The myth of religious violence

The myth of religious violence (Guardian)

The popular belief that religion is the cause of the world’s bloodiest conflicts is central to our modern conviction that faith and politics should never mix. But the messy history of their separation suggests it was never so simple...

The Oxford Classical Dictionary firmly states: “No word in either Greek or Latin corresponds to the English ‘religion’ or ‘religious’.”

Well, I've looked up the OCD online under religion, Roman, terms relating to and read differently from Armstrong. (I'd quote it, but am unsure of the legality in doing so.)

Before 1700, it would have been impossible for people to say where, for example, “politics” ended and “religion” began.

And before some or other date, it would have been impossible for people to say where, for example, alchemy ended and science began. So?

The Spanish inquisition was a deeply flawed attempt to secure the internal order of Spain after a divisive civil war, at a time when the nation feared an imminent attack by the Ottoman empire.

"The Inquisition was originally intended in large part to ensure the orthodoxy of those who converted from Judaism and Islam. This regulation of the faith of the newly converted was intensified after the royal decrees issued in 1492 and 1501 ordering Jews and Muslims to convert or leave." - Wikipedia

What fantasy world is this woman living in?

...and then I decided to look for someone else's views so as to spare me more effort (though I may continue once I've finished reading).

Well, here's someone who is a friend of religion, yet thinks Armstrong is misguided: Karen Armstrong has taken on the fashionable theory that religion always causes violence — but her approach misfires by Noel Malcolm.

No, I can't finish reading her article without a better grounding in the subject matter so I can assess her claims independently. I am reminded of what Richard wrote about Armstrong elsewhere: She seems to be an historian who is quite proficient at selecting and interpreting her facts to fit her hypothesis. - http://www.librarything.com/topic/178549#4795873

I'll allow myself this though: She seems almost to be unhappy that the birth pangs of the modern nation-state succeeded?

>1 John5918: The popular belief that religion is the cause of the world’s bloodiest conflicts is central to our modern conviction that faith and politics should never mix.

Actually, it's not that religion causes violence. It's that it is such an effective justification for it.

In the end, whenever you have an us vs. them scenario, you have the potential for violence. That's a human thing. Religion is relatively good at minimizing violence if you are among the "us" -- it imposes order. But you're out of luck if you happen to be a "them."

Efforts to disassociate institutional religion from its involvement in barbarism are risible.

"Religion" is an etic category, and "religion's" culpability for violence will be entirely dependent on how it is defined in the first place.

I just picked up a copy of James P. Carse's The Religious Case Against Belief, where the jacket flap boasts "the surprising truth that what is currently criticized as religion is, in fact, the territory of belief ... and how the close-mindedness and hostility of belief has corrupted religion and spawned violence the world over." To make such a case, Carse must evidently have clearer definitions of both "religion" and "belief" than they enjoy in vernacular usage. Still, I suspect that I will have a certain sympathy with his argument. It's a short enough book, and I'll post a review after I get around to reading it. (My philosophical reading is still Bergson's Matter and Memory at the moment.)

>6 theoria: Efforts to disassociate institutional religion from its involvement in barbarism are risible.

Institutional religion is a political entity, not a matter of faith. So perhaps it would be better to say that "faith" does not cause violence. Religious institutions engage in violence, as do secular institutions like national governments. Both have an effective and impossible to challenge justification for doing so.

Armstrong appears to conflate religion-the-institution with religion-the-system-of-beliefs but as was pointed out in >3 zangasta: 's link, that is a failure of logic.

>5 southernbooklady: it's not that religion causes violence. It's that it is such an effective justification for it.

And that's an interesting thing. Why do people feel the need to justify violence? There's nearly always an attempt to do so, whether the rationale is explained as religion, or patriotism, or self-defense, or ethnic purity, or any one of a dozen reasons. Are other socialized animals bothered when they kill each other or a member of some other species?

Makes me think of Benjamin Ginsberg's The Value of Violence: “Like it or not, violence is often is the answer to our political problems.” Where in the world would our species be without it?

>6 theoria: Efforts to disassociate institutional religion from its involvement in barbarism are risible.

Almost as risible as efforts to disassociate barbarism from its involvement in "progress".

>8 southernbooklady: Are you saying religious institutions have no connection to faith?

>11 theoria: Sorry, not following. I can't see how you'd get that from my comments. Do you think it is not significant that religious institutions are political entities?

>9 jburlinson: Why do people feel the need to justify violence? Because people want to feel that they have done the right thing. It absolves them of the consequences of their actions.

Are other socialized animals bothered when they kill each other

I have no idea. Do other species commit murder among their own kind?

>12 southernbooklady: Yes I agree that religious institutions are political entities. I don't understand why you state they are not a matter of faith. I'm assuming faith is the point of religious institutions and their political activities.

I follow Durkheim's definition of religion (The Elementary Forms of Religious Life): rituals and beliefs (collective representations of the sacred and the profane) and a "church" (collective organization). From this point of view, belief (faith) and institution are systematically related to each other.

Ah. Well I always understood that people have faith. Not institutions. From what I understand of, say, Christianity and Islam, though, it would be possible to be either even without a church.

The Dark Side of Empathy.

>12 southernbooklady: Does this article answer your question satisfactorily?

Religion is not monolithic. Some manifestations of religion appear to encourage violence, others precisely the opposite. Some manifestations of religion encourage a "them" and "us" dynamic, others attempt to transcend that by upholding the dignity of the individual created in the image and likeness of God regardless of creed and other identifiers. Religion is a human response to the divine, so religions exhibit as much diversity as other human institutions.

While it is possible to find examples of religious violence, it is a myth (as the OP says) to suggest that religion per se is responsible for violence. The fact that one can find so many examples of religions working for peace undermine that argument. Buddhism, the Quakers and Mennonites, Thic Nhat Hanh, the Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu, Mahtama Gandhi, Catholic Social Thought, the Acholi Religious Leaders' Peace Initiative, the recent open letter from Muslim scholars to the so-called Islamic State, the role of the World Council of Churches and All-Africa Conference of Churches in the 1972 Sudan peace agreement, the ongoing role of churches in attempting to resolve conflicts in Sudan and South Sudan, Sant'Egidio, Pax Christi, Religions for Peace... the examples of institutional religion's commitment to peace are enough to demonstrate that religion per se cannot be identified with violence, without denying that there are some manifestations of religion which can.

>12 southernbooklady: Because people want to feel that they have done the right thing.

