Believe in my God or I'll Kill You

YOU, yes you, Motherfucker

from JoeUser Forums
In all of the woolly-minded, hand-wringing, bleeding heart nonsense I've read to date about the nature of religion on JU; in all of the if-only-we-could-be-reasonable-about-this-and-and-just-worship-god-in-our-own-way bullshit that goes on in here, never once have I seen the least sign that any of you people understand what religion actually does.

Let me make it simple for you. It divides. It divides the righteous from the unrighteous, the right from the wrong, the saint from the sinner, the holy from the unholy. The righteous, the right, the saint, and the holy are all saved. The unrighteous, the wrong and the unholy, are all damned.

Whatever the approach of any particular religion to morality, salvation, sin, death, hell and heaven; no matter how sophisticated is the teleology, the eschatology, and the apologetics employed by any given religion, that is what they do. They divide. Christ said 'I came not to bring peace but a sword'. Not reconciliation but division.

Since the nature of religion is to divide, and the nature of proselytizing apocalyptic religions (such as both Christianity and Islam) is to make those divisions as clear, as precise, as intelligible as possible, they breed fanatics not in despite of the virtues they teach but because of them. Because in each case, while the virtues preached may be similar in terms of the actions which are meant to express them (give to the poor, don't commit adultery), they are fundamentally opposed in their basic assumptions. One assumes that Allah rules the universe, the other assumes that the God of the Judaeo-Christian tradition does. And both faiths regard the other as a heresy.

Where there are heretics the true believers of either confession will search them out and kill them in order to be true to their God, themselves, and their fellow believers. There is no possibility of reconciliation between confessions of faith whose most ardent confessors regard the other as a heretic. And the only possible outcome of sustained contact between them is bloody conflict, precisely because what they value most, in both cases, teaches them that in order to be true to what they value they must kill each other.

Criticizing a religion, any religion, for teaching the faithful to kill, for encouraging that killing, is (as I've said elsewhere) as useful as complaining that rain is wet, as constructive as complaining because dogs have the capability to bark.

Religions are not evil when they advocate the killing of heretics - whatever the particular religion involved - they are virtuous in that they stamp out a threat to true belief, and promise appropriate rewards for those carrying on the killing.

Any form of thought that cannot include the Other within itself is predisposed toward the violent destruction of any opposing form of thought precisely because it is structured so as not to include the Other.

And whining about it will make no difference, will not prevent those eager for martyrdom because they are good religionists from pursuing that martyrdom. Believe in my God or I'll kill you, Motherfucker.

Don't bitch about religion because it doesn't live up to the values it embodies. Bitch about religion because it does.
misc
15,785 views 37 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hmm... Interesting take. Someone sneek some soured milk into your coffee this morning?

However, in the main, today, it is the radical Muslims who embrace the premeditated murder of innocents as a/the path to Holiness. Not too many Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews or whatnots are organizing in such a way as to enable such Holiness on a mass scale.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
EmperorofIceCream: PLEASE do not misquote Christ.

Christ in the 10th chapter of Mathew says :
"Don't imagine that I came to bring peace to the earth! No, rather, a sword. I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man's worst enemies will be found right in his own home! If you love your father and mother more than you love me, you are not worthy of being mine; or if you love your son or daughter more than me, you are not worthy of being mine. "

This is the entire text. What this means and anyone with a teeny weeny bit of common sense should understand is that Christ has come with a message and this message of peace and forgiving one's enemies ( seventy times seven, good samaritan, his last words on the cross, etc.) will divide people.

They who do not believe in Christs message (love, humility, forgiveness) will be hostile to you and will try to destroy you. It is the spiritual sword he mentions here. If he so loved the sword he would not have asked Peter to put down his sword when peter struck at one of the Head priests guards as Jesus was being arrested.

Your reading(and more importantly, understanding) of the bible is poor and you need to get back to the basics. I am not a theologian but only someone who will try to understand things and not stick to preconceived notions.

