Religious intolerance in the world

[Marilena]

I was thinking about Valke 2’s post, will we survive religion? something like that i think it is called. Why is it that people have to kill each other in the name of religion? Why can’t people put down their arms and predjudices no matter what people believe and just try to get along?

Why can’t there be peace between men? Between us all?
You know, I get tired of hearing about the warfare on the planet. Hasn’t this old earth and mankind suffered enough from war? The environment has suffered, the people suffer.
even animals suffer from constant war. some wars are over territory, and resources this the animals get displaced.

If man could just stop, and think, and listen, and feel,. then man might not be so intent on killing and ruining the environment we all live in.

You know what really concerns me? Is Iran’s position that the Jews should be moved to Europe. That is unfair and rotten.
The Jews were given Isreal by God, and they have a right to live there. No one has a right to dictate who lives where.

Iam oneof those 70% who don’t like the war in Iraq. Innocent people are getting slaughtered. I don’t like Irans position on Isreal. We all have a right to live and exist, be it Muslim, Jew,
Protestant, Catholic, Buddhist, exct. We have a right to believe what we want and to live in peace.

This is really tiring to have to hear the day after day fighting on tv. Iam tuning out to the news. It is just overload. So sit back, think of it from the heavenly Father’s point of view, what do you think He thinks of our actions? Runing His earth. millions being killed in wars, abortion, suicides, murder, greed, me ism… do you think He enjoys watching people kill each other?

not liklely. When man learns not to hate his fellow man and learns that the earth has limited resources that should not be squandered, and learns to respect his fellow man and his environment then we will have peace. every man and woman and child on this earth is valuable in the eyes of God. even animals.

sit back and listen and learn and see how we can live together without killing each other and learn to love the environment we live in.

 

[Valke2]

Amen.

 

[rtconstant]

Agreed.

 

[Allweather]

We are on the same page with regard to live-and-let-live; I am a longtime proponent of what the rightwing refers to as “isolationism.” The reasons for war are many and varied. I spent 21 years in the U.S. Army, including 2 years in Vietnam, and so I saw from the inside how wars are fought, and how the military establishment promotes American involvement in war. The professional military class yearns to fight in war, and is constantly maneuvering within the gov’t to promote it. They also aim at the youth, especially young men, by advertising the machines of war: the aircraft, the guns, the ships, all of which are fascinating to most young men. The promotion of heroism, world-class machinery, patriotic fervor, these are the currency of the professional military class, and the primary means they have for enlisting the participation of young people. It is an important element, but there are many others.

In the modern context of our conflict with Islam, there is an opinion, I’ve heard it referred to as “Christian Zionism,” which promotes U.S. involvement in the fights between Israel and its arab neighbors. Personally, I believe that most of this comes out of the Protestant evangelical/fundamentalist segment of American Christianity, but is also found among Catholics. This segment has been able to get the U.S. deeply involved in situations that aren’t necessarily in U.S. best interests. They have their own religious motivations which center on Israel, but they tend to point at oil as the necessary means to bring the secular population on-board with their project. The most extreme of these people favor a religious war between the U.S. and Islam, to the death, and appear to believe that this religious war will signal the Endtime.

There will always be war. The “why can’t we just get along” song is nice, but it ignores the reality of man and man’s sinful motivations. There is such as thing as Just War. If our nation followed the Catholic definition of Just War, then we’d be involved in precious few of them, and our prosecution of war would involve a lot less “collateral damage.”

 

[Della]

St. James got to the heart of the matter when he wrote:

Jas.4
[1] What causes wars, and what causes fightings among you? Is it not your passions that are at war in your members?
[2] You desire and do not have; so you kill. And you covet and cannot obtain; so you fight and wage war. You do not have, because you do not ask.

Warfare would stop if people were to admit their sin and humbly submit themselves to God’s will. However, since most of the world doesn’t believe in doing these things, but believes in getting all they can no matter the consequences to satisfy their passions, we will not have total peace until Christ returns and forces peace on the world:

Rev.19
[11] Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! He who sat upon it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war.
[19] And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who sits upon the horse and against his army.

