Breaking news this evening suggests that the Muslim pilot held hostage by ISIS has been burned alive. A separate thread on this forum has already taken wings and is running to several pages. However, I'm being presumptuous enough to give this a thread of its own because I'd like to look a little wider at the phrase "a religion of peace".
Every time such a news story breaks the debate is almost immediately polarised between those that would condemn an entire faith and those that suggest that the terrorists in no way represent their claimed faith. There is very seldom any nuance in the discussion. Shall we have a go at discussing this well worn phrase?
I'll declare my own hand first. I'm athiest and would personally prefer this to be a secular country. However, I'm also a realist and know full well that religion will almost certainly always be with us. Accepting this, I see mankind's greatest challenge after climate change as being the quest for people of all faiths and none to reach an accommodation whereby we all rub along peaceably.
Turning to my wider theme...
There isn't one of the major faiths that proudly proclaims itself to be a "religion of war". They all profess to be gentle and loving in nature. The spotlight is turned fiercely upon Islam right now but I would like to look at Christianity to illustrate a point, largely because it is the fauth that I was nominally brought up in.
The Bible contains the texts "Love thy neighbour as yourself" (Mark 12:31 apparently) and "Turn the other cheek" (Luke 6:29). These two are often cited as evidence of the virtuous nature of that faith. However, the same book also contains the well known text "An eye for an eye" (Exodus 21:24). In simple terms the last verse contradicts the others. The Koran and Torah contain a similarly bipolar split of peaceful and vengeful text.
While it is unpalatable for believers to consider, it is perfectly possible for a person reading the Bible to take a literal view of the text and choose a violent path. While this is a simplistic examination there are many sections within the Bible that appear to condone divinely sanctioned violence. The same can be said of both the other major faiths.
When people of faith profess theirs to be a “religion of peace” it is an entirely natural impulse to disassociate themselves from those that corrupt their own understanding of what they believe to be a peaceful faith. However, my concern is that this distancing renders them enablers, as they effectively wash their hands of a problem that is being committed in the name of a holy book that they purport to subscribe to.
Essentially, I view the term as “religion of peace” to be an elephant in the room. For society to progress I believe that all the major faiths need to emerge from their denial and acknowledge that they have some grisly skeletons in their cupboard. I would contend that this needs to happen in order to underline how the faiths can “evolve”, thereby explaining why they exist along the peaceful paths we would wish to see. Simply insisting that all is well fosters the impression that the holy books are indeed infallible and therefore that a literal translation remains a reasonable option.
So that’s my take. Anybody else want a go?
Every time such a news story breaks the debate is almost immediately polarised between those that would condemn an entire faith and those that suggest that the terrorists in no way represent their claimed faith. There is very seldom any nuance in the discussion. Shall we have a go at discussing this well worn phrase?
I'll declare my own hand first. I'm athiest and would personally prefer this to be a secular country. However, I'm also a realist and know full well that religion will almost certainly always be with us. Accepting this, I see mankind's greatest challenge after climate change as being the quest for people of all faiths and none to reach an accommodation whereby we all rub along peaceably.
Turning to my wider theme...
There isn't one of the major faiths that proudly proclaims itself to be a "religion of war". They all profess to be gentle and loving in nature. The spotlight is turned fiercely upon Islam right now but I would like to look at Christianity to illustrate a point, largely because it is the fauth that I was nominally brought up in.
The Bible contains the texts "Love thy neighbour as yourself" (Mark 12:31 apparently) and "Turn the other cheek" (Luke 6:29). These two are often cited as evidence of the virtuous nature of that faith. However, the same book also contains the well known text "An eye for an eye" (Exodus 21:24). In simple terms the last verse contradicts the others. The Koran and Torah contain a similarly bipolar split of peaceful and vengeful text.
While it is unpalatable for believers to consider, it is perfectly possible for a person reading the Bible to take a literal view of the text and choose a violent path. While this is a simplistic examination there are many sections within the Bible that appear to condone divinely sanctioned violence. The same can be said of both the other major faiths.
When people of faith profess theirs to be a “religion of peace” it is an entirely natural impulse to disassociate themselves from those that corrupt their own understanding of what they believe to be a peaceful faith. However, my concern is that this distancing renders them enablers, as they effectively wash their hands of a problem that is being committed in the name of a holy book that they purport to subscribe to.
Essentially, I view the term as “religion of peace” to be an elephant in the room. For society to progress I believe that all the major faiths need to emerge from their denial and acknowledge that they have some grisly skeletons in their cupboard. I would contend that this needs to happen in order to underline how the faiths can “evolve”, thereby explaining why they exist along the peaceful paths we would wish to see. Simply insisting that all is well fosters the impression that the holy books are indeed infallible and therefore that a literal translation remains a reasonable option.
So that’s my take. Anybody else want a go?
