"To such heights of evil are men driven by religion"

A quote I've recently heard and I wondered how much truth there is in it.

What does this actually mean? Does it state that all evil men are driven by religion? Does it mean that religion causes men to be evil? Is there a link between religion and being evil? Can you be evil without religion backing you up? Just what IS religion? (Ok, that's probably too big a question for this thread lol).

There is no denying that religion plays a large part in what we consider evil these days. The muslim fanatics being the big example. But westerners and Christianity have commited their own atrocities in the past so it's not exclusive.

Is it possible to have a religion without having its fundamentalists that seem to think if you're not with them, you should be killed? It happened with the crusades, and it's happened with 9/11

Would the world be better without religion? I know from experience that people can have a much more fulfilled and content existence with a strong faith in a higher being. Is religion the cause of evil, or do we just hear about the odd case where someone uses religion as an excuse for atrocities, when the real reason in mental imbalance?

Any thoughts, comments, opinions?

 

well i like what one guy said on 8 out of 10 cats the other week

"if i was going around blowing people up because my god had told me to and i had tried and failed 3 times in britain. i think i might have begun to think my god likes that country...."

 

People are driven to evil not by religion, but by whatever fundamentally drives them. For some people this is wealth, others by power and yes, some by religion - and I'm sure there are many other factors which have driven people to evil in the past and which will do so in the future.

 

people are usually searching for guidance and 'god' is the highest you can get with the benefit of not having to bother with verifying through anything. 'god' is so fragile, the concept is easily exploited. much like love.

the quote seems a bit cynical and one-sided, that's all. you can see that side of it, an institution easily destroying that which it's sworn to protect and people jumping on the bandwagon because they are hungry for power which religion gives them in abundance. or else it's their claim.

truth is, the divine cannot be institutionalized. or instrumentalized or corrupted. which is why it doesn't make people do anything or drives them to evil.

 

The quote has a point

Perhaps the greatest attrocity of the 20th Century - the Holocaust - was because of Adolf Hitler's desire to destroy all those of Jewish faith.

Saddam Hussein murdered many thousands of Kurds, because they were not the same religion as himself.

Israel has been in turmoil for many decades, as two opposing sides of different religion fight over land. One side claimed it was "the land God chose for them".

The Ireland conflict came about partly due to the division of Ireland, but also because the Catholic side no longer tolerated the Protestant side and visa versa.


These things and others have been done partly, in the name of or because of religion. I don't think the evil of people like Hitler was created by religion, but it allowed them to (in their view) justify their crimes.
If religion di not exist, would these people have the same reasons to do what they do?
And would they be able to find another reason to so easily justify their actions?

 

Whilst the general thrust of your post has some merit, allow me to make a couple of corrections -

Saddam Hussein murdered many Kurds, not over religion (he claimed to be a Muslim - same as the Kurds) but over race, coupled with the fact they were trying to gain independence from his regime. Also, with regards to Hitler, one could also argue that he was trying to remove those who were racially Jewish from his society - religiously Jewish or not, anyone of Jewish descent was classed as inferior whilst Aryans were claimed to be the 'master race'.

My point being that in those cases the issue was more to do with race and/or political ideology than religion.


Of course, some people just want to fight, murder and otherwise 'commit evil' and just use religion as a convenient label to determine sides - others use their football team, country, race, politics, region, taste in music or lifestyle and countless other 'labels' over which to fight each other.

I'll leave you with an extract from 'The Devils Dictionary':

Man - An animal so lost in rapturous contemplation of what he thinks he is as to overlook what he ought to be. His chief occupation is the extermination of other animals and his own species.

No idea who wrote it but they've got it in one I'd say.

 

Man is naturally evil, religion is just an excuse. Even if we destroyed all religon and stopped following false idols, I can't see the world being a better place.

 

Religion is not the cause of evil. Hitler did not attack only Jews, he went after gays, the disabled, both mentally and physically, he went after Christians too. Religion, however, does provide an excuse for people to do evil. People are too quick to blame the religion than those who commit the atrocities. If I was going to do something like blow up a mosque because I disliked Muslims then I'd say it's because I disliked Muslims and not use my faith as an excuse. As it is, I'm a Christian and I'd never hurt anyone because of it, Christianity teaches 'love thy neighbour' and I live by that, I might disagree with Muslims over religion but I won't dislike anyone because they're Muslims.