Rev.19
[15] From his mouth issues a sharp sword with which to smite the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Of course, one should take into account that the vast majority of wars and conflicts do not come about because of religion, but because of greed and other materialist factors.

There are very few ‘religious’ wars per se in the world today. While one side (or both) may point to religious ‘factors’, can you name a conflict in the last 100 years that was a world war or affected the majority of the world which was done in the name of religion? Even the middle east wars of today were not done to advance the cause of ‘religion’ alone but were done for many reasons.

Even the most fanatical Muslim striving to bring shar’ia to the entire world is not doing this purely for religious reasons (otherwise why have Muslims been, up until relatively recently, remarkably ‘quiet’ in fostering converts? If their sole goal were for the advancement of their religion, nothing would have kept them from doing in 1920-1960 what they have been doing, first slowly and then more and more quickly, over the last 40 years.

So the Muslim goal of ultimate conquest of the world, supposedly to Islam, will only be undertaken when there are two things: What is seen as a relatively good ‘chance’ for success (which has been demonstrated throughout history, such ‘jihads’ etc. being carried out when the ‘enemy’ appears weak), along with the best chance for ‘wealth’ resulting. Between the two world wars, the world was in a state of rebuilding, depression, armed conflict etc. Since then there is a lot more ‘wealth’ available. The West is a bigger prize, financially speaking.

 

[Marilena]

you know what? it seems to me that the collateral damage you refer to is human life. are we so set on a goal that we fail to see that human life is valuable? do these big governments
care about the collateral damage? hardly.

i always believe and will always believe that is is always an alternative to war. WW1 and WW2 coudl have been avoided.
was there REALLY any reason to go to war? no.

what about the 6 million jews and others who were killed?
what about all the millions who died because of communism?
and all the millions of abortions? could all of it have been prevented? yes. could the regimes of the world not went to war? yes.

could millions of lives have been saved? yes. evil runs rampant in the world, and did during world war 2, and even nowadays
as well.

man does not need to fight and kill. there is no need for it.
as for just wars, well i suppose one could agree with that,
but do i think there is a need for war be it just or not? no.

man does not have to kill man, and man does not need to
squander the earths resources for greed or power. when Christ comes, everything will be set straight, and as He has said Himself, there will be no more war, no more outcry, or pain.
death will be done away with, and there will be peace.

How many people long for that time? all of us i’d think. does my viewpoint make me a liberal? no. iam not a liberal by a long shot. I just believe that the answer to mans problems is
Christ Jesus. That while we patiently await His return, we can learn to love one another as He has loved us. We can learn to love our neighbor as ourselves.

In the end, He will set things straight. Christ is the hope for us all, and for the earth as well.

 

[Allweather]

War is simply one of the things men do by nature. There are lots of reasons, but when you get right down to it, men enjoy war. You mention WWI and WWII, which were actually two phases of a single conflict, that of a surging German nation-state going up against the established nation-states of England and France in a struggle for pride and domination. I seriously doubt that either war was avoidable. They were both extremely popular wars, at least in the beginnings, from the top to the bottom of the societies involved. When you have the vast expanse of two or more peoples strongly favoring war, then war is pretty much inevitable.

Still, the deeper question is whether mankind is capable of NOT warring. Any study of history certainly suggests that man is by nature a warlike being. The OT is full of stories of war, some of them sanctioned by God who gave the promised land to the Israelites on condition that they take it by means of war, often under the command of total destruction of all life, including men, women and animals.

Personally, I am in favor of not warring. Yet, our Catholic faith teaches the conditions for Just War, and while those conditions are confining, they do not prohibit war. Some wars, for instance WWII, can be seen as a means of eradicating an evil empire. I believe that Korea and Vietnam could also be interpreted this way, though less clearly.

From my point of view, we Americans would be more productive in avoiding war by, first, wondering why we spend so much money on war machinery compared to the rest of the world. If we could come to grips with our apparent need to have our fingers in everyone else’s pie, then we might find our way back to our isolationist roots, which after all were those of the founding fathers.