Or maybe it's because people want to explain to others that they've done the right thing. But you're probably right, it's likely more of a question of self-justification, if people have been brought up to have a sense of what the right thing is. This kind of ethical training has traditionally been the province of church and state, if one considers public education to be part of "state". If church and state are bound together, or, better yet, one and the same, one would expect the sense of the "right thing" would be even more compelling to a person. So if the church and state are strong, and both exemplify or promote violence, it's easy to see how violence would be generally viewed as the right thing. But if the church has lost, or is losing, its power, and the state has lost, or is losing, its respect, it would only seem natural for the right thing to be harder to identify.

It absolves them of the consequences of their actions.

But it would seem to me that the immediate consequences of their actions would be pretty much wholly positive to the person -- the foe has been vanquished, the guilty has been punished, the immediate need has been satisfied. It's only when one feels like one must rationalize one's behavior to other people who might be expected to disapprove that there would be any desire for absolution.

>17 John5918: it is a myth (as the OP says) to suggest that religion per se is responsible for violence.

That seems only natural -- violence certainly antedates religion. Violence, in the form of predation, is a given in life itself. The interesting thing is that, for the most part, religion has a tendency to want to curb, or at least channel, violence. Some religions were even founded on principles of non- or anti-violence.

It would seem, though, that the urge to violence is so strong that it overcomes and even distorts whatever religious scruples there might have been, to the point where people have successfully used religion as a spur for violence.

In my mind, the question is -- is religion an adequate restraint on violence? The answer is mixed. In the lives of some people, clearly religion definitely works. In the lives of other people, the opposite is the case.

Of course, the real question is -- is violence wrong, or at least is it something that should be quelled? Again the answer is mixed. Intuitively, many conditioned people would say that obviously violence is wrong and ought to be avoided. But in practice, the opposite obviously prevails, at all levels of the animal kingdom.

>19 jburlinson: the urge to violence is so strong that it overcomes and even distorts whatever religious scruples there might have been, to the point where people have successfully used religion as a spur for violence

Maybe so.

is religion an adequate restraint on violence? The answer is mixed. In the lives of some people, clearly religion definitely works. In the lives of other people, the opposite is the case.

Absolutely.

>17 John5918: While it is possible to find examples of religious violence, it is a myth (as the OP says) to suggest that religion per se is responsible for violence. The fact that one can find so many examples of religions working for peace undermine that argument.

Which illustrates my point that religion is an excellent justification for doing whatever it is you want to do. It is not any more intrinsically peaceful than it is intrinsically violent.

>18 jburlinson: But it would seem to me that the immediate consequences of their actions would be pretty much wholly positive to the person -- the foe has been vanquished, the guilty has been punished, the immediate need has been satisfied.

Which only works if the foe, the guilty, can be legitimately regarded as not a person. That what I meant by us-vs-them.

>16 zangasta: That was interesting.

>21 southernbooklady: religion is an excellent justification for doing whatever it is you want to do

That's what's so interesting -- why does one feel the need to justify doing whatever one wants to do? The odd thing about religion is that it tends to establish a context in which such justification is necessary. Without religion, many people would have to come up with another explanation for why violence is a bad thing. One certainly couldn't turn to the natural world for any help on that score.

Which only works if the foe, the guilty, can be legitimately regarded as not a person. That what I meant by us-vs-them.

I see your point, but don't necessarily agree. Sometimes the satisfactions of violence are enhanced when the victim is viewed very much as a person. Cf. the writings of the Marquis de Sade. The whole concept of schadenfreude is meaningless unless one recognizes the personhood of the other.

>22 jburlinson: why does one feel the need to justify doing whatever one wants to do?

Perhaps it follows from the question "Why are we here?"

>23 southernbooklady: Perhaps it follows from the question "Why are we here?"

Which is a question that many religions propose to answer. If the answers that religion provides are unsatisfactory, it's hard to come up with an alternative that precludes violence as a way of getting things done.

>24 jburlinson: it's hard to come up with an alternative that precludes violence as a way of getting things done.

Tit for tat?

>25 southernbooklady: Tit for tat?

Which sounds like a pretty appealing philosophy, as long as one believes one has more and bigger and better tits than other people have tats. :)

>21 southernbooklady: religion is an excellent justification for doing whatever it is you want to do. It is not any more intrinsically peaceful than it is intrinsically violent.

Fair comment, but then anybody can twist anything to justify doing whatever they want to do. If one looks at the official teaching of the mainstream branches of most of the major world religions one will find they are more intrinsically peaceful than violent.

>18 jburlinson: jburlinson: But it would seem to me that the immediate consequences of their actions would be pretty much wholly positive to the person -- the foe has been vanquished, the guilty has been punished, the immediate need has been satisfied.

Which only works if the foe, the guilty, can be legitimately regarded as not a person. That what I meant by us-vs-them.


As noted in the link on the dark side of empathy, people have a habit of considering others to be foes if they are in opposition to those they empathise with, even if the ostensible "foe" has no control over their position.

>17 John5918: Religion is a human response to the divine

"[W]e can better understand what gods and spirits are doing in rituals, so to speak, once we realise that their participation is a salient but unnecessary addition to the mental representation of the ceremonies. This way of seeing the situation is of course less inspiring than the notion of a human urge to worship the divine, but it is more faithful to what actually occurs in minds acquiring cultural knowledge." - Religion Explained

>27 John5918: If one looks at the official teaching of the mainstream branches of most of the major world religions one will find they are more intrinsically peaceful than violent.

The Constitution of the United States didn't explicitly mention slavery until it finally got around to banning it. "Official teachings" are cute, but can range from the half-truths or obfuscatory phrased truths, to outright lies that only the gullible believe.

If some force declared right now that in a year's time, the US would have to declare for one church, there would be more American blood spilled by Americans today then on any day since the end of the Civil War.* That's why I'm a fan of the secular state, because it means that we don't have to have that war. I can live in a country where neither me nor my family are second-class citizens.

I would also say that we separate a lot from politics; we do not endorse a national race any more then we endorse a national religion. We make a lot of lines of equality or at least neutrality, to keep various groups away from each other's throats.

* The Catholics would have the worst of it, I think, since they are the largest single group and yet the Protestants can agree they find the Catholics intolerable. Realpolitik and ethics would battle, and I'm afraid I wouldn't stand up for much for the Catholics; if there's enough of them for a vote, they win, and I don't want them to win; I'm holding out for the UUs as a compromise vote.

>30 prosfilaes: "Official teachings" are cute, but can range from the half-truths or obfuscatory phrased truths, to outright lies that only the gullible believe.