The parable I love in the Bible is about the Good Samaritan. The importance of the parable lies in the fact that it is here where we can understand what Christ would like us to do with our non-Christian neighbours. Samaritans were not regarded by the Jews as fellow jews then (and mostly even now too, there are too few samaritans left, anyway), however through this parable says that notwithstanding the samaritans religion it is he who was the wounded travellers best friend and not the jewish rabbi who did not bother to help him.

So my good friend, either do not read the bible(and keep quiet , don't pass comments on it) or read and understand the bible in it's entirety. HALF KNOWLEDGE IS THE WORST KNOWLEDGE.

There have been people who have abused Christianity( inquisition, South America, Africa, etc.) but it is not Christianity's fault in the same way that 911 is not a proof of Islam being a bad/wrong religion. Let us not throw out the baby with the bath water.

As far as proselytising is concerened..don't give me the bullshit that Hinduism, Buddhism are not proselytising faiths. I live in India..Hinduism has spread as far as to Bali(Indonesia) and Cambodia(Angkor Wat). It couldn't spread any more as the Hindus lost out in the age of exploration and Colonisation and were themselves subjugated by the Muslims.

As for Buddhism, we have it everywhere from India to China to Korea to Japan to Russia to America(Richard Gere..name rings a bell).

That's all for now...and if you call me a motherfucker after this..I wouldn't mind because Christ would still want me to forgive you
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
What is your answer then if not to eliminate religion altogether? Isn't your ultimate answer "Stop believing in any God or I will kill you motherfucker"?

I don't agree with your reasoning. The basic divide is between the faithful and the unfaithful. Each religion has its own definition but so do the athiests. The necessity of conflict between them is something that you are making a supposition about.

Has it happened? Sure. Is it required to happen? I don't think so.

Maybe I am wrong, why don't you provide a list the wars that have happened because of "Believe in my God or I will kill you"
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Maybe I am wrong, why don't you provide a list the wars that have happened because of "Believe in my God or I will kill you"


A list of wars that did not include religious motives would mean a lot less typing though
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
EmperorofIceCream: On second thought, maybe I was putting across my point too hard.
Though I differ with your opinion, you have every right to it still. Cheers.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
To Daiwa:
Not too many Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews or whatnots are organizing in such a way as to enable such Holiness on a mass scale


Buddhists prefer self-destruction. Jews don't have to organize as the Israelis already have. Hindus have been busy slaughtering Muslims (and the other way around) for awhile now - or what do you think it is that's happening in Kashmir? Or, what do think the partitioning of India into India and Pakistan, and the subsequent partitioning of Pakistan into Pakistan and Bangladesh was about? Let me tell you - the inability of two religious communities to live cheek by jowl with each other in one territory.

Because Buddhists prefer self-destruction to the destruction of the Other does not make them less fanatical in their opposition to the Other nor less willing to kill.

The fact that you don't see the same principle at work in Buddhism means only that you are blinded by differences in the respective theologies involved to what is actually going on: to wit, all religions say different things, while all religions do the same thing, which is to respond with violence to those that oppose them. Whether the violence is self-directed or Other-directed makes no difference to the principle.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Emp,

Interesting analysis. I like the way it's put together, even though I don't agree with your position.

I just wanted to acknowledge the piece. I'm not in the right state of mind to elaborate right now, I will try to do so later.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
To Freemark:
What is your answer then if not to eliminate religion altogether? Isn't your ultimate answer "Stop believing in any God or I will kill you motherfucker"?


Go read this: Link.

This is my answer to all religions that externalize and demonize the Other.

