Mafiascum.net

Sarcastro wrote:Seol, you're basically correct about religious conflict usually having other important factors, such as tribalism and inequity, but it's important to note that religion is one of the things that causes tribalism and inequity. It's easy to say, for example, that the religious conflict in Nothern Ireland is really a class issue, but that would ignore the fact that the whole reason the class issue exists is discrimination against Catholics.

Yes, but is there discrimination against Catholics? Why do the Northern Irish divide themselves into two communities, one of which defines itself by Catholocism and Republicanism and one by Protestantism and Unionism (and the two are inextricably linked)? And of those two, inextricably linked concepts, the one that actually seems to to people (as a basis for conflict, anyway) is which country Northern Ireland should be part of.

Northern Ireland isn't even a religious conflict. It's a political one.

volkan wrote:I agree with Sarc entirely. Religious disputes, in the sense of pure philosophical clashes, are rarely ever a cause of actual conflict (except, of course, for purges of heretics). However, religion provides a tribal label and a higher cause for what is usually politically-oriented issues, enflaming and "mutating" the problem.

I agree with this entirely. In fact, . The only thing that I would emphasise is that just because religion is used in this way does not mean religion is at fault, but rather the people who are (ab?)using religious labels and concepts to further their agendas are at fault.

About Northern Ireland - yes, Seol, it's a very complicated situation with both political and religious causes. And yes, I'd even agree that it's more a political issue than a religious one. As for what caused what, well, you can go all the way back and say it was ultimately caused by the Pope not granting Henry VIII the divorce he wanted. The religious and political causes are clearly linked, and I think we both agree on this point.

The real issue when we're talking about these sorts of issues is what exactly is grounds for blaming something on religion. Ultimately, I think the issue is whether or not the concept of religion is helpful to humanity as a whole. At least, that's the basis I'm working from. So in, say, Northern Ireland, what would it be like without religion? Well, there wouldn't be such a huge divide between the pro-English and pro-Irish, for one thing, because those labels, as I touched on with my Reconquista comments, are maintained by the religious differences. The English are Protestant and the Irish are Catholic. We both agree that this isn't a coincidence. What I'm trying to point out is that the reason they divide themselves because of religion. Yes, the political issue is the one that actually matters to most people, but without the religious difference, the political issue would be a lot tamer, because the Irish and English identities would be a lot less clearly defined.

The problem here, I think, is that you're looking at it exclusively from a "what does religious philosophy cause?" point of view (or at least it seems that way to me). That's fine, but we should make it clear if we're arguing about different things here. My point is simply that the labels and divisions religions create independent of their actual doctrines and philosophies are huge problems. Does it matter that Hezbollah is a Muslim organisation rather than a Christian one? Not in a philosophical sense, no. You could switch Christianity and Islam throughout the world and it would make no real difference overall. So you're right in that sense - Islamic fundamentalists are primarily an expression of political problems, like the fact that people in the Middle East aren't huge fans of Western nations for various reasons. But the fact that religion exists in general is what allows Muslim fundamentalists to exist. It exacerbates pre-existing problems greatly - there would still be problems without it, but the problems we have now could not exist without religion.

To add to what Sarc said (I agree. Surprise, surprise):

Religion's power to exacerbate comes from two things:
1) It's a label. This is obvious and we agree on;
2) The fact that religion teaches that faith and devotion are good things. Religion, and all other worshipful ideologies, inherently lead to extremism because they teach that there is a direct correlation between one's level of commitment and one's level of virtue. How often do we hear the phrase "A person of deep faith" as a compliment?

Of course, the reasons people become extremist are diverse and varied, and is usually not the result of pure ideological commitment (eg. disgruntled and unemployed Muslim youth going to Iraq to fight). However, the fact that religion provides a higher cause makes it a uniquely potent "exacerbater".

This is probably a poor subject for a first post in GD, but I'm opinionated and can't keep my mouth shut, so... ;D

A few things that I'd like to say before I go in to this: Ultimately, I am not anti-religion. Religious organizations have, in the past, been extremely strong mechanisms for social change. Because of a focus on in-group unity, religious organizations can mobilize large groups of people in ways that other organizations cannot. However, I would argue that this has to do little with the religion itself, but with the feeling of belonging that religions can promote.

To the actual discussion:

Sarcastro, I feel, has hit the nail on the head win regards to Northern Ireland. I won't address that.

I would say that most religious conflicts have underlying social reasons, but the conflicts would be nowhere near as extreme without religion. Not only does religion contribute to in-group/out-group hostility, as Sarcastro pointed out, but religion provides justification. Religion, particularly Abrahamic religions, label those outside of the religion as infidels and heretics, and by fighting them, one is doing "the right thing."

An example that is particularly prevalent today is that of radical and fundamentalist Islam. The suicide bombers and jihadists genuinely that their actions will bring them to heaven. Before the 9/11 attacks, the hijackers bathed themselves in perfumes and shaved their bodies in preparation for the afterlife. Without the promise of paradise in the afterlife, would they have been as willing to take those lives? Without the justification that the Western world is populated by infidel, who are less than human, would they be so easy to kill?

I would argue that, if actual religion were taken out of the equation but the in-group/out-group hostility remained, the conflicts in the middle east would be drastically less severe.