Of course they can. As has been said before and as I have agreed, individuals can interpret anything to mean almost anything. But nevertheless, most mainstream religions are intrinsically geared more towards peace than violence, despite the aberrations of some of their followers. I don't find your hypothetical case very persuasive.

>27 John5918: If one looks at the official teaching of the mainstream branches of most of the major world religions

...one will find that the teachings have little to do with how individual members actually relate to religious concepts. Though I have unfortunately not made a note of where Boyer says as much. Yet I will provide some more of the 19 interesting quotes that I extracted from his marvellous book which I hope will elucidate the matter to those who get the point.

"The Kwaio ancestors are a perfect example of supernatural agents who matter to people. Now, this may seem paradoxical, the Kwaio are also remarkably vague as concerns the exact nature of the adalo, where ancestors actually live and so on."

This nebulosity is retained even if people are suckered into a religious guild.

"Having religion does not necessarily imply that one has ‘a’ religion with a particular doctrine. Those features that we find straightforward and natural are in fact the outcome of a very specific history. In some historical conditions, religious specialists group themselves in institutionalised associations (churches, castes, etc.) and diffuse a particular description of what their function is. It then becomes clear to everyone, first, that there is such a thing as ‘religion’ as a special domain of concepts and activities; second, that there are different ‘religions’, that is, different possible ways of practising religion, one of which is more valid; third, that adopting a particular religion means joining a social group, establishing a community of believers, emphasising the demarcation between us and them."

And this is why there is only one way of dealing with the problems associated with religion: quit people of their habit of accepting nonsensical claims entirely:

"Sociologist Max Weber emphasised this phenomenon, contrasting a routinised version of religious authority, where everything is defined and described by the appropriate religious officials, with periodic outbursts of charismatic or revolutionary activity. The latter are generally centred on inspiring individuals who rekindle people’s religious passion – blunted by the repetitive and bureaucratic teachings of the religious guild – around spectacular rituals and renewed enthusiasm. Indeed, many religious traditions seem to oscillate between such poles. This oscillation has been documented for Islam and various Hindu and Buddhist movements, as well as Christian movements."

I suggest quitting them of their habit through encouraging them to no longer pretend to know things they don't know. Which should rid us of those pesky religion-seeds too, the cults.

It's a very good book.

>27 John5918: Fair comment, but then anybody can twist anything to justify doing whatever they want to do. If one looks at the official teaching of the mainstream branches of most of the major world religions one will find they are more intrinsically peaceful than violent.

Anything that imposes order is by definition "more intrinsically peaceful than it is violent." But when it comes to justifications, religion has the trump card, doesn't it? In the end, if you decide (believe?) you are doing what God wants, there's no gainsaying that. That's the problem I have with religion at it's basic level. Not that some of its more deluded followers do crazy, violent things. Lots of people do crazy, violent things.

No, it's that no matter what kind of believer a person is, their justification for their actions come down to doing what God wants, not the recognition and acceptance that they are doing what they want. They abdicate the ultimate reason (and therefore responsibility) for their actions and give it to God.

Now I realize that the "intrinsically peaceful" (It's always a qualified peace) religions of Christianity, etc, place a high value in living up to what God wants, so that there is also a demand for accepting personal responsibility. I do understand that there is nuance here, and that most religions have complex theology of what it means to be, say, a "good" person in a flawed world.

But nevertheless, that difference between the believer's faith in the absolute good and my conviction that that no such thing exists so I had better be on my toes if I want to be good, remains one of my core objections to religion, especially in its institutionalized form.

And after all, my friend Eustace says that all followers of YHWH are evil, and Eustace knows everything. If people don't stop following YHWH, Eustace will start ... doing things.

>33 southernbooklady: Thanks, NIcki. I have always respected your objections to religion. I'm not sure, though, whether your observations of religion make it any more prone to violence than any other human institution, which is the main thrust of this thread.

I would be careful with the statement: no matter what kind of believer a person is, their justification for their actions come down to doing what God wants, not the recognition and acceptance that they are doing what they want. I think you will find that for many believers it is much more nuanced than that. Certainly there are those who feel they must obey God regardless of whether they agree with it or not. But there are many others who feel that they must do what their conscience tells them is right. That is actually official Catholic teaching, to cite but one example. The unspoken assumption is perhaps that God will help their consciences in the right direction, but still it is ultimately up to me to try to do what I think is right, just as I assume you try to do what you think is right.

>35 John5918: I'm not sure, though, whether your observations of religion make it any more prone to violence than any other human institution

Which brings me back to my original statement. Religion does not cause violence, it is just a good justification for it.

The unspoken assumption is perhaps that God will help their consciences in the right direction, but still it is ultimately up to me to try to do what I think is right, just as I assume you try to do what you think is right.

I did try to acknowledge that I was simplifying things. This would be an example of what I called "the theology of how to be a good person in a flawed world." I don't know how, say, Catholic theology views "the conscience" -- I think of it as our ability to distinguish right from wrong. But the source for what we think is "right" and what is "wrong" is still up for debate, isn't it?

but still it is ultimately up to me to try to do what I think is right, just as I assume you try to do what you think is right.

Which is why I don't object to religious people on principle. (Actually, I don't think I reject any individual person "on principle" -- that would be against my conscience!)

Also, why I think the tendency we have to scoff at people who don't agree with us as "stupid" or "immoral" is worse than useless. Which is probably why I'm inclined to snap a bit at both sides with the atheists and the believers get going on these threads. :-)

>36 southernbooklady: the source for what we think is "right" and what is "wrong" is still up for debate, isn't it?

Indeed. My ideas of right and wrong have been influenced by my parents, my teachers, my mentors, my friends, my wife, by all sorts of people and events around me, by authors and international figures, by my life experience, what I have seen and what I have done, by relationships. Would that be true of most human beings? So for those of us who have a relationship with God it would be surprising if that were not also a factor influencing our ideas of right and wrong.

>37 John5918: Would that be true of most human beings?

Indeed it would. There are orders of influence however, don't you think? The sense of right and wrong you get from your parents is probably weightier than the sense you get from your friends in high school.

In matters of scientific theory I'm fond of saying "Nature is the ultimate authority" (I'm quoting Feynman, I think). Thus it doesn't matter if you don't want to believe sea levels are rising, if they are rising they are rising.

Perhaps I'm really off base here, but it was my understanding that God was "the ultimate authority" of morality--the ultimate "Good," as it were. Isn't that the idea behind moral realism? So if God exists, and you want to be good, then you want to be closer to God. If you think (believe?) something is what God...intends...then conscience doesn't come into it, does it?

