Religion vs. Religion

[cwes99_03]

Do you believe that those who do believe that religions can coexist and cooperate peacefully are by definition anti-religious or "secular?"

 

In case this is a question based on what I have said, I'd like to clarify.

I didn't say that any religion that believes in peaceful coexistence regardless of teachings, dogma, whatever was by definition anti-religious or secular. I did however say that any christian "religion" that states these things would not be christian because their holy book specifically says that such a practice is wrong, and that the same would most likely be true of other religions such as Islam and Judaism as they are all based off of the same original texts.

[maikeru]

And this goes back to the question: Do you believe that different faiths are inevitably destined to hostility toward one another? Can Ecumenicism have no ability to reduce or eliminate conflict? Do you believe that all people of faith similarly believe that there can be no acceptance of different beliefs? If so, why? Do you believe that those who do believe that religions can coexist and cooperate peacefully are by definition anti-religious or "secular?"

 

Thanks for your thoughtful input!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

I hope you won't mind if I step in and say: No, religions are not inevitably destined to be hostile, unless the doctrines of the religion or leaders force confrontation, either through practice or imposition of belief. Each religion has to be examined on a case-by-case basis and separate conclusions drawn, from its history and current practices. For example, the Quran suggests that a jizya, a religious tax or tribute, should be imposed on all non-Muslims (primarily peoples of the Book) or dhimmis (non-Muslims governed according to sharia laws, and often treated as 2nd-class citizens), as they did in the Arabia or the Ottoman Empire.

 

Wiki article on jizya:

 

Jizya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Quran 9:29 from the Wiki article:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued

 

Such a mandated belief and practice, in my view, would automatically bring one religion and another, or one people and another, into direct conflict. And it often did. In the Balkans and Greece, rebellions against the Ottomans were common, because of religious and ethnic discontent.

[catholiboy]

I hope you won't mind if I step in and say: No, religions are not inevitably destined to be hostile, unless the doctrines of the religion or leaders force confrontation, either through practice or imposition of belief.

 

And you think anything else could happen?

[LayDominican]

Catholic Boy,

 

I disagree. the Christian West and Islamic East are bound to cross swords once again. This time around, the East is in a more powerful position than the West. As we have seen in Iraq, where the most powerful army in the world, is being manhandled by terroists that are using make shift weapons and killing both Americans and their own people. and there is the difference. They are willing to die so as to have a higher place in heaven. The West is in no hurry to die.

 

Right now, the different factions of Islamic forces are fighting among theirselves and that works to our favor. But when they united, when the next very strong leader emerges,they will turn towards the West, and the battle shall begin. No common ground, no amount of wealth, no weapons will deter them. At least that is how I see it.

[Buffy]

Right now, the different factions of Islamic forces are fighting among theirselves and that works to our favor. But when they united, when the next very strong leader emerges,they will turn towards the West, and the battle shall begin. No common ground, no amount of wealth, no weapons will deter them. At least that is how I see it.

So do you think we should not even try to influence this process? If we were for example to build close ties with Indonesia and Malaysia (actually already the case), which represent the *majority* of the Islamic world and make them true friends, don't you think that this marginalization of the extremists is worth at least trying? If you don't think this is worthwhile, do you think people who would like to do so ("appeasers") should be prevented from finding common ground with like-minded Muslim moderates?

 

Do you think that maybe the belief in the inevitability of conflict might in fact be a self-fulfilling prophecy?

 

Controlling destiny,

Buffy

[Southtown]

How can we keep them marginalized, though? They attract new members all the time.

 

PS ¿Qué sucedió a cwes?

[Buffy]

How can we keep them marginalized, though? They attract new members all the time.

By demonizing them! Its pretty easy to see (as I've mentioned before) that there's a strong correlation between the rise of radicalism and its *support* by the government (e.g. Wahabbism in Saudi up until the last 5 years), or adoption by the larger, more mainstream religious organizations. Radicalism is not something that is beneficial to the mainstream, but they may be seduced into it until its effects start making it untenable (again, as in Saudi in the last few years).

 

Wanting radical action is not a normal state of affairs because radical action results in radical blowback, and the majority *always* bring things back to the moderate center. There will always be extremists, but as long as the majority does not tolerate them, it will only be the freaks of nature that are attracted to it. Its the moderates in the middle--and not some overbearing godless evil "government"--that makes this happen.

 

Extremists never see this, because any moderate hesitation violates the purity of their beliefs, when they "know" that their goals will be achieved and that this justifies their extremist means. Their downfall is when they begin to see those potential supporters in the middle who question their methods as apostate and worthy of the same extremist wrath that they mete out to the unbelievers. They sow the seeds of their demise in many cases by marginalizing themselves, by saying that their own extreme views are the only beliefs that are truly aligned with God's wishes.

 

There was a breath of fresh air on the ecumenical front in today's Washington Post of all places from a Catholic Nun, Sister Joan Chittister. If you read the comments to the article, there is just as much invective from believers as non-believers, while the silent majority waits for the extremists to go away, or if they don't, to marginalize them in their show of moderate faith every Sabbath.

 

We have met the enemy and he is us, :hyper:

Buffy

[maikeru]

And you think anything else could happen?

 

What else should happen? When tolerance is not likely, the other option is extinction, and many faiths have gone that way too. But I don't think that's a good thing.

