Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a bit of a paradox I have seen not just among religious adherents but among many people who profess to be peaceful. Sort of reminds me of "Fearless Fosdick" in the old 'Li'l Abner" Comic strip. He used to keep the peace by shooting everybody who was not peaceful.
Perhaps it is because many of us humans are stuck with our own arrogance and think that in order for there to be Peace we need to destroy whatever or whoever disagrees with us. We seem to think that the only way for peace is for everybody to think the same which is the way we think.
Maybe we do not understand that our responsibility is to make our self peaceful and once we all do this there will be peace.
Sometimes I want to turn in my resignation of membership in the human race, but I can't find any other race to be part of.
I think the Quakers and Mennonites are generally pretty peaceful along with being peace-churches. Although I think at least a few of them can be pretty hateful or at least contentious. Quakers used to split off into various meetings because they'd bicker with each other so and Mennonites still do some.
Religions stir up strong emotions and can involve conflicting opinions. Things that do that can stir up animosity or violence. Not saying it must mind you.
Other things that stir up strong emotions and conflicting opinions can do the same. So in more secular societies you have like "football/soccer riots" or "hockey riots" or nationalistic demonstrations or whatever. If a population is more emotionally bland and homogenous maybe that's less of an issue, but even in nations like Japan or Iceland (not saying they're emotionally bland as such, I'm not sure any society is) you've occasionally had stuff happen. The Icelanders rioted some during that meltdown they had and the Japanese have occasionally had non-religious extremist groups like the Japanese Red Army or some ultra-nationalist "Uyoku dantai" groups. (Though the UD's might have a religious aspect)
Religions stir up strong emotions and can involve conflicting opinions. Things that do that can stir up animosity or violence. Not saying it must mind you.
Other things that stir up strong emotions and conflicting opinions can do the same. So in more secular societies you have like "football/soccer riots" or "hockey riots" or nationalistic demonstrations or whatever.
Peace Thomas,
I truncated your post to emphasize a few things that seem to hit the reasons quite well.
To over simplify things. You have a very good point. Us humans have difficulty in allowing others to have differing opinions. We seem to take a difference of opinion as a personal attack.
Thomas, yeah, some people really get into their football game... don't even think about messin' with them! lol
I was thinking similar - as I watched a documentary about Ireland, particularly how Northern Ireland still needs police watch towers. They say that the majority of Catholics & Protestants there get along ok- just the extremist cause problems. Yet, I think, "Both Catholics & Protestants believe in Christianity - which teaches to love your enemies as yourself. So, what's the big deal?" There may be more to it than just religious differences.
Thomas, yeah, some people really get into their football game... don't even think about messin' with them! lol
I was thinking similar - as I watched a documentary about Ireland, particularly how Northern Ireland still needs police watch towers. They say that the majority of Catholics & Protestants there get along ok- just the extremist cause problems. Yet, I think, "Both Catholics & Protestants believe in Christianity - which teaches to love your enemies as yourself. So, what's the big deal?" There may be more to it than just religious differences.
It does go much deeper. I find terrorism and intolerance to be a non-partisan attribute all humans are capable of.
Some of us will find justification to attack that which they see as offensive. Some people seem to think that they can not support their opinions unless they act violently towards those who disagree.
Religious and political views seem to be the easiest outlets for people to use to express and justify an inner desire for violence.
I can recall the MeCarthy era of the 1950s and the hatred many had for anybody who made a comment that could be associated with communism.
I remember the old story/joke in Northern Ireland about a boy going down a street and being asked by a rough gang
"Are you a Protestant or a Catholic?"
He responded, "I'm an atheist."
After a bit of reflection they ask, "Are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?"
Protestants and Catholics have fought over purely religious matters, and some of that likely occurred in Northern Ireland, but I've long heard much of it was class/nationalism issues. The Protestants were sometimes descendants of Scottish and English settlers, the Catholics Irish. Or the Protestants identified more with Britain while the Catholics identified with the Republic of Ireland. Or what have you.
I think I mentioned national identities or loyalties as one of those "passionate and argumentative" type issues. In the Spanish Civil War both the Basque and the Francoists identified pretty strongly as Catholic, but they fought each other over nationalism/ethnic issues. (The non-Basque element of the Republican side I think was fairly secular or sometimes anti-clerical) In Sudan the Darfuris were also Sunni Muslims, for the most part IIRC, but they were blacker than the Sudanese "Arab" Muslims. Somewhat similar there's occasionally been conflicts/prejudices between the Catholic Hispanic population of the Dominican Republic and the Catholic/Voodoo Haitians. Although of more European ancestry than Haitians the Dominicans do have a substantial amount of African ancestry, but traditionally they do not think of themselves as "Black" or "Biracial." They thought/think of themselves as "Hispanic" or even "White." Although the religious/racial differences between Haitians and Dominicans might be greater than that between Sudanese "Arabs" and Darfuris. I'm starting to veer into race rather, than just nationality, so I'll stop.
I remember the old story/joke in Northern Ireland about a boy going down a street and being asked by a rough gang
"Are you a Protestant or a Catholic?"
He responded, "I'm an atheist."
After a bit of reflection they ask, "Are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?"
Protestants and Catholics have fought over purely religious matters, and some of that likely occurred in Northern Ireland, but I've long heard much of it was class/nationalism issues. The Protestants were sometimes descendants of Scottish and English settlers, the Catholics Irish. Or the Protestants identified more with Britain while the Catholics identified with the Republic of Ireland. Or what have you.
I think I mentioned national identities or loyalties as one of those "passionate and argumentative" type issues. In the Spanish Civil War both the Basque and the Francoists identified pretty strongly as Catholic, but they fought each other over nationalism/ethnic issues. (The non-Basque element of the Republican side I think was fairly secular or sometimes anti-clerical) In Sudan the Darfuris were also Sunni Muslims, for the most part IIRC, but they were blacker than the Sudanese "Arab" Muslims. Somewhat similar there's occasionally been conflicts/prejudices between the Catholic Hispanic population of the Dominican Republic and the Catholic/Voodoo Haitians. Although of more European ancestry than Haitians the Dominicans do have a substantial amount of African ancestry, but traditionally they do not think of themselves as "Black" or "Biracial." They thought/think of themselves as "Hispanic" or even "White." Although the religious/racial differences between Haitians and Dominicans might be greater than that between Sudanese "Arabs" and Darfuris. I'm starting to veer into race rather, than just nationality, so I'll stop.
A professor I had for an International Relations class (Dr. Viva Raney) made a statement I found to be quite profound. "The most vicious wars have always been between people who share many similarities"
People seem to have the least amount of tolerance and the most hatred for those who are the most similar to themselves. I once heard you can not truly hate somebody you never loved.
Perhaps we get totally frustrated over those who almost accept our opinion, but do not quite "get it". A parent is most likely to abuse their own child than the neighbors child.
It's impossible to be both peaceful and violent. Hatred is not conducive to peace.
Perhaps I should have worded it as:
Why are those who present themselves as being peaceful, religious people so darn violent and hateful?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