ETA: I should say that it is clear to me that ultimately what matters is what we do, which is why I can be somewhat sanguine about people having religious motivations for their actions (in a way that Richard Dawkins, for example, apparently can't).

But this adherence to an absolute idea of good is not completely benign, and it can cause as much needless strife as it purports to avoid, even in small ways. Witness, the rather heated exchange over whether or not it was okay to use "Cup" instead of "Chalice" when saying mass that happened on the Francis thread.

That was a bizarre argument to witness from a non-believer's point of view. But it did seem founded on who had the better interpretation of what it means to be good, in a general sense.

>38 southernbooklady: Can't really disagree with most of that. It was a rather bizarre argument, wasn't it, especially over something which in itself was trivial!

you want to be closer to God. If you think (believe?) something is what God...intends...then conscience doesn't come into it, does it?

Perhaps it comes down to how one thinks/believes what God intends. Whichever religious community/narrative I situate myself in, ultimately it is between me and God, it is my understanding of my relationship with God; this could perhaps be called my conscience. I think a religious person can in some sense be as autonomous as an atheist in that respect.

>31 John5918: As has been said before and as I have agreed, individuals can interpret anything to mean almost anything. But nevertheless, most mainstream religions are intrinsically geared more towards peace than violence, despite the aberrations of some of their followers.

That's acting as if the high-minded principles espoused are more intrinsic then the reality. Thus, neither the US or UK are intrinsically geared towards violence, as instead of having military geared towards war, their militaries are both controlled by departments or ministries of defense.

Christianity and violence seems like a good example. Christianity promotes peace. Some groups take it to the logical end and become pacifists, but only a few. For the rest, there doesn't seem to be much guidance at all, nor do the non-pacifistic churches show much more propensity to objecting to war then the surrounding society.

I don't find your hypothetical case very persuasive.

You don't think that removing the enforced peace treaty between American religions wouldn't result in violence? In the Philadelphia Bible Riots, Americans burned a Catholic church when we perceived they were meddling in local politics; I don't hesitate to believe that we'd do it again and worse should the concept of the US becoming a Catholic theocracy become a real threat.

>40 prosfilaes: Christianity promotes peace. Some groups take it to the logical end and become pacifists, but only a few.

It's true that very few take it to the extreme of becoming pacifists. Many Christians do accept that they can fight for their countries, particularly if the war appears to be defensive or to satisfy certain criteria for a "just war". In fact, they behave just like anybody else, religious or non-religious. But religious people participating in secular wars is not "religious violence", and it is still true to say that most religions promote peace rather than violence.

>41 John5918: In fact, they behave just like anybody else, religious or non-religious.

Right. Meaning for the Christians who don't become pacifists, claims about non-violence are just puffery. There are a lot of organizations, like the World Federation of Chess, that have a better reputation for at least not advocating for war.

>36 southernbooklady:, >38 southernbooklady:

For what it is worth, in Catholic thought, conscience is in a sense the voice of God in our heart, calling us to love, do what is good and to avoid evil.

And I promise not to bring any discussion of cups to this forum :)

>40 prosfilaes: Christianity and violence seems like a good example. Christianity promotes peace. Some groups take it to the logical end and become pacifists, but only a few.
>41 John5918: Many Christians do accept that they can fight for their countries, particularly if the war appears to be defensive or to satisfy certain criteria for a "just war". In fact, they behave just like anybody else, religious or non-religious.

Insofar as Christianity goes, what goes under the name of organized Christianity is so far from the gospels as to constitute an utter travesty. Jacques Ellul was prone to discriminating between what he called "Christianity" and "Christendom", which were, in his mind, almost mutually exclusive; and I have to say that I am in total agreement with that.

One of the things that makes the Bible such an interesting book is watching the process of corruption beginning even before the death of Jesus -- a process which is chronicled and accelerated in the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline epistles.

>44 jburlinson:

One of the things that makes the Bible such an interesting book is watching the process of corruption beginning even before the death of Jesus -- a process which is chronicled and accelerated in the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline epistles.

It is likely a topic for a different thread, but how do you think it would be possible to extract a "uncorrupted Christianity" from the Gospels in this way?

The Pauline epistles are considered by scholars to have been written before the Gospels themselves, and Acts is considered to have been written by the writer of the last of the Synoptic Gospels (Luke).

If Christianity was corrupted this early, the Gospels are corrupt as well. Extracting authentic tradition in these circumstances, as say historical Jesus scholars have recently started to acknowledge, then becomes extremely speculative beyond a very generic outline.

>43 hf22: in Catholic thought, conscience is in a sense the voice of God in our heart, calling us to love, do what is good and to avoid evil.

that's my understanding of religiously-based morality in general. that good comes from God. So a believer will not refuse that call, will they? How could they? And it prompts me to ask...could a believer be talked out of following that call? Wouldn't doing so be a rejection of God? An option not really on the table?

That's where I differ, I think, from the religious person. No matter how strongly I feel about something, I hold to the reality that I could be wrong. It is, I suppose, a kind comfort to me--the acceptance that I am open to being talked out of a decision that turns out to be a mistake. That I'm conscious I make mistakes.

But I don't really see how a person could, say, fly a plane into a building (or sacrifice their son on a mountain top--the story of Abraham and Isaac is my least favorite tale in the Old Testament) unless they were absolutely positive they were doing "the right thing." And it alarms me that there are people who are so certain they are right that they could do such a thing. I don't think such people could be reasoned with. And I do think that religion is an excellent protective coat to wear if you happen to be such a person, since it pretty much exists to answer the question "what is it to be good?"

>46 southernbooklady:

So a believer will not refuse that call, will they? How could they? And it prompts me to ask...could a believer be talked out of following that call? Wouldn't doing so be a rejection of God? An option not really on the table?

Well, there is always scope to discuss what actually is a call from God, and what is not. It is not really different to any moral framework, religious or not, in that regard.

That's where I differ, I think, from the religious person. No matter how strongly I feel about something, I hold to the reality that I could be wrong. It is, I suppose, a kind comfort to me--the acceptance that I am open to being talked out of a decision that turns out to be a mistake. That I'm conscious I make mistakes.

I am religious, and am generally aware of making 5 mistakes before breakfast. We know plenty well we may be wrong. Doubt is a core part of the religious experience (and the more general human experience), even I suspect for Islamic suicide bombers.

unless they were absolutely positive they were doing "the right thing." And it alarms me that there are people who are so certain they are right that they could do such a thing.