 

[Booklover]

Since this thread is on "religious " intolerance, I would say that as long as there are “religions” that teach their faithful that they are superior to other people, and who demand respect for themselves while not respecting the religions and cultures of others, who think that by killing those who do not accept their dogma, they will get a one-way ticket to paradise, there cannot be peace.

This is my :twocents:

Vickie

 

[George_Waters]

Since this thread is on "religious " intolerance, I would say that as long as there are “religions” that teach their faithful that they are superior to other people, and who demand respect for themselves while not respecting the religions and cultures of others, who think that by killing those who do not accept their dogma, they will get a one-way ticket to paradise, there cannot be peace.

This is my :twocents:

Vickie

I agree with Vickie.

 

[Valke2]

Since this thread is on "religious " intolerance, I would say that as long as there are “religions” that teach their faithful that they are superior to other people, and who demand respect for themselves while not respecting the religions and cultures of others, who think that by killing those who do not accept their dogma, they will get a one-way ticket to paradise, there cannot be peace.

This is my :twocents:

Vickie

You’ve just highlighted a major pitfall of faith.

 

[rtconstant]

Still, the deeper question is whether mankind is capable of NOT warring. Any study of history certainly suggests that man is by nature a warlike being. The OT is full of stories of war, some of them sanctioned by God who gave the promised land to the Israelites on condition that they take it by means of war, often under the command of total destruction of all life, including men, women and animals.

Just a correction here. The reason that Isreal’s occupation of the Promised Land devolved into war was not the original idea of God. The Isrealites made an assumption that they would need to fight and take the land. They compounded their assumption by lacking faith that God would work things out for them just as he’d done since they left Egypt. As a consequence they would then have to take the land by force.

To me many stories in the OT are God’s way of showing us that our way of doing things leads to suffering.The same was true with the crowning of King Saul and the insistance on religious law. The Isrealites were a free people until they insisted on being otherwise.

I don’t say that as a slight against the Isrealites it is IMHO a human wide trait. We create our own bondage to suffering and violence.

 

[Marilena]

Just a correction here. The reason that Isreal’s occupation of the Promised Land devolved into war was not the original idea of God. The Isrealites made an assumption that they would need to fight and take the land. They compounded their assumption by lacking faith that God would work things out for them just as he’d done since they left Egypt. As a consequence they would then have to take the land by force.
.

I’d like Valke to clarify the point you made on your post.

 

[rtconstant]

I’d like Valke to clarify the point you made on your post.

Actually I’d like his take too.

Also after considering my post I do need to clarify something. While it is true that God did not originally tell them to go in fighting the rest of that post is my perception. I get carried away sometimes, so I apologize if any confusion was caused by that.

 

[Valke2]

Just a correction here. The reason that Isreal’s occupation of the Promised Land devolved into war was not the original idea of God. The Isrealites made an assumption that they would need to fight and take the land. They compounded their assumption by lacking faith that God would work things out for them just as he’d done since they left Egypt. As a consequence they would then have to take the land by force.
.

what is your basis for that belief? It seems apparent fromt the text that there was never a plan “A” that invovled the occupants of the land simply leaving and allowing Joshua to walk in and take it. They may have lacked faith, but it was a lack of faith in God’s ability to ensure that they would prevail, not magically turn over the land to them without bloodshed.

 

[rtconstant]

what is your basis for that belief? It seems apparent fromt the text that there was never a plan “A” that invovled the occupants of the land simply leaving and allowing Joshua to walk in and take it. They may have lacked faith, but it was a lack of faith in God’s ability to ensure that they would prevail, not magically turn over the land to them without bloodshed.

I have no idea what God originally had in mind, and to be fair it could have been conflict. However, considering that God had freed the people from Egypt, destroy Pharoah’s army, covered them with a cloud while they traveled during the day and was a pillar of fire during the night, dropped food from heaven so they didn’t have to hunt, and seemed altogether dedicated to the idea that they should know beyond any shadow of a doubt that everything they had He gave to them.

