Talk:Religious violence

New content

About the content added in this diff by User:46.10.52.226 , copied below:

In AD 326, the Christianizator of Rome Saint Constantine the Great promulgated a law that increased the penalties for things related to personal life, for parentally non-sanctioned "abduction" of their girls, and concomitant sexual intercourse/rape. The man would be burnt alive without the possibility of appeal, and the girl would receive the same treatment if she had participated willingly. Nurses who had corrupted their female wards and led them to sexual encounters would have molten lead poured down their throats. In the same year, Constantine also passed a law that said if a woman married her own slave, both would be subjected to capital punishment, the slave by burning. In AD 390, Emperor Theodosius issued an edict against male prostitutes and brothels offering such services; those found guilty should be burned alive.

Eastern Orthodox

Some kings with sadistic deeds as Vlad Tepes had ascended to the throne through divine right of kings. Ivan the Terrible, who ordered the building of the Saint Basil's Cathedral, was a devoted religious person and placed the most emphasis on defending the divine right of the ruler to unlimited power under God. Some scholars explain the sadistic and brutal deeds of Ivan the Terrible with the religious concepts of the 16th century. This includes burning or drowning the victims or roasting alive people, or tortured with boiling or freezing water, which corresponds to torments of Hell, consistent with Ivan's view of being God's representative on Earth with a sacred right and duty to punish, he may also have been inspired by the model of Archangel Michael with the idea of divine punishment. He was now a "divine" leader appointed to enact God's will, as "church texts described Old Testament kings as 'Tsars' and Christ as the Heavenly Tsar." The newly appointed title was then passed on from generation to generation: "succeeding Muscovite rulers ... benefited from the divine nature of the power of the Russian monarch ... crystallized during Ivan's reign." The massacre of Novgorod consisted of men, women and children were tied to sleighs, which were then run into the freezing waters of the Volkhov River, which Ivan ordered on the basis of unproved accusations of treason and tortured its inhabitants and killed thousands in a pogrom there, the archibishop was also hunted to death. Ivan often disposed his rape victims by having them hanged, strangled, buried alive or thrown to the bears.

In a process referred to as "Russian inquisition" some heretics were persecuted. The Bishop of Vladimir Feodor turned some people into slaves, others were locked in prison, cut their heads, burnt eyes, cut tongues or crucified on walls. According to an inscription of Khan Mengual-Temir, Metropolitan Kiril was granted the right to heavily punish with death for blasphemy against the Orthodox Church or breach of ecclesiastical privileges. He advised all means of destruction to be used against heretics, but without bloodshed, in the name of 'saving souls'. Heretics were drowned. Novgorod Bishop Gennady Gonzov turned to Tsar Ivan III requesting the death of heretics. Gennady admired the Spanish inquisitors, especially his contemporary Torquemada, who for 15 years of inquisition activity burned and punished thousands of people. As in Rome, persecuted fled to depopulated areas. The most terrible punishment was considered аn underground pit, where rats lived. Some people had been imprisoned and tied to the wall there, and had reconstructed their dismembered body after their death. The order was that even those renouncing completely their beliefs and baptized in the state Church must be lynched without mercy. The writer Lomonosov opposed the religious teachings and by his initiative a scientific book against them was published. The book was destroyed, the Russian synod insisted Lomonosov's works to be burned and requested his punishment.

Amosov describes the inquisition in Russia as follows:

"...They were cutting heads, hanging, some by the neck, some by the foot, many of them were stabbed with sharp sticks and impaled on hooks. This included the tethering to a ponytail, drowning and freezing people alive in lakes. The winners did not spare even the sick and the elderly, taking them out of the monastery and throwing them mercilessly in icy 'vises'. The words step back, the pen does not move, in eternal darkness the ancient Solovetsky monastery is going. Of the more than 500 people , only a few managed to avoid the terrible court."

References

This cites several "primary sources" and interprets them. Wikipedia editors cannot add their own interpretations to Wikipedia - we call this original research and it not allowed in policy.

Additionally several of these citations are insufficient to allow others to find these source cited to verify the content from it. Jytdog (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Aren't primary sources only ancient sources? All ten sources are by modern authors(except the first and second source although interpreted by secondary authors), so they should be secondary sources(I suggest). Secondly, what exactly is my interpretation? I suggest to remove such a part.--46.10.52.226 (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The answer to your first question is "no". Just to focus on the first part, supported by the first source. First, there is no such word as "Christianizator" in English. Second and this is the really important part, the source itself says nothing about religion, or god or even Constantine as a Christianizator. It is just a law about rape -- the connection between this law and religion, and also the connection between this law and violence (and thus the placement of this content here in the article about "religious violence") is entirely yours. You cannot do this in Wikipedia. This is WP:SYN. If you were citing a source that was by a scholar, writing about this law as an example of religious violence, and you were summarizing that source, it would be OK. That is not what is happening in the content above.