But the same could be said of any self-sacrifice. Like say the Birkenhead Drill (http://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/Women-Children-First/).

A humanity without the capacity for such acts would be lesser for it IMO.

>45 hf22: how do you think it would be possible to extract a "uncorrupted Christianity" from the Gospels in this way?

You're probably right that another thread might be an appropriate place to continue this conversation; but, if we simply take the gospel texts as they are written, and don't worry overmuch about historicity, on the one hand, or methodological issues relating to textual criticism, on the other hand, we are left with a Rashomon-style tale about a mysterious person who lived in the kingdom of heaven while on earth and taught other creatures how to do the same. The fact that this person was met with incomprehension and betrayal by friends and foes alike is very much part of the tale -- a tale which has not yet reached its end, even though some consider the foundational texts were finished long ago.

>48 jburlinson:

Ah, Ok. That pretty much lets me know where you are coming from.

I guess my issue would be, your approach is so speculative, each individual who attempts the task would end up with their own version of "uncorrupted Christianity" (or alternatively some tiny core of agreed content - Such as Rashomon-style tale).

I am not real sure why anyone would bother with Christianity (corrupted or not) under this concept, at least in the long term.

But I guess you might see my objections as features, rather than a bugs. / End tangent.

>46 southernbooklady: But I don't really see how a person could, say, fly a plane into a building... unless they were absolutely positive they were doing "the right thing." And it alarms me that there are people who are so certain they are right that they could do such a thing. I don't think such people could be reasoned with.

Or drop an atomic bomb on a Japanese city? Or participate in a thousand-bomber raid to destroy a German city in a firestorm? Or drop chemical weapons and napalm randomly on Vietnamese civilians? Or fire a missile from a drone into a house where you know you will kill a wedding party as well as someone who has been designated an "enemy"? Or participate in the atrocities which occurred as colonialists exercised their "civilising" (aka exploitative) agenda on three quarters of the world? Religious conviction has no monopoly on people committing horrendous acts because they are absolutely positive that they (or their country or their political leaders) are doing the right thing.

>48 jburlinson: if we simply take the gospel texts as they are written, and don't worry overmuch about historicity, on the one hand, or methodological issues relating to textual criticism

Why would we want to take such a literalist view, which certainly wouldn't get us any closer to an "uncorrupted" position?

>50 John5918: Why would we want to take such a literalist view, which certainly wouldn't get us any closer to an "uncorrupted" position?

I am certainly not advocating a literalist view, if by "literalist" you mean the view that the happenings described in the gospels are all historically accurate. I'm not sure how you thought that I was; I specifically said that it doesn't pay much to worry about historical accuracy, whatever that might be taken to mean. Similarly, it isn't particularly important (although it can be somewhat interesting to consider) who wrote the gospels, or when, or how, or even why. What is important is the idea of the Christ: the Word.

>50 John5918: Or drop an atomic bomb on a Japanese city?

Not to mention, a second bomb on another city.

I can just about understand, intellectually, how they managed to drop the first bomb. But having seen the results, I've never been able to grasp how they could bring themselves to do it again.

Religious conviction has no monopoly on people committing horrendous acts

I think I've said as much. Ideology of any kind can be used as an excuse. Though I think the question posed above, "why do we need the excuse?" is worth consideration.

"A 37-year-old man has been executed in Iran after being found guilty of heresy and insulting prophet Jonah, according to human rights activists.
Mohsen Amir-Aslani was arrested nine years ago for his activities which the authorities deemed were heretical. He was engaged in psychotherapy but also led sessions reading and reciting the Qur’an and providing his own interpretations of the Islamic holy book, his family said.
Amir-Aslani was hanged last week for making “innovations in the religion” and “spreading corruption on earth”, but human rights activists said he was a prisoner of conscience who was put to death because of his religious beliefs. He had interpreted Jonah’s story in the Qur’an as a symbolic tale." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/29/iran-executes-man-heresy-mohsen-ami...

In Durkheimian terms, Amir-Aslani profaned sacred beliefs, an offense constituting such a severe shock to the collective conscience that he was expiated from the community of believers.

>52 southernbooklady: the question posed above, "why do we need the excuse?" is worth consideration.

It's an interesting question. It seems to me that the violence comes first -- it's deeply ingrained in the way a "natural" life is lived. The rewards of violence are obvious and immediate, so that violence would seem to be self-justifying. As far as I can tell, this is how it is for the rest of the animal kingdom.

Yet humans seem troubled by it, to the point where we feel the need for rationales or explanations. So here comes religion, patriotism, family pride, and a whole host of other social systems that give us the means by which we can assuage our concerns about our violent nature. Oddly enough, one of these systems, religion, actually has a strong element in it that comes out and explains why we have misgivings about violence and actually prods us to stop being so violent. Then, perversely, we turn around and use that same system as a justification for more violence.

Can't get around the fact, though, that the violence is built in and pre-dates any of the systems. I know people don't like the concept of original sin, but I'm darned if I can come up with a better phrase.

>54 jburlinson: It seems to me that the violence comes first -- it's deeply ingrained in the way a "natural" life is lived.

One might say it is a necessity, at a biological level.

>55 southernbooklady: One might say it is a necessity, at a biological level.

Yes. Which is why the phrase "original sin" seems so apt. Even many people who don't believe in original sin, seem to think that this part of our biological necessity merits our disapproval. I'd be interested in knowing why.

Which is why the phrase "original sin" seems so apt.

I don't like the term when it is applied to the natural state of things, which includes both birth and death. It seems to be a wholly anthropomorphic assessment of existence that rejects the role of death. Wasn't it you that first broached the idea on one of these threads that "original sin" was not that we did something bad, but that we decided to start calling some things "good" and others "bad" at all?

"Sin" is such a loaded word. So much baggage.

>57 southernbooklady: I don't like the term when it is applied to the natural state of things ... "Sin" is such a loaded word. So much baggage.

I can understand your distaste. Organized Christianity has made the word appear to mean that people are doing something reprehensible. And yet, many non-Christians and atheists seem to recoil from violence, even though it's so pervasive in the natural state of things, so there's some sense that violence, though natural, is unacceptable. I don't see how a person can get out of this circular predicament unless one is willing either to go against the grain of nature, or to acknowledge the violence and come to accept it, even glory in it.

Wasn't it you that first broached the idea on one of these threads that "original sin" was not that we did something bad, but that we decided to start calling some things "good" and others "bad" at all?

Yes, and I still think that. Violence is one of those things that, for some reason, we call "bad". That's a problem of our own making, not something inherently wrong in the universe.