Maybe I am wrong, why don't you provide a list the wars that have happened because of "Believe in my God or I will kill you"


The Crusades.
The pogroms of the Russian State against the Jews within its territory (and yes, before you complain, State-worship is a form of religion).
The ongoing conflict in Northern Ireland, plus the 400 or so years of persecution of Catholics by first the English State, and subsequently by its Anglo-Irish vassal.
The perpetual persecution of Jews throughout Europe by Christians.
The wars of the Turks against the Byzantine Empire, and subsequently against the Christian West generally.
The Wars of the Imperial Spanish State against European Protestantism (Protestantism being considered a Catholic heresy).

And so on.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
To Gideon MacLeish:

I look forward to the elabortion. Thank you for the interest.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
To olikara:

First, thanks for the apology, it's accepted. That being so, I shan't be as harsh with you as I had originally intended. I dislike being condescended to.

That being said...

'I came not to bring peace but a sword' is not a misquote but a contraction. What it means is plain enough - that division will appear in every household because of Christ's message. And in the passage as you quote it there is not the least mention of forgiveness. Rather, verses 37 - 39 amplify and expand upon this message of division: "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."

Don't partial quote, and don't quote out of context. It undermines your claim to possessing that teeny-weeny bit of common sense you spoke about.

This is the entire text. What this means and anyone with a teeny weeny bit of common sense should understand is that Christ has come with a message and this message of peace and forgiving one's enemies ( seventy times seven, good samaritan, his last words on the cross, etc.) will divide people. They who do not believe in Christs message (love, humility, forgiveness) will be hostile to you and will try to destroy you. It is the spiritual sword he mentions here. If he so loved the sword he would not have asked Peter to put down his sword when peter struck at one of the Head priests guards as Jesus was being arrested.


Quite plainly, it was not the entire text. The fact that Christ eschewed the sword (though not the whip, as the money-dealers in the Temple discovered) has not the least bearing on the principle of division and conflict which is inherent in the religious impulse. Christ may have told Peter to put down the sword - but only after Peter had cut off the soldier's ear, and this after Peter had spent years in the company of Christ, listening to his parables and witnessing miracles at first hand. Peter was a true believer and he knew what he ought to do - which was kill his Master's enemy. The fact that his Master preferred to direct violence inward toward himself (as Buddhists do) rather than outward towards the Other does not and cannot obviate the principle of violence which is integral to religious conviction.

So my good friend, either do not read the bible(and keep quiet , don't pass comments on it) or read and understand the bible in it's entirety. HALF KNOWLEDGE IS THE WORST KNOWLEDGE.


I agree. And your post amply demonstrates your wisdom in this regard. Take the beam out of your own eye, 'good friend', before applying yourself to removing the dust mote from the eye of another.

There have been people who have abused Christianity( inquisition, South America, Africa, etc.) but it is not Christianity's fault in the same way that 911 is not a proof of Islam being a bad/wrong religion. Let us not throw out the baby with the bath water.


In this case the 'baby' of religion' is inextricably mixed with the 'bath water' of religious violence. And as this article makes plain (Link) I personally want nothing to do with either of them.

As far as proselytising is concerened..don't give me the bullshit that Hinduism, Buddhism are not proselytising faiths. I live in India..Hinduism has spread as far as to Bali(Indonesia) and Cambodia(Angkor Wat). It couldn't spread any more as the Hindus lost out in the age of exploration and Colonisation and were themselves subjugated by the Muslims.


I mentioned Christianity and Islam as proselytizing faiths because they are the two most widely known, not because they are the only two such faiths in the world. And since you know that Hinduism is a proselytizing faith I'm going to presume you also know of the inter-communal violence between Hindus, Christians and Muslims, which makes your argument all the more specious because it runs counter to your own knowledge of the real practice of actual faiths.

Pissing into the wind of your own experience may be a perverse pleasure of yours (to which you are entitled) but it makes the urine currently splattering your legs all the more ridiculous.

That's all for now...and if you call me a motherfucker after this..I wouldn't mind because Christ would still want me to forgive you


I'm not going to call you anything. The folly, presumption and condescenion of your first post says more than I could about you, and does it without resorting to egregious insults. And since you're having a hard time understanding this let me spell it out for you - the 'Motherfucker' in the subtitle is a rhetorical device, not an expression of personal contempt.

