[ExI] Religions and violence

[samantha]

Mirco Romanato wrote:
> Il 13/08/2010 19.13, Sen Yamamoto ha scritto:
>   
>> But my point is, people go to war for reasons other than religion.
>>     
>
> Often.
>
>   
>> Why can't these people want to attack and THEN justify it through
>> their religion?
>>     
>
> Surely. But the justification is real or invented?
>
>   
>> I think that this happens a lot.
>>     
>
> Usually justifications can be invented.
> Even with a "Just war" theory, I can claim the there is a "Clear and
> present danger" of this or that.
>   

A claim of clear and present danger does not in any way justify the 
initiation of force.  There is a clear and present danger that many 
people I know will invent something quite dangerous that will get lose.  
Does that mean they should be locked up, shot, or otherwise forcibly 
prevented just on the chance?  No.  Any other entity with enough power 
to do you damage is in principle a clear and present danger.

> Intelligent people usually look at the justifications and make their
> mind if they are believable or not, founded on facts or not.
> Strangely, even here, where intelligent people abound, some react with a
> knee-jerk reflex and not with reason and facts.
>
> If a woman fire to and kill a man and claim self-defense, because he was
> trying to rape her, one could look at the facts at hand to decide if
> believe her or not:
> 1) the man was shot 20 m away, in the back, he was full dressed and the
> women is without a mark or an hair out of order
> 2) the man was shot in front, point blank, was naked and the woman is
> wounded and bleeding
>
>   
After I am wounded and bleeding is rather late to shoot an assailant.  
The idea of a gun is that you shoot them before they get close enough to 
do such bodily harm.   Most rapist do not get fully naked as all they 
need to do is unzip their fly.    And if someone closes on me with 
obvious to me intent to harm or rape me I will pull the gun and tell him 
to back off or die IF he is far enough away.  Note that a young guy in 
good shape can close 20 ft or so distance in not much more than my 
reaction time.  So there may not be much point in warning if the 
assailant is much closer than that.

> Both could have invented the rape to justify the killing.
> But what is more coherent with the facts at hand?
> The first scenario or the second?
> Or it don't matter, as women kill men for reasons other than self defense?
>
>
> Islam (or Islamic Law - they are one and the same) is full of
> justification to kill, make war, enslave, rob, torture and so on against
>  not Muslims.
>
>   
So is Christianity.  Check out the first 5 books of the Old Testament.


> It is not difficult to find a justification.
>
> For example, Islamic Law call for sparing the life of the conquered
> people, apart for a few exception. Then, if you look at the exceptions,
> there are so many and so large, that the Muslims could kill anyone in
> the conquered land with an excuse or another. And, even some Muslim
> killed a Kuffar without an excuse, they are barren from punishing him
> for this.
>
> Do you ever tried to talk with some Muslim is a forum about these
> topics? Every time you will try to nail them to obtain a clear answer,
> they avoid to reply, change topics or ask for time to ask some "expert".
>
> Try to go to a forum for Muslism, where they talk between them in
> English, and read what they say to each other. It is enlightening.
>
>   
It is not just Muslims or just religious people.  In general most people 
all too easily justify initiating force against individuals and entire 
groups of people.  Whipping oneself up into worry about Muslims is one 
such danger signal.  What you really should be worried about is what 
your own government does to your and yours every single day and in broad 
daylight.

- samantha

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100816/572726c7/attachment.html>