 

i have yet to see the religion that provides an excuse to do evil. whatever evil is or sin is or whatever else gets thrown around here with ease.

 

Bumping this up to run concurrent with the Dawkins discussion.

 

As a friend of mine once said in response to my remarking that I'd like to see everybody intermarry so all people would be "mutts" and not start war over stupid things, people will find reasons to hate one another even if you take away all their toys like religious and racial differences. Human nature doesn't change that much. People can become "fundamentalist" over almost any cause if they decide to take it seriously enough because their self-esteem needs bolstering that badly.

 

I agree, if someone is inherently 'evil' by nature, they will use any excuse they can to commit atroscities. It is the poor people that get taken in by it and sincerely believe that what they are doing is right that I feel sorry for.

So I don't believe that religion is to blame for *everything* bad that happens, although it is true that some evil things have been done in the name of 'religion' in the past. But when you look at things like the Holocaust, Apartheid and the majority of the problems in third world countries, it is evident that just about anything can lead to evil, and it is the person(s), not the banner that they hide behind, that is ultimately responsible for the atroscities.

 

As others have said, evil people do evil things. In terms of us vs them, people find dividers in everything. It may be race, class, PC/Mac or Star Wars/Star Trek. Religion is another divider that helps a Them and Us idea appear. In addition, They are amoral and are going to hell (or similar). I agree that if people are all entirely peaceful, religion is fine. People can go about their faith and it doesn't matter to me in the slightest. However, if a trusted priest/vicar/rabbi/[insert religious leader here] tells you that your god wants you to go and act as his divine justice, it is a way for people to be very strongly manipulated. If you believe you can be sent to hell for not doing something, that's one heck of a motivator.

So yeah, the religion itself isn't evil (though as Dawkins has pointed out, the older testiment has some very unfriendly moments), but it can be a very successful manipulating tool.

 

"The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords."

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man 'against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one's enemies will be those of his household'".

"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death."

 

But then again Moylesy what you picked out is the looney part pratices by cult and others who can't live with others

Most of the practicing are not really like that

 

I have quoted The Bible, there is a lot more like that. Are you saying that Christians can ignore parts of the Bible which are a bit looney? If so, there is not a lot left.....

 

Are you saying that Christians can ignore parts of the Bible which are a bit looney? If so, there is not a lot left.....

That's Jesus' resurrection out of the window, then.

 

well, not sure about you, but i can pretty much think for myself and take responsibilty for my own action and i can see that an ancient tale is not applicable to how i live my life *literally*.

i agree that there is a lot of killing and punishment in the old testament but to me this has more to do with a peoples' projection of god and their sense of persecution than giving them an excuse. can't see how the jews have used it so far anyway.

there is an underlying theme to the old testament about rebelling against god and trying to claim god's power, while your little example (and next time you quote how about providing the source?) goes with the theme, i'm not even sure the 'revenge' isn't exercised by god, no? in that case i should think that i'm not entitled to claim god's power for myself and become vigilant, am i?

the other thing which puzzles me greatly is what this evil is in the first place. it's become so subjective.

 

The key to the phrase is 'driven'... not that religion creates evil.

A point of fact is that in the classical ages, good and bad were not seperate... some gods were mostly good, Athena, and some were mostly bad, Ares, and some were neutral-ish, Hermies. Only recently in history in religion have we decided that there division between the two, when clearly there is not.

Anyone who studies Absolutism will see that points brought up by Hobbes and James that every person is capable of the same results, only they may have a different means to an end, a strong person will use strength to kill, a weak person would use their mind, etc.

To be very good, and very evil, all a person needs is a reason.

Religion allows reason to be used without evidence.

"I believe these people should die."
"Why?"
"Because my religion says they deserve it."
"It doesn't say 'kill the ___'"
"No, but it does say that heretics should be made to see the errors of their ways."
"How do you know that this means 'death'?'
"How do you know it does not?"