At the same time, social problems DID let (to use Ayaan Hirsi Ali's words) the "jihadist genie" out of the bottle. Radicalism can lay latent for centuries and decades- there, but sleeping; radical, but not fighting. I'm fond of analogies, so let's go with this: Social issues are the trigger on the gun of religious fundamentalism, however, it is the religion itself that allows the bullet to gain speed.

Sarcastro wrote:About Northern Ireland - yes, Seol, it's a very complicated situation with both political and religious causes. And yes, I'd even agree that it's more a political issue than a religious one. As for what caused what, well, you can go all the way back and say it was ultimately caused by the Pope not granting Henry VIII the divorce he wanted. The religious and political causes are clearly linked, and I think we both agree on this point.

I think it has absoltuly nothing to do with religious causes.

I mean, have you ever heard of an IRA terrorist shooting a Protistent minister because he dosn't believe in transubstantiation? No, of course not, because that's not what the conflict is about. The conflict is basically about two different societies, living inside one country; the differences are culture, ancestory, and questions about political power; religion is a small aspect of that cultrue, but not a major one really. Even if everyone in Northern Ireland converted to Roman Catholicsm, the IRA wouldn't be happy allowing it to remain part of Great Britian, because it's not really a religious conflict.

So in, say, Northern Ireland, what would it be like without religion? Well, there wouldn't be such a huge divide between the pro-English and pro-Irish, for one thing, because those labels, as I touched on with my Reconquista comments, are maintained by the religious differences. The English are Protestant and the Irish are Catholic.

Ok, so if there wasn't religion, people would just talk about "Irish vs. Scotch Irish" or something like that. The labels would be different, but nothing of substance would be.

What I'm trying to point out is that the reason they divide themselves

is

because of religion. Yes, the political issue is the one that actually matters to most people, but without the religious difference, the political issue would be a lot tamer, because the Irish and English identities would be a lot less clearly defined.

Eh...people will always find a way to differentiate between "us" and "them", between those like us and those unlike us. Language, natioanlism, skin color, ancestory, or religion. If there wasn't religion, I have trouble believing that would make the human race any less tribabistic. In fact, modern religion, such as Christianity, Islam, and Buddism, are some of the first social forces to attempt to trancend tribalism.

My point is simply that the labels and divisions religions create independent of their actual doctrines and philosophies are huge problems. Does it matter that Hezbollah is a Muslim organisation rather than a Christian one? Not in a philosophical sense, no. You could switch Christianity and Islam throughout the world and it would make no real difference overall. So you're right in that sense - Islamic fundamentalists are primarily an expression of political problems, like the fact that people in the Middle East aren't huge fans of Western nations for various reasons. But the fact that religion exists in general is what allows Muslim fundamentalists to exist. It exacerbates pre-existing problems greatly - there would still be problems without it, but the problems we have now could not exist without religion.

The labels and divisions are a problem, certanly, but I don't see any reason to think there would be any less labeling or divisons if it wasn't for religions. We'd just have found some other yardstick to use to figure out who's on our team and who's on the other team.

First up, Sangy gets a nice big QFT from me.

Yosarian2, you are correct that the social and political things are the root cause, and I don't think any of us would disagree with you.

Using Northern Ireland again,
You're correct in that it is social and political problems at the foundation, but they identified themselves as "Catholic" and "Protestant" and they have done so throughout the conflict. Hence, whilst the conflict is political in nature, it has become inextricably tied to the religious identity.

It is a moot point as to whether the conflict would have been as severe as it was had purely political labels been used. I mean, the labels "Republican" and "Unionist" are not quite so potent and, moreover, cannot be used to separate as much of the population. Children can be called "Catholic" (though they shouldn't be) but it makes less sense to call a child "Republican". The religious labels perpetuate it by driving a deeper wedge into the society and, moreover, carry the emotional baggage of religious persecution.

im a christian and believe in eevolution

annadog r u happy

I like evolution. It's interconnected with every living thing.

But hey, that's just a theory

Surprising amount of people who voted against it here.
I spent a good portion of my life debating evolution against creationists. Even my boss is a creationist.
Then I realized what's the point.

In post 335, Fluminator wrote:Surprising amount of people who voted against it here.

To be fair, this was from 2007 before any of us were born

The inverse question would be: do you believe in unicorns?

what about the contrapositive

it's not an implication so no contrapositive

booooring

oh wow a Jathan thread in 2k18

Can we ban everyone who unironically voted for any of the bottom 3 options?

In post 343, Not_Mafia wrote:Can we ban nm?

listen if we start banning people for stupid shit they said in 2007 we will have but to ban me. I was a total dumbass who ran my mouth constantly. is that what you really want?

We ain't banning them for what they said, we banning for what they vote. Big diff

I used to have a pretty cool "Thread Lich Strikes Again!" image macro.

Can't find it though. Pity

In post 345, xyzzy wrote:listen if we start banning people for stupid shit they said in 2007 we will have

no choice

but to ban me. I was a total dumbass who ran my mouth constantly. is that what you really want?

ban xyzzy 2018

Evolution is a sham. I have all the real answers.

No, I won't share them with you.