I look forward to your next attempt at engaging in dialogue.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
I would have to disagree with your analysis as you assume that violence is religious violence, rather than violence for other ends that uses religion as a viable, and believabe, justification. Sometimes people would rather you believe that their violence is religious, therefore moral.

Christianity during the Middle Ages, and Islam, or any other religion for that matter, had faith as a secondary purpose, if that. It was a political institution which controlled the economy, education and governance. Any violence that was instigated was far more likely to be politicially inspired.

Your analysis ignores this complex interaction between religious and secular institutions and causes, and the very often secular nature of religious institutions, especially in Islamic states, where the protection of theological purity is often nothing more than protection of the State.

I understand you when you say that we should not judge against religions by bringing to bear the very standards they espouse,

Criticizing a religion, any religion, for teaching the faithful to kill, for encouraging that killing, is (as I've said elsewhere) as useful as complaining that rain is wet, as constructive as complaining because dogs have the capability to bark.


sorta like Kurtz in Apocalypse Now amazed that war should be judged by anything other than the standards of war. This i understand, but it is a dangerous thing when we fail to recognise our real enemies. I used to think religion was the cause of almost all historical violence, until i came to realise that religion is a very convenient veil that political violence hides behind and the carrot it waves on a stick as incentive for uneducated populations to die for what they think will benefit them, when it only benefits their masters. It suits these masters very well to have their populations believe that their deaths have served a religious end.

Have you noticed that as the education of a nation's population improves, the reasons to go to war become increasingly secular.

Also, i think that categorising politics as another religion is a categorisation that would be counter-productive.

Marco
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
It divides the righteous from the unrighteous, the right from the wrong, the saint from the sinner, the holy from the unholy. The righteous, the right, the saint, and the holy are all saved. The unrighteous, the wrong and the unholy, are all damned.


The Maxwellian from the peasant.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
That being so, I shan't be as harsh with you



but only after Peter had cut off the soldier's ear, and this after Peter had spent years in the company of Christ, listening to his parables and witnessing miracles at first hand.


Yes, this was something I did not think of and is a good question: Why after all the time that Peter by Christ's side could he still strike out at the Roman/Jewish guard? I will try to give my answer in the next paragraph.

Peter was a true believer and he knew what he ought to do - which was kill his Master's enemy.
I think Peter failed here as he would fail thrice later. He was human.

I'm going to presume you also know of the inter-communal violence between Hindus, Christians and Muslims, which makes your argument all the more specious because it runs counter to your own knowledge of the real practice of actual faiths.

I am well aware of this violence you are speaking of and also saw it first hand in 1992-93. But once again I believe that all religions speak of non-violence and goodness; it is the followers, a minority usually who mess things up. In India credit for this routinely goes out to the politicians. But yes, living upto the ideals of Christ is difficult. I do not.

I look forward to your next attempt at engaging in dialogue.

Thank You.

notsohighlyevolved:
I used to think religion was the cause of almost all historical violence, until i came to realise that religion is a very convenient veil that political violence hides

I agree

Have you noticed that as the education of a nation's population improves, the reasons to go to war become increasingly secular.

This could be true. India's highly literate Southern states see considerably less inter-communal tension when compared with the lesser literate northern ones. But the communal wars in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia, etc. did stump me. The populations of those countries were educated too. Maybe the animosities of the past got the better of the values imparted at school there.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
I actually agree with you. And actually, I don't. Damn it! And I was trying to get over the whole liberal "flip-flopper" stigma.

My problem with your argument is that you are trying to essentialize all religions and all functions of religion. You are persuasive and you have lot's of evidence available to you to make this point. But couldn't the same thing be said about, say, any state? Don't all states (governments) operate to designate who is and who is not a citizen? Don't they go to war for their own benefit, however that is determined? If so, then maybe the point is that you can't really separate religion and the state since they are both working towards the same ends and by the same methods.