>52 southernbooklady: I can just about understand, intellectually, how they managed to drop the first bomb. But having seen the results, I've never been able to grasp how they could bring themselves to do it again.

On one hand, they had already killed 100,000 people in Tokyo in two days of bombing; the exceptional nature of the first atom bomb is really overrated. On the other hand, the point of much war and this particular attack is to force such atrocities on your enemies that they surrender, and it apparently wasn't atrocious enough to get the Japanese to surrender.

War is hell. I always wonder about how people look at WWI and think Hiroshima was the turning point. A million bodies piled up on the Somme; does their age and gender really make that much difference?

>59 prosfilaes:

It is truely amazing the extent of destruction required for people to give up on war as a viable strategy.

One looks at say the Middle East and wonders why people do not say enough is enough, untill you consider WWI, WWII or even something like the 30 Years War (to mention something with a religous theme), and you realise they have not even gotten close to that point yet.

>60 hf22: It is truely amazing the extent of destruction required for people to give up on war as a viable strategy.

the inevitable result of what happens when people with everything to gain meet people with nothing to lose?

>61 southernbooklady:

It does not even have to an all or nothing matter - It appears even to apply to circumstances where a settlement could be reached. It just looks like groups of people have a high tolerance for loss, when they deem a matter important. They don't have to be desperate.

It should also be remember, in the context of WWII strategic bombing, all sides were surprised at how resilient civilian populations were. Some have even argued the extent the Allies bombing in this context partly arose because they did not realise what they were getting into when they started.

>60 hf22: wonders why people do not say enough is enough

Because people enjoy it and it works.

>63 jburlinson:

I suppose my point is it continues being used long after it has much chance of working. I mean, Isreal v Arabs is what, 60 years on in its current format?

On the other hand, I agree some people do enjoy it, find meaning in it, not to mention power and status. Like Robert E. Lee said, "It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it".

>57 southernbooklady:, >58 jburlinson:

"original sin" was not that we did something bad, but that we decided to start calling some things "good" and others "bad" at all?

Sounds like Blake, particularly Book of Urizen (among other puns, "your reason") but for me that angle has always been a frustrating combination of aesthetic elegance and pragmatic uselessness.

>65 krolik: a frustrating combination of aesthetic elegance and pragmatic uselessness.

If pragmatism is what we're after, it's hard to think of a more useless pastime than pondering whether something is good or bad. The thing simply "is" -- so the pragmatic thing is to determine how to profit from it.

The decision to drop A-bombs on the Japanese is not difficult to understand. The Japanese had initiated the Pacific war by bombing the US Navy at Pearl Harbor, before declaring war. They horribly mistreated POWs and civilians. By the end of the war, Japanese pilots became suicide bombers. The Japanese were not "playing by the rules" and wouldn't come to a negotiated surrender. We had no information about the conditions within Japan and had every reason to use any weapons at our disposal to stop the loss of Allied lives.

>67 IreneF: Precisely. People on one side of that conflict found it very easy to justify killing hundreds of thousands of civilians on the other side, just as people on one side of current conflicts find it easy to justify killing thousands of civilians on the other side. I find both difficult to justify.

bombing the US Navy at Pearl Harbor, before declaring war... The Japanese were not "playing by the rules" and wouldn't come to a negotiated surrender

I think I'm embarking on a red herring by addressing these points, and historians can correct me, but my understanding was that the Japanese did attempt to deliver a declaration of war but that it got snarled up in bureaucracy, decryption and translation. I also understand that, like the Germans, they were not offered a negotiated surrender, only an unconditional one. As for playing by the rules, I suppose the big question is who makes the rules? Even the Geneva Conventions and Protocols, which do have international credibility, are routinely ignored; recent examples include renditions and declaring people "illegal combatants" and refusing them the rights of POWs.

>68 John5918: The decision to drop A-bombs on the Japanese is not difficult to understand.

As I said, I can grasp it intellectually...at least the first one. I sort of stutter to a halt at the idea that, having seen what the first bomb did, they could drop a second.

The usual justification...that it brought a war to a screeching halt that would have otherwise cost thousands of lives in future hostilities is a cold comfort. I can't really weigh the real loss of 100,000 people against the potential loss of 100,000 others with any satisfaction.

I suppose the big question is who makes the rules?

And rules are only of limited help when something happens that they do not anticipate. Like a bomb destructive enough to destroy an entire city?

US President Eisenhower required his staff to read the very slim The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, which I think goes a long way in explaining how religion, nationalism, and other -isms can be used by leaders to ill ends. On the other hand Darwin's Cathedral: Evolution, Religion and the Nature of Society shows that religion etc. can also be used by wise leaders to good ends, e.g., irrigation projects, community survival, conservation of scarce resources.

I think I would have been in favor of dropping the bombs. We had already seen what the Japanese were capable of. See, for example, The Rape of Nanking. The Japanese were a terrifying foe. The Pacific War was brutal and we didn't want any more of "our boys" killed.

>71 IreneF:

In favour of dropping bombs on civilian population? Really, you see no problems with that? Then how does "what the Japanese are capable of" matter at all, seeing what YOUR side is capable of?

That line of reasoning justifies all kinds of warfare, including terrorism against civilian population. And that's what throwing atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was: pure, literal terrorism.

>71 IreneF: I think I would have been in favor of dropping the bombs.

Even after 9/11 I was not in favor of going to war in Afghanistan. I think I was the only one in the whole country, though. One good reason I never went into government or strategic policy (as others in my field in college did) was I knew I didn't want to be put in the position of making that kind of decision.

>72 LolaWalser: civilian population

I believe that Truman drafted them into the military before bombing them, so they weren't civilians, and thus their deaths are no big deal. As I said above, I find despicable the idea that it's A-OK to kill male teenagers who were unlucky enough to be drafted, but not people who weren't draftable. If both sides have drafts, then both sides have committed to killing people who are basically civilians.

At worst, no more Japanese died then were expected (even with low estimates) to die in the invasion, and it prevented some large number of American deaths. Also, 100,000 a month were dying in Japanese-controlled China.

And every side that could did the best to cut off the food supplies of their enemies: http://www.thenation.com/article/167059/food-fights is a review of The Taste of War that details the basic points. Again, I assert that this microfocus on one weapon is absurd; the nuclear weapon was but one edge of the total war that was WWII.

>73 southernbooklady: I think I was the only one in the whole country, though.

There was at least one other.

