Religion and Wars

Remove all ads!

But why kill everyone? Would everyone living in that land have been evil beyond saving? Would God be doing them a favour by asking his armies to invade the land and rape the surviving virgins (he has issued that command before, and even if he didnt utter it, knowing what he does about the hearts and minds of men in those days, it isnt much of a leap in logic to say that rape was a given).

Were they so evil in following tyrannical charismatic leaders that they deserved to be wiped off the face of the earth and condemned to suffering and death?

Were they evil because they were inherently evil, or evil because the church didnt do enough to spread the word and lift them from their plight?

You know I'm an athiest, but I'm just asking these questions that occur to me, because religious genocide is still genocide, and it should never be condoned or accepted, not even when commanded by god, because if god wants to save everyone through his son, he failed a whole nation or two there.

 

A civil society will make sure that the woman's cause is heard. Unless we live in some latin american dictatorship I hardly think the religious group is the only way to report such crimes. We have human rights organizations to take care of such issues, no reason for Churches to participate. And for abortion, as I view it as a fundamental human right it's acceptance to me is obvious. Religions are free to preach the wrongness of abortion but it can be done without creeping yourself in the political game and getting your hands dirty. When religions meddle in politics they distance themselves from their spiritual origin which I find quite sad.

 

Something that the pro-life community needs to learn is that there are plenty of valid, non-religious reasons to ban abortion. By resorting to religious rhetoric, the debate is sidetracked from the real issue.

I'm a liberal humanist, and I'm pro-life. Not out of some unprovable or possibly outdated concept of morality, but out of the idea that aborting an unborn child violates the rights of the child. Legally speaking, the right to live will always trump the right to choose. Given that the law has punished mothers for harming their children by using drugs while pregnant, there is even legal precedent for the law protecting the rights of unborn children. I'm actually convinced that it is the religious tone of the debate that is stopping us from making any real progress on this issue.

 

Hmmm Drew, of all the pro-life arguments I've heard , that is probably the most logical and sensible.

Making it into a religious issue means nothing gets done I think.

 

But it had absolutely nothing to do with child-sacrifice and everything to do with warfare, revenge and jealousy. Instead of disparaging Palestinians as descendants of those child-sacrificing groups the Jews, unfortunately, did not wipe out you should study this gruesome book of yours.

Btw, Asherah and Moloch/Baal were worshipped by the Israelites as well. Asherah's cult did not involve a rite of "passing through fire", nor were there child-sacrifices to her. Also, it's not like Jahwe was above human sacrifice himself, so...

 

Nevermind. Suffice to say I see your point, even if I disagree.

I think genocide, hell, and so on can be counted as coercion.

 

Going to a Mormon perspective, it is possible to learn of Christ after your death and be ready for the Ressurection and Judgement. By their death, they are seperated from such an evil power structure, and the ones that were not guilty of truly damnable sins (Shedding innocent blood the only one that applies here), would have the chance to repent and learn to live righteously.

Further, if someone in such a position abused his authority, the accountability for the sins committed fals on the one that gives the order. One of the 10 commandments explicitly states that we must not take the Name of God to justify our vain pursuits, and that we will not stand blameless for what we do in God's name. If someone abuses religious authority, then they will answer directly to God for every innocent slain by their order...

Human rights activists seem to be dropping the ball when it comes tot he unborn and their right to a mortal life. AS such, Christians are taking up the cause.

An excellent point I have tried to make, but as you have stated, have had no luck with because of religious support. But I think that the declining amount of common sense in society may be a failure for your idea as well.

The problem is that other nations mentioned would also have those factors present and there would be no peace for the Israelites had that not come to pass.

Contrary to the first of the 10 commandments.

I'm going to have to ask for some citations for that claim...

 

I've never once heard you frame the idea in anything but religious rhetoric. If you want to be heard by taken seriously by the secular community, you have to speak their language. It isn't hard, really. Any religious belief that should be passed into law will have a logical explanation behind it.

 

That's exactly the problem. The religious perspective is as natural as looking out my own eyes to me. Any logic is rejected because of the connections to religion. Wouldn't refusing to consider religious viewpoints constitute discrimination?

