Why does religion drive people to kill?

[Malthus]

@you_with_the_face

i find it hard to argue that Nazi atrocities had no religious basis. It would require believing it was a coincidence that Christian Germans saw Jews as enemies, just as their own religious beliefs encouraged them to. If we posit that racism, xenophobia, and nationalism were in play, surely we need to also acknowledge the role of religion.

No, it would be easy to argue that, for a couple of reasons.

First, the Nazis despised religious practitioners of the religions previously common in their country (such as Lutheranism and Catholicism), and often threw ]u]them into concentration camps when they crossed them.

Second, the Nazis felt so little about religion that some Nazis felt free to invent a wholly bogus ‘civic religion’ based on Germanic paganism, though it lacked actual believers (Hitler himself thought it was silly).

Third, while the Nazis saw Jews as the enemy, they did not see them as a “religious” enemy - they cared not a jot about whether their victims converted to Christianity. They saw the Jews as a racial enemy - the worst but not the only one (they also hated Roma and Slavs). Previous religious anti-Jewish actions were often aimed at forcibly converting Jews - that was the role of the Inquisition, for example. In contrast, the Nazis sought to exterminate Jews based purely on a fake ‘genetic’ analysis - have a certain number of Jewish grandparents, and you were toast, no matter what “religion” you happened to worship (or none for that matter).

This may be true, but dictator-led violence is not germane to the OP. We’re talking about religion as a trigger for violence in people in general. My position is that under certain conditions, a religion that preaches a certain way of thinking about the world will inspire violence in believers who might otherwise not be violent.

I don’t see any particular reason to rule out “dictator lead” violence, or make it a special case. If the Ayatollah of Iran orders gays and apostates to be murdered in the name of Islam, does that “count” as a religion-inspired atrocity? I would argue that it does. Similarly, if Stalin orders a couple of million “kulaks” to be murdered in the name of Marxist-Leninism, that “counts” as a non-religious inspired atrocity. The issue, I would have thought, is the relative danger posed by various ideologies measured honestly against each other - and in that measure, Religion comes out as penny-ante.

Saying that there have been worst cases of mass violence in recent history not involving religion doesn’t really counter this; all it may suggest is that the right conditions for religious-inspired violence aren’t ubiquitous and constant.

I disagree. If the question is “why does religion drive people to kill?”, it is perfectly cromulent to answer “all ideologies people believe in have the capacity to do that, and lately, the significance of religion as an ideological driver of killing has paled when compared to other, more malignant ideologies”.

[you_with_the_face]

@UDS

Perhaps, but if we do we must also acknowledge the role of “scientific” antisemitism, race theory, Nazi “racial science”, etc/

Which is what I’m saying we should. There were obviously multiple -isms interacting among the German people, that allowed Nazism in thrive in such a short time. To say that religion contributed nothing to the public’s support of Jewish persecution is such an absolute statement that its disingenuous.

And notice I’m not talking about Hitler. I’m talking about regular, everyday Germans who ultimately become complicit in Hilter’s master plans. Germans were already predisposed to view Jews as devilish, Jesus-killers due to their religious beliefs, and Hilter took advantage of this conditioning.

Yes, we can certainly include religion in a list of things that inspired or encouraged antisemitism and, therefore, the Nazi atrocities. But the question the OP raises is “What is it about religion that makes people kill each other?”, and in post #11 Czarcasm puts it thus: “What it is about religion specifically(NOT exclusively) that drives people to violence?”

And the answer, so far as I can see, is “nothing”. We can’t find any way in which religion causes violence or killing which isn’t replicated by non-religious causes of violence or killing.

Would you be throwing up your hands the same way if the OP asked “What is it about racism that drives people to violence?” I suspect you wouldn’t, even though the exact same rationale you give here applies to racism or any other -ism for that matter. Racism-inspired violence isn’t especially unique from other causes of intertribal conflicts. And yet we all seem to intuitively understand that when people are programmed to see others as fundamentally inferior or immoral along racial lines, then violence will likely erupt when the interests of Race A collide with Race B.

Why is it so difficult to accept that religion yields the same results, when the programming has a similar script? Exchange Race A with Religion A and Race B with Religion B, and the rubric is identical!

Historically, German religious traditions didn’t just engender hostility towards Jews, but also towards Muslims. Luther’s language about The Turk is every bit as ripe as his language about The Jew. So why was the Holocaust directed at Jews and not at Muslims? Because there was a large Jewish community in Germany…

Which only supports my point. Religious tradition set the stage for anti-Jewish sentiment that then blossomed into anti-Jewish persecution and genocide. If Muslims had been there, the same sentiments likely would have led to their persecution too.