As for the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan, there's evidence that Truman, many of the decision makers in his administration and the general public in America thought the a-bomb was just a huge and enormously efficient blast device -- basically a regular bomb on steroids. The idea of the lingering effects of radioactive fallout was not well understood and for many years the public was fed information about the beneficial, not the harmful, consequences of nuclear power. David E. Lilienthal, the first head of the Atomic Energy Commission, was a valued advisor to Truman and a tireless promoter of the nuclear industry, who constantly called the sun "a huge atomic energy factory" and nuclear radiation was no more harmful than, and probably just as healthful as, the life-giving rays of the sun.

>74 prosfilaes:

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm bothered by this discussion precisely because the death of human beings in war is a big deal for me. Have YOU been in a war zone?

At worst, no more Japanese died then were expected (even with low estimates) to die in the invasion, and it prevented some large number of American deaths.

Also, 100,000 a month were dying in Japanese-controlled China.

American deaths aren't more troublesome than anyone else's deaths. The civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombed nobody. They didn't even get to vote to bomb anyone, unlike Americans past and present. Would it have been acceptable to bomb your ass because of what your military was about to do in Iraq?

But I'm too disgusted to continue with this. If I'm ever in the mood for the "ugly American" exhibition, or the next time an American asks me about why "everyone hates Americans", I'll remember where to look.

Yes, the effects of the bombs were not fully known. Most of what we know now is benefit of hindsight.

I realized after I had kids how much I would do to protect them. That "mother bear" thing. I would try to kill anyone who threatened them. I would blow up thousands of Japanese if my kid had been over there.

100,000 people a month? That's a lot of people.

I was not in favor of invading Iraq or any of the other countries we've trampled on. I'm still not, although now we have huge numbers of refugees fleeing both Syria and the Islamic State.

>76 LolaWalser: I'm bothered by this discussion precisely because the death of human beings in war is a big deal for me.

Bitching about civilian deaths does not give me that impression.

Also, 100,000 a month were dying in Japanese-controlled China.

American deaths aren't more troublesome than anyone else's deaths.

So you quoted sentences about saving Japanese and Chinese lives, and then you offer that response? And hell yes, the US military, in defending itself against invaders, had every right to be more concerned about American deaths then Japanese deaths.

The civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombed nobody

Neither did the kids who would have died on Japanese shores if they hadn't been bombed. Once again, somehow once someone becomes drafted, their lives become without value.

Would it have been acceptable to bomb your ass because of what your military was about to do in Iraq?

YES, YOU MORON. That's what war is. Had Iraq or its allies been able to bomb us, it probably would have discouraged us from attacking Iraq.

If I'm ever in the mood for the "ugly American" exhibition, or the next time an American asks me about why "everyone hates Americans", I'll remember where to look.

Except for some of those people from Japanese-controlled China or Singapore or even the Philippines who are glad they or their ancestors didn't have to die for your scruples.

And this is a way that Europeans and Canadians convince Americans to stop listening to what they say. You want to say that you disagree with what I have to say, fine. But you want to consider the mere fact that someone is defending this action as evidence of an ugly American? It's pointless to talk to you; unless I denounce my country in every manner, shape and form I will still be an ugly American to you.

And, no, everyone doesn't hate Americans. As per http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/u-s-soars-world-popularity-charts-post-iraq-wi... , about 64 percent of the world likes us. As for those who really don't like us, there's a pattern: Turkey, Jordan, and Pakistan are all Islamic countries near the Middle East tangled in our recent wars. I don't think they give a flying fuck about the bombs we dropped on Japan before most of us were born.

Up until the morning of Dec. 7, 1941, the US was against involvement in the conflict. We declared war on Japan on Dec 8. Public opinion did a 180. Would any other nation have acted differently?

Just to bring some of these recent posts back into the topic of the OP: the Japanese emperor was considered to be Arahitogami (a divinity in human form), a direct descendent of Amaterasu-ōmikami, goddess of the sun and universe in the Shinto religion.

>80 jburlinson:
And during Japan's period of modernization, religion became an arm of the state, as a means to build nationalism.

>71 IreneF: Again I say, precisely. You are on one side of a conflict and you see no problem with the killing of thousands of people, for reasons which you sincerely believe are very good. Can you not understand that people on the other side of a conflict also see no problem with killing thousands of people for reasons which they think are equally good?

>73 southernbooklady: Even after 9/11 I was not in favor of going to war in Afghanistan.

I happened to be in the USA in 2003 when the USA, UK and allies attacked Iraq. My own US friends, and their friends, were against it. They took me to prayer services, candlelit vigils, and silent vigils on the opposite street corners to people with "Honk if you support the war" type posters. My US friends were particularly miffed by their compatriots who accused them of being un-American and unpatriotic because they opposed this particular bit of military adventurism.

US Presidents Truman and Eisenhower have been mentioned in recent posts. Might also be worth mentioning Roosevelt.

Appeal of President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Aerial Bombardment of Civilian Populations, September 1, 1939

The President of the United States to the Governments of France, Germany, Italy, Poland and His Britannic Majesty, September 1, 1939

The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers of population during the course of the hostilities which have raged in various quarters of the earth during the past few years, which has resulted in the maiming and in the death of thousands of defenseless men, women, and children, has sickened the hearts of every civilized man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity.

If resort is had to this form of inhuman barbarism during the period of the tragic conflagration with which the world is now confronted, hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings who have no responsibility for, and who are not even remotely participating in, the hostilities which have now broken out, will lose their lives. I am therefore addressing this urgent appeal to every government which may be engaged in hostilities publicly to affirm its determination that its armed forces shall in no event, and under no circumstances, undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations or of unfortified cities, upon the understanding that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all of their opponents. I request an immediate reply.

Atrocitology makes it pretty clear that a lot of the world's worst conflicts were based on religious feelings. (Either that, or all the chroniclers of said conflicts were lying, which seems unlikely.) Justification is certainly a part of it; most societies have rules against murdering people and taking their stuff, and that training becomes pretty ingrained, even applying to some extent to outsiders... unless the 'other' happens to be part of a heretical, offensive belief which threatens your way of life, of course.

Religion is and has been a central part of how people define themselves. It's much easier to de-humanize someone who defines themselves differently.

Race/ethnic background is another way this is done; thus the horror when Great Britain invaded the Boer Republic (fellow Whites and Christians) as compared to the relative indifference of the conquest of India.

>82 John5918: If resort is had to this form of inhuman barbarism during the period of the tragic conflagration with which the world is now confronted, hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings who have no responsibility for, and who are not even remotely participating in, the hostilities which have now broken out, will lose their lives.