 

If you're openly referencing religion while promoting a law, you're probably violating separation of church and state. In spirit, if not in letter.

And that won't go unnoticed by your audience. Whether they'll approve or not...*shrug*

 

you contradict yourself here. If we do not stand blameless for what we do in gods name, then if you follow an order to kill, you must take the blame, no matter who that order came from.

Why should the leader take all of the blame when you followed his actions? its all about taking responsibility for your actions.

 

Indeed. Especially since Jahwe "hardened their hearts" and caused them to fight the Israelites in the first place. Set up for genocide by Jahwe? Quite malicious and bloodthirsty he is, no? Not only is he a deity to embrace the idea of genocide, he is also one to prepare the stage.

Read Judges 11:30 - 31 and the following. Jahwe accepts human sacrifice - Jephthah's virgin daughter. Read Samuel 21:1 - 11, wherein Jahwe is appeased only by human sacrifice (the desendants of Saul) to him.

Then there is the Abraham/Isaak incident. While Jahwe interfered I cannot help but think: Someone's screening his followers for peculiar traits of character. Never mind the hypocrisy, seeing that the willingness to sacrifice one's own children to Moloch is an abominable crime, yet in this instance is ample proof of faith. Aha! And lets not even touch the inclination to play sick games.

But it does fit into the big picture quite well.

 

Proteus:

No He hasn't and no it wouldn't be a given.

Were the SS troops from Nazi Germany pardoned because they were just following a charismatic leader? Think of the kind of mindless following of preachers you've seen in the Bible Belt and apply that to the horrendous and barbaric practices these cultures engaged in.

While I'll agree that genocide is genocide, I compare that to 'simple' killing, not neccessarily murder. I would want to know the justification, but I do believe it is possible. You have to realize that you're not talking about a modern American suburb where eveyone has their lives and they're all seperate. There was a group mentality in that time that is hard to find in America today. If they sacrificed their children to their gods, everyone did it and everyone accepted it as an acceptable and probably neccessary practice.

Morgoroth:

I largely agree. Unfortunately, that isn't always the case. Such as:

While I understand your position, you have to understand the position of the majority of Christians. By killing the fetus, we believe, and reasonably so, that you are killing a human being, willfully, without jsut cause, and without due process. That is generally called murder. If you found out your neighbor were murdering new-born babies (properly born and legal citizens and everything) and the police knew about it and did nothing, I certainly hope you would make some noise (probably after moving). I know you don't follow the same logic, but you have to admit there is a logic to it. That logic and any sense of morality demands action. While I don't condone violence, and certaily not things like abortion clinic bombings, action is still demanded. Legal action is the proper recourse, so that is what we seek.

Drew:

While the religious tone certaily hurt the movement in the early stages, it is really only the extremists that still use it. The vast majority of us use logic and reason, just like you do. Actually, these days, a lot of pro-lifers aren't religious at all. They just see it as wrong because they see the foetus as a human being.

Dendri:

Ok, God punished Israel for their worship of other gods, to the point of destroying the nation and scattering the tribes. I hardly think that counts as a rich endoursement of them. Secondly, Asherah's cult moved away from the 'passing through fire' stage later on, but it was heavily practiced pre-Israel and even in the early stages when it existed among the Israelites. Lastly, when did God actually demand human sacrific, again?

AMaster:

If you're talking about the average Joe, then he isn't in any way violating seperation of church and state. He isn't the state, so his references to religion don't violate anything, and his proposition isn't law (yet) so neither does it, not even in spirit. By the time it comes to law, it will have to have been carefully considered and approved by the majority of the people (or their representatives). This is where the seperation comes in. Remember, it doesn't say that no religious belief can ever become law (such as abortion is murder), just that there has to be more behind it than religious belief. The law must be passed by its own merrits, but it can be suggested for religious regions. If you are talking about a state or federal official, then you may run into some problems with the first point, as they are acting as a representative of the state, but I still don't think the suggestion is a problem.

That's a point. You have to know your audience.