[Malthus]

@you_with_the_face

Which is what I’m saying we should. There were obviously multiple -isms interacting among the German people, that allowed Nazism in thrive in such a short time. To say that religion contributed nothing to the public’s support of Jewish persecution is such an absolute statement that its disingenuous.

German anti-Semitism wasn’t a religious movement. It was an expressly racial movement. There was certainly a connection with medieval Christian Jew-hatred, but it was pretty tangential by the 1940s.

And notice I’m not talking about Hitler. I’m talking about regular, everyday Germans who ultimately become complicit in Hilter’s master plans. Germans were already predisposed to view Jews as devilish, Jesus-killers due to their religious beliefs, and Hilter took advantage of this conditioning.

Prior to Nazis taking power, while there was plenty of anti-Jewish prejudice, it was more a case of low-grade bigotry, and the afore mentioned racial anti-Semites (who were regarded as well outside the mainstream). Fact is that Jews were exceptionally well-established and well-integrated in German society - part of what the Nazis hated about them, of course.

That’s exactly why the Nazi horrors struck people as so wholly bizarre: that they happened in Germany, which was so very progressive. The pre-Nazi “average German” probably cared nothing much about Jews, were willing to intermarry with them to a great degree, had them as professors, leaders of industry, etc. The Nazis, through totalitarian measures, were able to instill hatred where not much had previously existed.

Would you be throwing up your hands the same way if the OP asked “What is it about racism that drives people to violence?” I suspect you wouldn’t, even though the exact same rationale you give here applies to racism or any other -ism for that matter. Racism-inspired violence isn’t especially unique from other causes of intertribal conflicts. And yet we all seem to intuitively understand that when people are programmed to see others as fundamentally inferior or immoral along racial lines, then violence will likely erupt when the interests of Race A collide with Race B.

Racism is a subset of bigotry, though. So that’s not a particularly good analogy. Religion isn’t necessarily a subset of bigotry - though obviously, religious bigotry exists.

Why is it so difficult to accept that religion yields the same results, when the programming has a similar script? Exchange Race A with Religion A and Race B with Religion B, and the rubric is identical!

That’s a totally different rubric to the one you mentioned above - which points directly to the error you are making.

Just being a different ‘race’ isn’t the same thing as being racist. Just like just having a different religion doesn’t make one a religious bigot.

The real rubric is “racism is akin to religious bigotry”, and “race is akin to religion”. In short, the better analogy is “why do people having different ‘race’ drive people to kill?” - which leads to a discussion of the evolution and history of racism.

The key point is that racism and racist violence is, of course, not inevitable nor constant in human history: ironically enough, one major ideological method by which people of different races have been able to cooperate without violence has, historically, been … religion!

[you_with_the_face]

@Malthus

No, it would be easy to argue that, for a couple of reasons.

First, the Nazis despised religious practitioners of the religions previously common in their country (such as Lutheranism and Catholicism), and often threw ]u]them into concentration camps when they crossed them.

But the vast majority of the Germans in the Nazi-era were very much Christian. And you can’t ignore the role that regular, everyday people played in advancing the Nazi agenda. At best, they turned a blind eye to atrocities going around them. At worst, they assisted the State in rooting out Jewish vermin. Religion contributed to all this.

From here:

How did Christians and their churches in Germany respond to the Nazi regime and its laws, particularly to the persecution of the Jews? The racialized anti-Jewish Nazi ideology converged with antisemitism that was historically widespread throughout Europe at the time and had deep roots in Christian history.** For all too many Christians, traditional interpretations of religious scriptures seemed to support these prejudices.**

The attitudes and actions of German Catholics and Protestants during the Nazi era were shaped not only by their religious beliefs, but by other factors as well, including:

•Backlash against the Weimar Republic and the political, economic, and social changes in Germany that occurred during the 1920s

•Anti-Communism

•Nationalism

•Resentment toward the international community in the wake of World War I, which Germany lost and for which it was forced to pay heavy reparations

These were some of the reasons why most Christians in Germany welcomed the rise of Nazism in 1933. They were also persuaded by the statement on “positive Christianity” in Article 24 of the 1920 Nazi Party Platform…

@Malthus

I disagree. If the question is “why does religion drive people to kill?”, it is perfectly cromulent to answer “all ideologies people believe in have the capacity to do that, and lately, the significance of religion as an ideological driver of killing has paled when compared to other, more malignant ideologies”.