Or maybe it is that this overly cynical view of religion reduces (essentializes) it to only its darker practices in the world. If I were to counter-essentialize, I would argue that religion (like governments) are human institutions. And humans, as a social species, depend upon group formation and creating distinctions among themselves to operate socially. But humans also do other things besides discriminate and oppress. They pool their labor (though sometimes unequally) and build incredible things. They help each other. They dream of better ways of getting along and try (sometimes naively) to make those ways a reality. Maybe for every Mother Theresa there are 10 [insert evil guy here -- bin Laden? Kenneth Lay? Pat Robertson?], but I still have hope for that glimmer of something a little less dark behind human organization.

Finally, I think you have to stretch pretty hard to get Buddhism to fit your argument. Enlightenment (nirvana) is not the same as salvation. No wars have been fought in the name of Buddha. More importantly, the Gotama Bhudda encouraged people to keep their religion and trust their own understanding of their readiness to hear his teachings. Perhaps the 3rd century BC (!!!) inscription of the great Buddhist Emperor Asoka says it best:

"One should not honour one's own religion and condemn the religions of others, but one should honour others' religions for this or that reason. So doing, one helps one's own religion to grow and renders service to the religion of others too. In acting otherwise one digs the grave of one's own religion and also does harm to other religions. Whosoever honours his own religion and condemns other religions, does so indeed through devotion to his own religion, thinking 'I will glorify my own religion.' But on the contrary, in so doing he injures his own religion more gravely. So concord is good: Let all listen, and be willing to listen to the doctrines professed by others." (Rahula, What the Buddha Taught, pp.4-5)
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
LW: I had absolutely no idea that the Emperor was your hubby. If I had known, I wouldn't have dared

Anyway, the 2 of you have a nice weekend.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
I must say Emperor, I felt obligated by the excellence of the post to award an insightful.
I really am saddened by Buddhists killing folks but remember it is more a value system than
a religion. Not that people don't like to ask me about my statue of a "Deity" in the kitchen.
I just sigh and ignore it.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
To Marco:

I would have to disagree with your analysis as you assume that violence is religious violence, rather than violence for other ends that uses religion as a viable, and believabe, justification.


Perhaps I didn't make myself plain. My only assumption is that religion is inherently antagonistic because, by its very nature, it divides those of one faith from another - and in many cases (though not all) demonizes those it designates as the Other. This is particulary true of Islam and Christianity, because both sects regard the other as a heretical deviation from the original truth which each sect believes it alone possess.

The point you make has to do with the nature of violence per se - a subject about which I made no comment at all. Not all violence is inspired by religion. Some types of violence, State inspired and directed violence in particular, may (and frequently does) make use of religion as its justification. But that has no direct connection to the point which I did make: to wit, that the religious impulse is, in and of itself, inherently violent and unavoidably so. States may make use of that violence for their own ends, yes. But such violence is not a consequence of the activities of States. Rather, the inherent violence of the religious impulse itself presents to States an oppurtunity to further their aims and ends.

Christianity during the Middle Ages, and Islam, or any other religion for that matter, had faith as a secondary purpose, if that. It was a political institution which controlled the economy, education and governance. Any violence that was instigated was far more likely to be politicially inspired.Your analysis ignores this complex interaction between religious and secular institutions and causes, and the very often secular nature of religious institutions, especially in Islamic states, where the protection of theological purity is often nothing more than protection of the State.


It's not so much that I ignore it, as that it had no relevance to the point I was making, which was admittedly narrow because focused upon something I perceive to be fundamental to the most basic operations of the religious impulse.

The debate about the roles of Church and State has gone on for centuries. One of the clearest statements of it is to be found in Dante's De Monarchia. What you misconstrue, in the case of both Christianity and Islam, is that the violence you refer to was not politics carried on under the cloak of religious sanction, nor economic imperative under the guise of theology, but political violence and economic reality determined by particular religious views of the world. In essence, you have it the wrong way round. Not politics justified by religion, but political and economic violence determined by and in the service of religion.