Dendri:

That is a mournful event, and not pleasing in the eyes of God, but a vow is a vow. They took these things seriously, back then, as is evidenced. He uttered his vow hastily and foolishly, and his daughter payed the price.

This is not a sacrifice, nor is it God that demands it. This is punishment (or revenge) agaist Saul's decendants for his actions, as demanded by the Gibeonites. God only told David to appease the Gibeonites.

Dendri, the old testament is rife with the idea that consequences are inherrited, and that authority over people is absolute. While I can understand your being disquieted by it, I cannot help but see this as yet more evidence of the absolute nature of God.

[ April 18, 2007, 01:01: Message edited by: NOG (No Other Gods) ]

 

When ordered in God's name to do something, the accountability falls on the head of the one who took God's name to give the order. If they are in a position of legitimate authority, they are accountable to God for it's use/abuse.

We are accountable for our degree of obedience to righteous, legitimate leaders. Those who abuse their authority have broken the covenent, not the followers...

The last time God was assused of hardening someone's heart, it was a translational difference. I suspect that the same will be found again.

Jephthah was a fool. Something tells me that that may not have been required, and he will find that out at the last day...

One, the sons of Saul were delivered to an offended people and executed for the transgression of their father. Capital punishment, not sacrifice. Secondly, it was not for God, but the laws of the offended people...

It was a test of Abraham's faith and obedience. Faith enough to prepare the altar and be ready to light it. When Abraham did these things, then and only then did the Lord send the Ram to be sacrificed in Isaac's place. The Lord had important things in mind for Abraham and his posterity (His Great Gransdons became the fathers to the 12 tribes of Israel).

 

Drew allready explained that the pro-life position does not need to be argued on religious grounds. So really, still no need for religions to jump in. Also I have very great problems in banning something that a very significant amount of the population thinks should be legal. Even if it would not be over 50% I still don't think it would be democratically correct to ban abortion in cases where say 60% was against it and 40% was for it. Democracy is after all not allways about just following the will of the majority, even the needs of the minority needs to be considered

 

But what if this causes grievous offence to tha majority? Isn't that provoking conflict?

 

I find offending the majority to be a lesser evil than restricting the freedoms of a great minority. The minority as I stated earlier would have to be a significant part of the population in this case though, 30% at the very least. So the choice is really about offending a majority or oppressing the minority. The former would in my opinion very likely cause less damage in the long run.

 

Christians dont have a good reason for getting offended though. It may be a difficult thing for you to understand, but say if the government was committing genocide, then it would be right and proper that everyone was offended and took steps to stop it.

But in this case, there is no genocide, there are only mothers making choices for themselves and their babies.

What you see as offensive, others see as necessary. your rights arent being infringed, you dont have to get an abortion yourself.

I'm offended by the fact I'm not legally allowed to copy money, but I dont see the government rushing to help me.

 

Morgoroth:
But you understand how religon could demand legal action. If there were no atheists supporting it, it would be religious people demanding legal action for what they percieved as a horrendous injustice.

Proteus:

It is one individual making a choice for another individual that they have no right to make, at least, if you admit they are babies. Also, I don't think anyone (with a few rare fanatical or medical anomalies) sees abortion as neccessary, just preferable. So you are grievously offending a large portion of the population (majority or not) in order to cater to a (probably) smaller portion of the population (those that actively support abortion, I have to assume some people are on the fence). I could go on, but this isn't an abortion thread.

 

The thing is, a law should never be made on the basis of offense. Never. No matter who it offends. Blasphemy, for instance, should never be illegal. Its not polite, and many people view it as disrespectful, but it shouldnt be illegal.

Banning abortion because it is offensive is much the same. If you ban because one person is taking anothers life, thats okay. Thats a valid legal ground. You still need to proof that a fetus is a person (a whole other debate), but just because something offends you doesnt mean you can ban it. Same thing with gay marriage, another thread on this forum. Just because something is offensive is not a good enough reason to outlaw it, but if it infringes on the rights of others (and abortion may well be said to do that) then ban it.

I find tabloids offensive and degrading to moral fibre, should we ban that too?