But that’s not what is being said here. What keeps being argued is that religious ideology doesn’t drive people to kill, it’s x, y, or z other factor that is doing it. When it looks like religion, we can be sure that’s an illusion, in other words. The hand waving of religion as a contributor to the Holocaust is a good example of this. Multiple posts about this history have been made and yet no cites to support the “religion had nothing to do with it” side of the debate. After a while, it does look like a position not based on reason.

[you_with_the_face]

@Malthus

That’s a totally different rubric to the one you mentioned above - which points directly to the error you are making.

How so? My position all along is that a religion can promote violence when believers adhere to a dogma that tells them it is their duty to wage war with apostates and infidels (i.e. Members of other religious groups). When this belief is coupled with other conditions, such as lack of economic opportunity, etc, then the conditions are ripe for terror.

Just being a different ‘race’ isn’t the same thing as being racist. Just like just having a different religion doesn’t make one a religious bigot.

This is obvious.

The real rubric is “racism is akin to religious bigotry”, and “race is akin to religion”. In short, the better analogy is “why do people having different ‘race’ drive people to kill?” - which leads to a discussion of the evolution and history of racism.

I disagree these are analogous things. Race is not a belief system; but religion is. It’s an ideology, not just a label applied from without. Judgement about morality, the afterlife, pleasing and offending God, and the meaning of life are wrapped up in religion, and these beliefs can influence behavior in ways that racial identification doesnot.

Racism and religion have one important thing in common: most believers see themselves as members of the Right Team. Non “subscribers” are in some way deficient, doomed, or not as good. Religion doesn’t always require this viewpoint, but it is patently ridiculous to deny that on the whole it doesn’t promote this outlook.

[Malthus]

@you_with_the_face

But the vast majority of the Germans in the Nazi-era were very much Christian. And you can’t ignore the role that regular, everyday people played in advancing the Nazi agenda. At best, they turned a blind eye to atrocities going around them. At worst, they assisted the State in rooting out Jewish vermin. Religion contributed to all this.

From here:

Radical racist anti-Semitism was certainly helped by the existence of medieval Jew-hatred based on scripture, but the latter wasn’t exactly required for the average German to accept it.

The question being addressed in your cite, if you read the “summary” at the end, is basically this: why wasn’t there more Christian opposition to the Nazis? The answer is that, while leaders of both the Protestant and Catholic Churches did make some moves to oppose the Nazis, they were hesitant and fearful - they compromised in order to survive - a compromise they later regretted as it displayed moral and physical cowardice.

SUMMARY

In both German churches there were members, including clergy and leading theologians, who openly supported the Nazi regime. With time, anti-Nazi sentiment grew in both Protestant and Catholic church circles, as the Nazi regime exerted greater pressure on them. In turn, the Nazi regime saw a potential for dissent in church criticism of state measures. When a protest statement was read from the pulpits of Confessing churches in March 1935, for example, Nazi authorities reacted forcefully by briefly arresting over 700 pastors. After the 1937 papal encyclical Mit brennender Sorge (“With burning concern”) was read from Catholic pulpits, the Gestapo confiscated copies from diocesan offices throughout the country.

The general tactic by the leadership of both Protestant and Catholic churches in Germany was caution with respect to protest and compromise with the Nazi state leadership where possible. There was criticism within both churches of Nazi racialized ideology and notions of “Aryanism,” and movements emerged in both churches to defend church members who were considered “non-Aryan” under Nazi racial laws (e.g., Jews who had converted). Yet throughout this period there was virtually no public opposition to antisemitism or any readiness by church leaders to publicly oppose the regime on the issues of antisemitism and state-sanctioned violence against the Jews. There were individual Catholics and Protestants who spoke out on behalf of Jews, and small groups within both churches that became involved in rescue and resistance activities (for example, the White Rose and Herman Maas).

After 1945, the silence of the church leadership and the widespread complicity of “ordinary Christians” compelled leaders of both churches to address issues of guilt and complicity during the Holocaust—a process that continues internationally to this day.

But that’s not what is being said here. What keeps being argued is that religious ideology doesn’t drive people to kill, it’s x, y, or z other factor that is doing it. When it looks like religion, we can be sure that’s an illusion, in other words. The hand waving of religion as a contributor to the Holocaust is a good example of this. Multiple posts about this history have been made and yet no cites to support the “religion had nothing to do with it” side of the debate. After a while, it does look like a position not based on reason.

Religion’s contribution to the Holocaust is a slender reed to base a theory on, I’d say.

I do, however, think religion - like any other ideology - can drive violence. It just hasn’t been a main driver in the past century, though.

[Czarcasm]

@Malthus

I do, however, think religion - like any other ideology - can drive violence. It just hasn’t been a main driver in the past century, though.