 

We have met the enemy and he is us.

 

Yep.

 

I think the best way to encounter extremism is to first attack the economic and social factors which create vulnerable people: poverty, inadequate education, poor living standards, warfare/fear of terror, etc. People who have nothing to live for, people who only see their family and friends suffer, and remember nothing but a distant glorious past and live in a dark, hellish present, have no place to go. If life is worse than death, then glorious death is everlasting life.

[catholiboy]

Of course it's not a good thing. But life's a ***** (forgive the inappropiate wording), and more often than not, religions don't recognise that.

[catholiboy]

Catholic Boy,

 

I disagree. the Christian West and Islamic East are bound to cross swords once again. This time around, the East is in a more powerful position than the West. As we have seen in Iraq, where the most powerful army in the world, is being manhandled by terroists that are using make shift weapons and killing both Americans and their own people. and there is the difference. They are willing to die so as to have a higher place in heaven. The West is in no hurry to die.

 

Right now, the different factions of Islamic forces are fighting among theirselves and that works to our favor. But when they united, when the next very strong leader emerges,they will turn towards the West, and the battle shall begin. No common ground, no amount of wealth, no weapons will deter them. At least that is how I see it.

 

...And where did I state to the contrary?:)

[Dov Henis]

Paraphrasing Albert Einstein, we cannot clearly analyze and resolve problems by using the same kind of thinking used when we created them.

 

A Discussion of religious aspects only and strictly religiously seems to me an evolving exitless maze...

 

Dov

[Buffy]

A Discussion of religious aspects only and strictly religiously seems to me an evolving exitless maze...

Exactly, which is why the combination of the "pure religion" and "sociology of human philosophy" must be considered together to get anywhere on the topic of this thread. It does not matter whether one has a desire to separate these concepts for other reasons: it is that what is commonly defined as "religion" encompasses both and the solutions and actions we need to be considering here have to proceed as such.

 

The bottom line is that the nature of religious extremism--which is the root of the vast majority of anti-ecumenical conflict--is driven by an insistence that not supporting the extremist interpretation is tantamount to apostasy. Thus *theological* efforts drive both the problem and the solution and are solved only by discussion and decision making by all individuals in the marketplace of religious ideas.

 

Jaw Jaw is better than War War, :)

Buffy

[Dov Henis]

Thus *theological* efforts drive both the problem and the solution and are solved only by discussion and decision making by all individuals in the marketplace of religious ideas. Jaw Jaw is better than War War

 

The above statement is a glaring sample of concept/comprehension of a member of a western culture group, who does not understand that the "theological" problem is a Darwinian evolutionary struggle of life or death between absolutely incompatible phenotypes, and that the fanatic phenotypes rightly rely on the tragic naive mistaken assumption of Westerners who take it for granted that everyone, e v e r y o n e, thinks Western and believes Western and has Western morals/ethics....which is of course a foolish naivete.

 

What for you is a "problem" is for me and for the likes of me a real life or death Darwinian evolution scenario of groups' survival competition between cultures, ways of life, values and attitudes. At the present phase of the struggle Western Culture, off-guard in its pathetic and tragically naive relevant attitudes and assumptions, is slipping down an abyss.

 

Dov

[Buffy]

Do you believe that all life forms must eliminate all other life forms? Is the goal survival or annihilation of all others?

 

What you are describing is not Darwinian at all: Darwinism is not about "competition" its simply about "survival." Survival might involve competition, but it is not a *requirement*. Darwinism has been twisted and distorted to advocate many immoral initiatives (see Social Darwinism): you should be careful here.

 

Are you familiar with the notion of Symbiosis? Remorae would be great food for sharks, but they don't eat them because they would die without the free vacuum service.

 

Again an example of how extremist views lead to strategies that are actually harmful to the extremists.

 

Leaves everyone blind,

Buffy

[Southtown]

The above statement is a glaring sample of concept/comprehension of a member of a western culture group, who does not understand that the "theological" problem is a Darwinian evolutionary struggle of life or death between absolutely incompatible phenotypes, and that the fanatic phenotypes rightly rely on the tragic naive mistaken assumption of Westerners who take it for granted that everyone, e v e r y o n e, thinks Western and believes Western and has Western morals/ethics....which is of course a foolish naivete.

 

What for you is a "problem" is for me and for the likes of me a real life or death Darwinian evolution scenario of groups' survival competition between cultures, ways of life, values and attitudes. At the present phase of the struggle Western Culture, off-guard in its pathetic and tragically naive relevant attitudes and assumptions, is slipping down an abyss.

 

Dov

Which phenotypes are you referring to, how are they incompatible, and why do you see Buffy's idea as ineffective?

[LayDominican]

Buffy,

 

I agree with Don, that the West has, by not paying attention to the rest of the world, has began the slide down the slippery slope. Iraq is proving a huge mistake and is given new life to those of the East who would seek our destruction. And those in the East are using Religion as the unifier. In short, the gather strom has began, and once again the West is not prepared for it. Islam has spread into solid Catholic/Christian Countries with no trouble at all.

[Buffy]

So just to confirm, you're saying we should abandon all hope and do nothing?

 

Why?

 

Even if you do decide to do nothing, I argue (see last couple of posts) that extremism cannot survive. OTOH, I argue that doing nothing is extremism too!

 

Victimology begins at home,

Buffy