It just seems to me unlikely that when they get to the promised land he was going to say “pick up a weapon and go get them.” Anyway, I could be wrong though and as I said before most of this is just my perception. Sometimes things just seem to clear to me and I forget that others can have equally reasonable interpretations.

 

[Allweather]

I have no idea what God originally had in mind, and to be fair it could have been conflict. However, considering that God had freed the people from Egypt, destroy Pharoah’s army

The piece of your post I quote above is telling. God is not a pacifist. He sent an angel of death into Egypt to kill the firstborn of the Egyptian families, while bypassing those of the Hebrews. He destroyed Pharoah’s army, many of whom were undoubtedly just nice young men with families back home to support.

I have never gotten the sense out of the OT of God being a pacifist. He is just, and His Catholic Church teaches the parameters of Just War. The OT hebrews were quite relentless in pursuit of their enemies, putting them to the sword, men women and children. This tactic was even practiced during civil conflict between hebrews.

I believe that the pacifist segment of Catholicism, while it is of good heart, is ignoring the reality, both of God and of man. God hates evil, and will not hesitate to destroy it using his people as the weapon of destruction. Uncompromising pacifists go too far in their pacifism. We certainly should be very reluctant to wage war. I am appalled at our nation’s recent leap into wars that, IMO, can’t be justified. Nevertheless, self-defense is not merely a right, but an obligation, but one that has to be thoughtfully carried out and measured against the standard of Just War.

 

[Della]

You’ve just highlighted a major pitfall of faith.

Not of faith, but of false teaching based in pride instead of truth.

 

[Valke2]

I have no idea what God originally had in mind, and to be fair it could have been conflict. However, considering that God had freed the people from Egypt, destroy Pharoah’s army, covered them with a cloud while they traveled during the day and was a pillar of fire during the night, dropped food from heaven so they didn’t have to hunt, and seemed altogether dedicated to the idea that they should know beyond any shadow of a doubt that everything they had He gave to them.

It just seems to me unlikely that when they get to the promised land he was going to say “pick up a weapon and go get them.” Anyway, I could be wrong though and as I said before most of this is just my perception. Sometimes things just seem to clear to me and I forget that others can have equally reasonable interpretations.

Keep in mind that all the examples of war in Numbers were before we got to the Promised Land. We also have the story of God deciding to destroy the people He had delivered out of Egypt and Moses arguing on their behalf. (Not to mention Moses instructing the killing of 3,000 plus people for making the Golden Calf).

I like the idea of lack of faith leading to hardships like war. It’s a line of reasoning that warrants some more time and thought.

 

[rtconstant]

Keep in mind that all the examples of war in Numbers were before we got to the Promised Land. We also have the story of God deciding to destroy the people He had delivered out of Egypt and Moses arguing on their behalf. (Not to mention Moses instructing the killing of 3,000 plus people for making the Golden Calf).

I like the idea of lack of faith leading to hardships like war. It’s a line of reasoning that warrants some more time and thought.

Your point is taken it is true that even before that time conflict did occur for the Children of Isreal. I must admit that I often look at the OT in non-traditional way. I’ve seen often where that some look to the OT as showing that there are times when violence is permitted or even correct. To me I see most of the stories of the OT as a sort of “school of hard knocks” wherein God is trying to show us a better way but still has deal with us in a way that we can handle at the time.

We’re a very near sighted race. Even the wisest among us really doesn’t see that far beyond his/her own experiences. To me the lessons of the OT are that God is constantly trying to reach out to his people in an open and loving way but because of our spiritual myopia we go over board and mess things up.

Adam and Eve were living in paradise with every need met and then decided that God was holding out on them and they messed it up. Abraham and Sarah were promised a child and they messed it up. Abraham almost lost Sarah to Pharoah because he was afraid and wouldn’t admit that she was his wife.

I don’t think I even have to go into the Exodus story the stuff that poor Moses went through was crazy, and that was when all God wanted to do was free them from bondage and give them free land. Not that I’m judging, I’m not convinced we wouldn’t do the same things today.

My over all view is that often God has let us have our way in things just to show us that our way is usually a well… stupid. Anyway, I don’t know if any of that makes sense.