And so it begins...

When something is as open ended as religion, you can use mend it to either excuse your actions, or to legitimize your actions.

"Thow shall not kill."

What does that mean? Really? Surely you can kill in defence of yourself or that of another? What about those who kill others, do they give up their right to life (captial punishment issue)? Thow shall not kill your own but who cares about the heretics?

Religion does not create evil, but is a vehicle for those who wish to do evil things.

Now, do I think that we should get rid of Religion? No, that would be inviting chaos. Mankind has always had a need for something to believe in, whether it be a higher being(s), friends, family, etc. Without faith, the world becomes a rather depressive place.

But I do believe that religion should be religated to a proper position in society. However, it will never be private... as G'kar once said, "Human's build communities, that is their strength." It is, also, our greatest weakness.





ps. not to get on a tangent, but personally, I believe Leopolds holocaust in the Congo was a greater tragedy than that of the Jewish holocaust, for one, the sheer numbers outway the jewish, and for two, while the jewish was lead by nationalism and religion, Leopolds was sheer greed.

 

Can't remember, was it this?

 

*shrug* In the Egyptian-Greek-Roman pantheon, it was never assumed that deities had to represent moral standards or be role models for the people. Some philosophers of the time touched on the idea that in order for religion to be an effective method of social control, gods should be used as teaching tools, but it wasn't really a widely-held view. In that era, religion was still more in the "superstition and explanation of complicated phenomena" stage than in the "road to political power" stage and it's very hard to attach value judgments to the mythology of the time.

Plenty of evil was committed in the name of ancient paganism all the same. Human sacrifice was practiced by most of the pagan peoples of Europe. Gods were frequently invoked on the battlefront. Same game, just different manifestations of certain things.

Genocide is genocide. How was Hitler not guided by greed?

 

Religion is a tool, it always has been, wether recognized by those using it and being used by it at the time. This is why I don't think religion creates evil, only allows for the excuses to do so. Social control can be used for great good or great evil, but if it does not adapt to the changing environments, then like any outdated tool it can rust, start to stick, and become more trouble than it's worth.

I never said that this wasn't true, I was simply focusing on more recent events as that seems to dominate the conversation. Also, we now say that to sacrifice humans in order for the sun to come up is a tradegy, while at the time it was perfectly reasonable to those acting upon this belief. Again, religion offers an excuse and reason, most likely it started off as a way to legitimately either cull the populace, get rid of opposition, or, in the case of using prisoner's of war, get rid of un-wanted mouths to feed. Religion gave them a purpose, and like all myths and legends, as the generations go by they either completely forget it, or it becomes even more real.

Regardless of what Hitler personally thought, he focused his campaign on religious and nationalist beliefs and many of his men were taken in by this. Leopold, and his men, were simply out for the money and resources and treated the Congan's with even more disrepect than Hilter did the Jews. You also do not hear about anyone trying to help the Congans like many did try to help the Jews. I am not begrudging the Jews their place in history for this tradegy to them, but it annoys me that just as tradegic moments (argueable even more tragic) go unnoticed or uncared about. I feel the same about Christians and their complaints about being thrown to the lions which is grossly mis-represented for propganda reasons, but again, I do not wish to be thrown into a tangent, this is not the place for such things.

 

I must step in and take issue here.

All those bible quotes come from the law laid down in the first five books of the old testament. Christians follow Jesus' law, and in the NEW testament (where Jesus laid down the law), he specifically said to disregard the old law and follow his 2 commandments ("Love your neighbour as yourself" and "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind"

To use the old testament laws as a "proof" that Christianity is flawed is a total non-argument, as they are not Christian laws. It's the same as saying that Buddhism is flawed because Jesus walked on water.

I am not a Christian, but it annoys me when people use false arguments against it. So many people have tried to use the Old Testament law as argument against Christianity, but it's very poor debating form to take quotes and arguments out of context, and then to pass them off as fact.

 

Some of those are Hebrew Bible quotes, but the third one on the list was definitely attributed to Jesus.

 

Fair enough