I wrote a fan fiction chapter about how my hero character saved her as a damsel in distress, from at least those three movies about her. I'd like your beta reader input if I can find it.

I'll do so, but I have to tell you, I really hate reading incomplete fanfiction. It makes me very cranky, and I throw things.

#02: Here's my confusion! I clicked on the reply button and waited an hour for the reply to post. (I switched monitor modes so that I could watch "Knight Rider".) For when I returned, it was still stuck at 1% or so! I had to use "Ctrl", "Alt", "Delete" to get out of it. Then I got back on line to this forum to see what had happened. The message that you replied to was posted and you had already replied to it!

Lesser deities have that ability, you know. (No false modesty, here.)

So I guess you were replying to me while I was replying to you elsewhere at the same time, but you were slightly faster I guess. So could that cause my end of this line of communication to freeze up like that? I wonder if my other post is even there now and if not, can I recall what I wrote to try again.

No, that couldn't affect it. I suspect it was a Web hiccup (technical term) that was responsible. Either that, or demonic possession.

If you found that really helpful, please call (666) 666-6666 and let our customer staff know.

[LeoStarDragon1]

I'll do so, but I have to tell you, I really hate reading incomplete fanfiction. It makes me very cranky, and I throw things.



Lesser deities have that ability, you know. (No false modesty, here.)



No, that couldn't affect it. I suspect it was a Web hiccup (technical term) that was responsible. Either that, or demonic possession.

If you found that really helpful, please call (666) 666-6666 and let our customer staff know.

Hm. I still sometimes have trouble switching pages when you seem to be on-line at the same time I am, whilst we communicate like we're using Instant Messenger. Curious indeed. "But anyway...." (To quote Ellen Degeneres.)

Wow! Really? Thanks! Good thing that I was great at 8th Grade Dodgeball then! But incomplete? Hm. Odd that you'd bring that up as you did. I try to get people to understand that for the big context picture of the universe, one should start with the prologue and continue from there up to the chapter in question. But then confusion sets in. If they don't start at the very beginning, they want to know what something meant, when they limit themselves to the one chapter. If they start at the beginning though, they've become lost sometimes, wondering when they'll get to the chapter they want to read the most. (Okay, I confess, it was just 1 guy near San Francisco. He couldn't see how Star Trek was tied into it.) But I'm hoping that a man like you is more intelligent and doesn't need so many explanations. So I'll get right on it and look for that chapter in the book and then when I find it, I'll try to e-mail it to you. Thanks again!

[Curry]

Why does war in the name of religion continue to happen?

Because religious people are flameand flamepeople do avoiding forum filter like war

Curry,

Read [url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/speak-your-mind-16/sym-specific-rules-please-read-before-posting-14427.html#post211853"]SYM Forum Rules[/url] particularly Rule Number 4 that says:

4) Be respectful of other people’s creed and religious beliefs. Posting comments that are racist will not be tolerated. Also general statements proclaiming that one religion or culture is better than another won’t be tolerated. If there is a specific aspect of that culture or religion that you wish to discuss, you may do so but be prepared to provide sources and logical rationales. Threads that persistently violate this will be closed. If there is an attempt by one person to agitate other members or to try to get a thread closed by their behavior, that person will be warned or lose their posting privileges.

Now such sweeping statement is uncalled for. Are you saying that you're better than me by default just because I'm Roman Catholic and you're an atheist?

This post has earned you an infraction.

Please be guided accordingly.

Thank you.

--Maharlika--
SYM Moderator

[Anna]

well....

people have already spoken a lot on this topic... but i would still love to add my reviews as well... as much as i have studied about this topic most commonly the people belong to the southeast Asia are get involved in this... whether this crime is seen even throughout the world in different areas mostly in under development and even developed countries. we ourselves have categorized that 'justice' is just for those who can not tolerate... and those who can not raise their voices against injustice those in fact are the victims of discrimination which is one of the major factors of terror or war or killing or whatever!

we always say that this is a terrorist but we never sort out why a noble citizen become an extremist... which is a discrimination in my view... and should be abolish........

thanks!

[Ronan]

People sure as hell use God for all sort of things. Still not all atrocities done in the name of religion can be explained by personal gain hidden behing holy commandments or orders.

Many religions do encourage to kill and discriminate other races or minorities. Koran and the Old Testament at least IIRC. I haven't read the new Testament yet so can't say about that.