I'm going to return to your other points later, Marco (and to the comments posted by others). But at this moment my wife is volunteering to perform a variety of deeply perverse sexual acts upon my person - and, being a sucker for perversity, I ain't gonna say no.

Later.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Where there are heretics the true believers of either confession will search them out and kill them in order to be true to their God, themselves, and their fellow believers. There is no possibility of reconciliation between confessions of faith whose most ardent confessors regard the other as a heretic. And the only possible outcome of sustained contact between them is bloody conflict, precisely because what they value most, in both cases, teaches them that in order to be true to what they value they must kill each other.


You are quite right in your criticism of my reply.

I think the reason for my wayward assumption might have been directed by the above passage.

I will come back (work calls) and try to clarify my position, but of course, only if it is welcome.

Marco
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
To Marco, once more:

I understand you when you say that we should not judge against religions by bringing to bear the very standards they espouse, ... sorta like Kurtz in Apocalypse Now amazed that war should be judged by anything other than the standards of war. This i understand, but it is a dangerous thing when we fail to recognise our real enemies. I used to think religion was the cause of almost all historical violence, until i came to realise that religion is a very convenient veil that political violence hides behind and the carrot it waves on a stick as incentive for uneducated populations to die for what they think will benefit them, when it only benefits their masters. It suits these masters very well to have their populations believe that their deaths have served a religious end.


Perhaps most people wouldn't appreciate the reference to Kurtz - but I do, and take it as a compliment. His was the only character with any honesty, in that movie. Like Kurtz in his attitude to war, I see nothing essentially surprising in the violence which religion expresses. If religion and love for one's fellow-believers go hand in hand, then so to do religion and hate for the unbeliever.

Individual religionists may see in their faith a message of universal humanity and universal love, but where a majority are profoundly devout, and at the same time united in a community that perceives itself as besieged, then the voices of these more advanced (or less committed) religionists will be lost in the hatred for the Other which is the necessary and unavoidable outcome of the most basic religious impulse of all - which is to kill the unbeliever.

As I said in an earlier post, politics may use religion for its own purposes as readily as religion may use politics - but not all forms of politics share with religion its worship of a central image or concept, and not all politics demonizes the Other in the way that religions often do.

All forms of politics which places the State at its center, and purposely engage in the worship of the State-leader (the most obvious and widely known examples are the Nazi State under Hitler and the Soviet State under Stalin), giving to the State an apocalyptic role and to the leader the position of a messiah, are in essence religious in that they do the same thing that religions do. They divide the saved from the unsaved, the righteous from the unrighteous - and make it a virtuous act for the former to kill the latter.

But not all politics is of that form - and constitutional democratic politics has this virtue at least even if it has no other - it makes the creation of a messianic figure as head of state very much harder than it would otherwise be.

And yes, any further clarification is welcome.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
To SSG Geezer:

Thanks for the insightful. I too have an image of a 'deity' in the room I use for prayer, ritual and meditation. But no one other than LW gets to see it, because it would cause far too much consternation on the part of others.

So far as I'm aware, Buddhists don't engage in pogroms, inter-communal violence, or religious terrorism. They turn their violence against themselves, as in the example of the Buddhist Monks and Nuns who incinerate themselves in public. But whether turned outward or inward, the impulse to violence is there.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
To Bungy32:

I will answer your comment tonight. This is my last Saturday on the ice cream truck and I have to be on the road early. Oiiiiiiii how I hate that truck.

Later.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
To Bungy32:

I was not attempting to 'essentialize all functions of religion'. I was pointing to one primary and fundamentally basic function of religion. That function which, in my opinion, most deeply, truly, and absolutely characterizes religion, which is the function of division.