And the OP isn’t built on the premise that religion is the main driver in this, or any other, century.

[Malthus]

@you_with_the_face

How so? My position all along is that a religion can promote violence when believers adhere to a dogma that tells them it is their duty to wage war with apostates and infidels (i.e. Members of other religious groups). When this belief is coupled with other conditions, such as lack of economic opportunity, etc, then the conditions are ripe for terror.

I agree that religion can inspire violence. Why it does so in some cases and not others is a useful debate. Suffice it to say that it isn’t always obvious.

This is obvious.

I disagree these are analogous things. Race is not a belief system; but religion is. It’s an ideology, not just a label applied from without. Judgement about morality, the afterlife, pleasing and offending God, and the meaning of life are wrapped up in religion, and these beliefs can influence behavior in ways that racial identification doesnot.

Racism and religion have one important thing in common: most believers see themselves as members of the Right Team. Non “subscribers” are in some way deficient, doomed, or not as good. Religion doesn’t always require this viewpoint, but it is patently ridiculous to deny that on the whole it doesn’t promote this outlook.

I disagree. “Race”, when used of humans, is a belief system; it is a social construct based on human characterisics. Judging which of those characteristics are socially important is a matter of belief, not fact. Choosing a certain set of characteristics as “racially defining” (or having that set chosen for you by outsiders) is an ideological act. Whether that act is benign or malignant depends on circumstances.

Again, whether a particular set of religious beliefs creates religious bigotry is a question for individual analysis. They don’t all do so; nor do the very same beliefs inspire the same actions in everyone.

[Malthus]

@Czarcasm

And the OP isn’t built on the premise that religion is the main driver in this, or any other, century.

It is, however, useful to look at how ideology drives violence in general, if one is to explain how it does so in a specific case. Context is important.

[Czarcasm]

@Malthus

It is, however, useful to look at how ideology drives violence in general, if one is to explain how it does so in a specific case. Context is important.

Yes it is…as long as one ties said context back to the original topic being discussed.

[you_with_the_face]

@Malthus

I disagree. “Race”, when used of humans, is a belief system; it is a social construct based on human characterisics.

Okay, so let’s go with that. Race is ideological and so is religion. That still doesn’t mean religion is more similar to race than it is to racism (another form of ideology). The fact that religion comes laden with value judgements that more often than not separates people into good and bad makes it more like racism.

Again, whether a particular set of religious beliefs creates religious bigotry is a question for individual analysis. They don’t all do so; nor do the very same beliefs inspire the same actions in everyone.

Religion doesn’t have to inspire the same actions in everyone to be a behavioral risk factor.

Right now, the big thing in the news is legislation intended to keep transgenders out of public restrooms. Plus some other stuff aimed at enabling employment discrimination against LBGQT. All of this is occurring in areas of the country (the south) that not-so-coincidentally are under the heavy influence of traditional Christian indoctrination.

Now, you might say, not all religions promote this kind of intolerance. I would agree with you. But certainly I can argue that in the absence of this particular religious strain, it is likely local politics would be more resistant to homophobia and other prejudices.

[Guinastasia]

I don’t think anyone is saying religion didn’t play a part in why people went along with Nazism. What people are trying to say is that it wasn’t the sole or even the main cause of it. Remember, to anti-semitics, Jews weren’t just considered a religion – they were another race as well. It’s been pointed out time and again that it didn’t matter if you converted, – once a Jew, always a Jew. Or if you weren’t Jewish yourself, but your parents, or even your grandparents were. Similiar to the “one drop” rule.

@Malthus

German anti-Semitism wasn’t a religious movement. It was an expressly racial movement. There was certainly a connection with medieval Christian Jew-hatred, but it was pretty tangential by the 1940s.
Prior to Nazis taking power, while there was plenty of anti-Jewish prejudice, it was more a case of low-grade bigotry, and the afore mentioned racial anti-Semites (who were regarded as well outside the mainstream). Fact is that Jews were exceptionally well-established and well-integrated in German society - part of what the Nazis hated about them, of course.

That’s exactly why the Nazi horrors struck people as so wholly bizarre: that they happened in Germany, which was so very progressive. The pre-Nazi “average German” probably cared nothing much about Jews, were willing to intermarry with them to a great degree, had them as professors, leaders of industry, etc. The Nazis, through totalitarian measures, were able to instill hatred where not much had previously existed.

Exactly. Now, if the Holocaust had happened in, say, Russia, then it would’ve been more likely to have been based on religious beliefs.