This seems to be an unarguable sentiment, and yet human history is replete with instances to the contrary, including, but not starting with, the salting of the earth of Carthage after the third Punic War. The complete and utter destruction of the enemy, which includes anyone allied with or in any way sympathetic with the enemy, is felt to be the only sure way to be "safe".

My question remains -- what evidence from the natural world do we have that violence, even the most extreme and undiscriminating kinds of violence, is not successful or in any way "wrong"?

ETA -- Roosevelt's mention of "inhuman" barbarism is, of course, wrong. There's nothing inhuman about violence.

>84 jburlinson: Roosevelt's mention of "inhuman" barbarism is, of course, wrong. There's nothing inhuman about violence.

It does, however, suggest an answer to your previous question: "what evidence is there that violence is 'wrong'?"

Roosevelt's statement implies that we feel violence is something that makes us feel "inhuman" -- something that makes us alien to our conception of ourselves. And there is probably something instinctive in this, given that one of our coping mechanisms when dealing with extreme violence is to mentally disassociate ourselves from what is happening to us or around us.

>85 southernbooklady: something that makes us alien to our conception of ourselves. And there is probably something instinctive in this...

This something is what I consider the "Christian instinct", not because it started with Jesus, but because the Jesus presented in the gospels is the personification of the instinct -- which is that "the world" is in some way in opposition to the "kingdom of heaven" and that we have the power within ourselves to choose to live in one or the other.

>83 BruceCoulson: Religion is and has been a central part of how people define themselves. It's much easier to de-humanize someone who defines themselves differently. | Race/ethnic background is another way this is done; thus the horror when Great Britain invaded the Boer Republic (fellow Whites and Christians) as compared to the relative indifference of the conquest of India.

Right, but what the "great religions" did was to expand the number of people with whom one identifies, to the point now where, say, the Pope deplores violence for all and promotes freedom of conscience for other religions. As Stephen Pinker says in his TED talk, there is far less violence today per capita than in the past. Game theory shows that those who practice one of the "great religions" (especially Muslims) are more honest in dealings with others (e.g. in the market). Increasingly, such religions allow us to live together in more harmony than ever we would have manged to in the past. Not perfect by a long shot, but better than before, and, I think, better still in future.

>87 margd:
A book I recently read (ok, read half of) made a point of in-group behavior vs. a structure of justice. (The book is The Tyranny of Experts by William Easterly.) Members of a self-identified group (a family, clan, guild) will behave ethically to each other because they know that cheating will result in expulsion. Conversely, they may feel less compunction about dealing honestly with outsiders. There is no cost to anyone in the group for this informal justice.

A civil structure, such as a court system, has a cost, usually through taxation, but it affects the behavior of everyone in the society, and it exists independently of the individual members of society. (The justice system was in place 100 years ago, and it will be in place 100 years hence.) Therefore everyone is obliged to behave according to the rules.

So you might treat me well because I know the secret handshake or wear a cross, but those people who wear the crescent? Barbarians.

I think the game theory market study showed the tendency to be honest in dealings extended to all. Maybe some extend slightly better deals for same-kind? I think, though, that the principles in time overcome bad, self-interested leadership. Also, religions like Christianity and Islam cross national borders and include many races, so we maybe identify more with other nationalities and races than we otherwise might?

That, plus the interweaving of our economies make wars less likely per capita all the time. After writing The Moral Animal: Why We are the Way We Are, atheist Robert Wright followed up with Non-Zero: The Logic of Human Destiny, in which he considered why in a secular world we don't relapse into bad old ways. (It's in my interest that you live to buy my stuff, etc.)

Archeologists in Middle East found surprisingly high number of buried bodies had head injuries--women as well as men. As bad as it is now, even there one can expect to die peacefully in one's bed?

Archaeologists nearly everywhere find a high percentage of people who died by violence, including women and children.

Either Genghis Khan or Timur (Tamburlaine) is estimated to have killed 5% of the world's population. That has never been topped.

The Muslim world seems now convulsed with sectarian violence, so it's hard to claim that they are more likely to live together in harmony.

I wonder if affluence makes the developed world more peaceful. Wealthier people are under less stress, and have access to what they need. We don't need to make sure we have enough food, like the Germans and Japanese did.

>87 margd: what the "great religions" did was to expand the number of people with whom one identifies

Thanks for making this point. At their best, the great religions tell us that all human beings (and indeed in some manifestations all life) are part of the group with which we must identify.

>90 IreneF: The Muslim world seems now convulsed with sectarian violence, so it's hard to claim that they are more likely to live together in harmony.

While there are obviously some very highly visible groups of Muslims who are engaged in sectarian violence, I'm not sure one can say that "the Muslim world" is "convulsed with violence". Out of 1.2 billion people, I wonder how many are actually "convulsed with violence", compared with how many are living peaceful lives according to their faith?

Edited to add:

I wonder if affluence makes the developed world more peaceful.

Is the developed world more peaceful? Or does it simply fight its wars in other people's countries?

I wonder if affluence makes the developed world more greedy, more arrogant, more extravagant in its use of natural resources, and gives it more of a sense of entitlement and need to control others, none of which really lead to a more peaceful environment.

A developed world is a more ordered world, so in that sense it is more "peaceful." That doesn't mean it is more rewarding or fulfilling or "better." If the goal is not to live in fear, a peaceful but repressive regime is not much better than a chaotic one.

More from Karen Armstrong:

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/23/karen_armstrong_sam_harris_anti_islam_talk_fills...

When you hear, for example, Sam Harris and Bill Maher recently arguing that there’s something inherently violent about Islam — Sam Harris said something like “Islam is the motherlode of bad ideas” — when you hear something like that, how do you respond?

It fills me with despair, because this is the sort of talk that led to the concentration camps in Europe. This is the kind of thing people were saying about Jews in the 1930s and ’40s in Europe.

This is how I got into this, not because I’m dying to apologize, as you say, for religion, or because I’m filled with love and sympathy and kindness for all beings including Muslims — no. I’m filled with a sense of dread. We pride ourselves so much on our fairness and our toleration, and yet we’ve been guilty of great wrongs. Germany was one of the most cultivated countries in Europe; it was one of the leading players in the Enlightenment, and yet we discovered that a concentration camp can exist within the same vicinity as a university.

There has always been this hard edge in modernity. John Locke, apostle of toleration, said the liberal state could under no circumstances tolerate the presence of either Catholics or Muslims. Locke also said that a master had absolute and despotical power over a slave, which included the right to kill him at any time.