Don't all states (governments) operate to designate who is and who is not a citizen? Don't they go to war for their own benefit, however that is determined? If so, then maybe the point is that you can't really separate religion and the state since they are both working towards the same ends and by the same methods.


You make interesting points. Let me answer them in the order you present them.

All states do designate who is and who is not a citizen. They do so by establishing criteria for the category 'citizen'. If the criteria are met in a particular case, the subject of the case is a citizen. If not, then not.

Absolutely, States go to war for their own benefit, theocratic States as willingly as secular States. And where religion becomes a State form and a political ideology it is perfectly true that 'religion' and 'State policy' become indistinguishable.

But so what? My original article was focused on none of these questions which, though interesting in themselves, have nothing to do with the issue under discussion. The issue under discussion is my contention that religion goes hand in hand with violence and hate, and to just the same degree that religion goes hand in hand with love and peace, within the community of believers.

However, I will grant you (and everyone else) that I didn't at the time of writing make the latter point explicit. But at the time of writing I was weary of the tired old lets-all-be-reasonable-about-this bullshit I'd been reading on the topic and in no mood to do anything but express my irritation.

My point in the article was not the untenable argument that religions are not social efforts. Nor was it the equally untenable argument that religions don't produce good effects. They are social efforts and they do produce good effects. I can think of two immediately: The Red Cross and The Red Crescent.

My original, unamplified point was twofold. 1) the most basic function of religion is to divide, that division functionally and necessarily producing violence. And 2) since such division is functional and therefore necessary, complaining about it as if there were some warm and fuzzy middle ground where we can all get together and be rational about religion is egregious nonsense, providing neither critique, nor insight, nor any meaningful contribution to any dialogue concerning religion.

Your point about Buddhism once more misses my point. I stated, specifically and definitively, that in the case of Buddhism the principle of violence integral to religion is directed inwards, toward the Self, and not outward toward the Other. The fact that Buddhists kill themselves rather than others does not in any way detract from the patently apparent fact that they still kill.

And since the other points that you make are directed to confuting your misapprehension of the intention of my article I see no point in addressing them. Not that I either agree or disagree with the sentiments expressed. The quote from the Emperor Asoka is admirable as an expression of civil discourse among religions. But it has no direct bearing upon what I said.

But you will note, please, that it took an Emperor, who personifies the power of the sword held in the hand of the State, to promulgate such civility. And that in itself tells me that the rude violence of religion can only be contained and controlled by a violence greater still - the legitimate and authorized violence of the State.

But that's the subject of another blog entirely.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
OK, emp...I think I have my response ready.

First of all, this is a very well written piece, albeit a subjective one. First order of business is to hit you with an "insightful" for proper use of grey matter.

That being said, I disagree that the primary function of religion is division. The primary function of religion, as I see it is identity. "Religion" (as opposed to personal faith; I'm assuming religion in the organized sense for the sake of this discussion) serves the same sociological function as nations, community service groups, and yes, gangs: to give one a sense of corporate identity and within that identity, a sort of protection. We are considered "social" animals, but I would go farther than that. There is a certain pack instinct within us, a remnant from a time when it was absolutely essential for survival in a world where the predators were faster, stronger, and better equipped to deal with the elements. The "community" was our only source of protection.

So, while religion's primary function is identity, that identity does not have to be exclusive to function properly. It often is exclusive, yes, as we tend to see our way as the best way of doing things, but it does not have to be. Gandhi was not a Christian or a Muslim, but he embraced Christians and Muslims as his brothers and sisters. And was embraced by them. Mother Theresa was not Hindu, yet she embraced Hindi brothers and sisters. And was embraced by them.

In every faith, there are those who find a better way, and find that faith does not have to divide. I am learning this more every day; I can unite with those who believe differently without compromising my beliefs; all it requires is that I not ask them to compromise theirs.

I hope this makes some sort of sense. It's late, and it's been a weird day. But I did want to get back to you.