[astorian]

Remember, when you discuss “religious” conflicts:

1. SOMETIMES the fighting really is about religious doctrines.
2. SOMETIMES religion is only part of the reason for fighting.
3. SOMETIMES religion is merely shorthand for something else that’s causing the fighting.
   Look, I am already on record as blaming Islam for some atrocities. I have condemned Islam often enough to be dismissed by some as a mere bigoted Islamophobe. But… it’s interesting how often “Islamic” terror is carried out by young Muslim males who never said their prayers, never went to the mosque, didn’t keep halal, and were regarded as flakes or losers by neighbors who WERE devout Muslims!

When that happens, you have to wonder- IS this, in fact, a religious crime?

It’s worth asking, were “Catholic” terrorists in Belfast in the Seventies more or less religiously observant than their apolitical or nonviolent neighbors.

[Doubticus]

@Mijin

Humans are very tribal. We sort ourselves into groups and then start to see other groups as foreign, and not like us.

And indeed, historically, we’ve seen other groups as fodder

I think this is highly relevant. Religion codifies tribalism.

[UDS]

@Doubticus

I think this is highly relevant. Religion codifies tribalism.

But so do lots of things including, as mentioned right back on page 1, language. Or non-religious ideologies.

So, is a tribal identity marked by (among other things) a particular religion more likely to be expressed in violence than a tribal identity not so marked? I’m not seeing it, myself.

[Voyager]

@Guinastasia

Exactly. Now, if the Holocaust had happened in, say, Russia, then it would’ve been more likely to have been based on religious beliefs.

This isn’t exactly hypothetical. The reason I’m here, and that my parents weren’t killed in the Holocaust, is that the Cossacks and other men of god drove my great grandparents out of Russia. They were lucky enough not to have been killed in a pogrom. Might not have been as bad as the Holocaust, but it sure was religiously motivated violence.

[UDS]

@Voyager

This isn’t exactly hypothetical. The reason I’m here, and that my parents weren’t killed in the Holocaust, is that the Cossacks and other men of god drove my great grandparents out of Russia. They were lucky enough not to have been killed in a pogrom. Might not have been as bad as the Holocaust, but it sure was religiously motivated violence.

Yes, but it was motivated by the religion of the victims, and we can hardly blame religion for this.

The question is, did the oppressors hate the victims because of the oppressor’s own Orthodox Christianity? Or did the oppressors hate the victims because, e.g., the oppressors had a concept of Russian-ness or Slavicity which excluded Jews? Either would be an example of religiously-motivated violence, but in one case there’s a religious impulse to hate, and in the other religion has been co-opted as a badge of nationality or ethnicity, and the hatred is primarily nationalist or ethnic.

[Doubticus]

@UDS

But so do lots of things including, as mentioned right back on page 1, language. Or non-religious ideologies.

So, is a tribal identity marked by (among other things) a particular religion more likely to be expressed in violence than a tribal identity not so marked? I’m not seeing it, myself.

I agree that there are many things besides religion that can be an aspect of tribalism. But as others have noted, since the stakes of religion are so high (the fate of your immortal soul), religion more often than others compel followers to violence.

[UDS]

@Doubticus

I agree that there are many things besides religion that can be an aspect of tribalism. But as others have noted, since the stakes of religion are so high (the fate of your immortal soul), religion more often than others compel followers to violence.

No, this makes no sense. There are few, if any, religions which teach that the fate of your immortal soul is dependent on you killing non-members of the religion. Besides, as already noted, if religion is functioning as a tribal marker then what drives people to violence is their identification with the tribe, which isn’t at all dependent on the actual doctrines or practices of the religion concerned.

If your theory is correct, we would expect to find that tribes which are characterised by religion are more violent that tribes which are not. But I don’t think we do find this. Americans, for example, dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and fire-bombed Dresden, and many Americans are happy to defend and justify these actions. American identity is not defined or characterised by religion, and I can’t off-hand think of any tribe which is religiously-identified which has killed on such a scale.

I’m not singling out the Americans. You could make exactly the same point about the Battle of the Somme, or any number of other examples of large-scale violence perpetrated by one tribe on another. We simply do not find that the violence perpetrated by the non-religiously-defined tribes is more limited or circumscribed than the violence perpetrated by the religiously defined tribes. If the status or position of the tribe is threatened, the limit to the violence to which the tribe will resort is set by the technology available to them, not by the particular cultural markers that characterise the tribe.

[astorian]

@Doubticus

I think this is highly relevant. Religion codifies tribalism.

Some religions do. But other religions break DOWN tribalism!

In theory, ANYONE can become a Christian, regardless of his ethnicity, race, or “tribe.” In the same way, ANYONE can become a Muslim. If two people from different races or ethnicities have the same religion, that helps DISSOLVE their differences.