Have a safe journey, and I hope this job is everything you wish it to be!
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
To Gideon MacLeish:

I hope this makes some sort of sense. It's late, and it's been a weird day. But I did want to get back to you.


It does make sense. It makes sense in the way that people who take a civil and sophisticated response to such matters make sense. But that's the point isn't it? You have to be civil and sophisticated first before such things can make sense in that way. A mystical rather than dogmatic approach to religion makes such civility possible, and certainly Christianity, Islam and Judaism, have profound mystical traditions.

But all these mysticisms fall under the rubric of 'apocrypha', they don't form part of the main thrust of the traditions of which they are offshoots. That's because they are all of them opposed to the dogmatic nature in religion, its dominant aspect, which is to divide one community of believers from another, while uniting each community within itself.

The fact that there are so few like Mother Theresa and Gandhi, while there are so mamy millions more religionists who do not see the Other in the self and the Self in the other, who see themselves as divided from rather than united with religionists of different sects, goes some way to establishing my point.

You point to Mother Theresa and Gandhi as exceptions who demonstrate a tolerance and openness which proves that unity is also a function of religion. I never said it wasn't.

I on the other hand point to them as exceptions who demonstrate the rule, the primary and fundamental function of religion, which is to divide. If the chief activity (or even one activity pursued more commonly than others) of religionists was to engage in dialogue with other sects, or even to live in tolerance of other sects, then I might be tempted to agree with you.

But one need only recall the date that has just passed, and look around the world at the state of religion generally and its activities, to see undeniably that that isn't so.

The most common form of interaction between religions in the world is murder. And that's because religions, most especially apocalyptic, proselytizing religions, demonize the Other while they exalt the self. They make enemies of all those who are not their adherents and, in effect if not in word, insist upon the killing of those enemies as a mark of virtue.

The Prophet Mohammed insists in the Koran that the unbelievers are to be slaughtered unless they either convert to Islam or pay the required tax upon their infidel ways. The Old Testament of the Bible narrates numerous instances where cities and their entire populations were to be 'wholly dedicated to the Lord' - by which was meant complete and total extermination.

And while the Gospels are notorious for their opposition to violence and openness to others, the letters and epistles are just as open in their intolerance and advocacy of rejecting the life and behaviour of the heathens and idolators who then populated the world. And Revelation is, from start to finish, the account of the triumph of truth over lies, holiness over sin, true faith over infidelity and apostasy.

So, while religion's primary function is identity, that identity does not have to be exclusive to function properly.


Religion's primary function is identity - internal identity. While it can tolerate less dogmatic deviations from the mainstream of what it is, what it is remains the same - because otherwise these exceptions would not be exceptions - they would be if not the mainstream itself at the very least far more common than they actually are.

And as to the functioning of any religion being in any sense proper - only the adherents of that religion can say. Anyone else views the question from outside that religion, and without understanding it as only the adherent, the true believer, can.

In every faith, there are those who find a better way, and find that faith does not have to divide. I am learning this more every day; I can unite with those who believe differently without compromising my beliefs; all it requires is that I not ask them to compromise theirs.


As I said, this is a sophisticated view - and therefore necessarily that of a deviant minority. That religion is capable of this kind of sophistication I don't deny. But I maintain that the primary function of religion is to divide, and inspire hate, hatred of whatever is not of itself.

I find nothing morally objectionable in this. My God made men to hate as well as love each other.

What I find tedious, as well as intellectually untenable, is the perpetual repetition of the idea that it's 'bad' religionists who kill - whereas these killers actually perfectly express what religion is about and what it does.

It kills people. But why not? My God's favorite hobby is genocide.

Thank you for your good wishes.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

My God's favorite hobby is genocide.


My God made men to hate as well as love each other.


This was a briliant article.  I have long said that religion's primary goal is not to unify but to divide.  It's an 'us and them' mentality.


This has given me food for theought for the rest of the day.  Thanks.