Much of the same is going on elsewhere. References 9 and 10 are insufficiently cited. Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Could you try to change the passage so that it can fit the way you believe is correct? I will then cite ref 9 and 10. --46.10.52.226 (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Substitutions suggested for ref1 and ref2 if the sentences are not deleted [1][2][3] They explain that the violent punishments were at least influenced by Christianity.--46.10.52.226 (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

So let's talk about pthis diff. You introduced a new source there - this one. Please tell me, what does that source say about crucifixion, gladiator fights as a punishment, and the practice of infant exposure? Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Remove religion-specific content?

I suggest removing all of the sections of this article pertaining to specific religions. This information is better covered in other articles, and surveying every religious tradition results in articles such as this becoming too long. I suggest that this article can properly include discussions of the relationship of violent behavior to beliefs in monotheism, divine revelation, exclusive understandings of the afterlife, otherworldliness, or any other broader category which can reasonably claim the term "religion". Of course, I recognize that particular arguments may apply to particular identified religions to varying degrees. What do other editors think? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but their should be links to group-specific forms of violence at the end too - there are good chances that someone who came here would be interested in other, more specific articles.Dr Roach (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer

I removed the following from the article:

“ Some critics of religion such as Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer argue that all monotheistic religions are inherently violent. For example, Nelson-Pallmeyer writes that "Judaism, Christianity and Islam will continue to contribute to the destruction of the world until and unless each challenges violence in "sacred texts" and until each affirms nonviolent power of God." ”

I don't doubt that Nelson-Pallmeyer is noteworthy and has relevant things to say on the topic, but I'm not sure it's fair to call him a "critic of religion" (he's Lutheran), and the quote doesn't seem to support the claim, so I decided to remove it pending further review and rewording. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your judgement about the interpretation of the quote, howeve he does opine a bit earlier "Violence is at the heart of monotheistic faith". Staszek Lem (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. After reading from the source I conclude that JN-P is an idiot: "Active nonviolence is an effective means to confront evil, resist injustice, defend territory, thwart enemies, and establish peace." - Really? After seeing that I fail to see whether he is a recognized expert in religious scholarship. The whole book is one huge sermon with not a shred of analysis. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

References

He certainly sounds an awful lot like Ghandi, so it's not some unprecedented religious idea.

Developing ritual violence section

I am considering developing the ritual violence section generally, but also to include several instances of ritual violence and some other relevant information in specific contexts. These are some of the practices that I am looking at, as well as the sources that I will be using to bolster the section. Any advice would be appreciated.

Subheadings: History of ritual violence/individual practices Description of the practice itself Legal responses to the ritual violence Media representations Social responses

Relevant sources/examples:

http://srsg.violenceagainstchildren.org/sites/default/files/documents/docs/InCo_Report_15Oct.pdf

Sara Scott’s book, The politics and experience of ritual abuse: beyond disbelief

Female genital mutilation http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet23en.pdf

Food taboos https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2711054/

Gang initiation https://people.missouristate.edu/michaelcarlie/what_i_learned_about/gangs/join_a_gang.htm

Marriage by abduction or rape — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kchengfm (talk • contribs) 05:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I would just say to make sure the sources are more academic and that the sources clearly specify the religion or religious beliefs involved and not mix into it traditions or cultural practices. Those usually are not religion so they would not belong here. Look at the article as it is and see if you can stay in the same spirit of discussion. Religion is complex and so is violence. Hope that helps. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't have handy web links to these sources, but I think they are easy enough to find and can be useful. "Ritual, Religion, and Violence: An Evolutionary Perspective" is a whole chapter in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Violence, and "The Rites of Violence" by Natalie Zemon Davis for older examples. "Ritual Violence in the Hebrew Bible" could also be helpful. Religious rites are among the most common traditions and cultural practices, so an admonition to avoid adding them seems a confusing request. Holbach Girl (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The origin of violence, and its relation with religion:

As we now know, emotions are instinctive reactions in our bodies that are decided for us over millions of years of evolution, and nuanced by personal experiences and knowledge. (we all have to say sorry now and then, some more than others)

This lead to Critical Thinking: Where we try recognize our emotional condition, make ourselves aware of what direction this emotion tries to lead our thoughts and actions, and try to correct our thoughts and actions by considering Alternatives, Outcomes, Goals, Relativation, ...

But, religions do actively condemn Critial Thinking and even link the emotions (=instincts) of their followers to their god.

Combine this knowledge with the knowledge we tend to become more empathic towards an us-group, and tend to become more sadistic towards a them-group, and you find the obvious link between Religion and Violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1812:C69:F800:59B3:B7BD:1EE1:3404 (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

This article seems heavily religiously biased.

It seems to me as though this article is trying hard to not upset religious people. But this niceness comes in the way of being direct and articulate and causes the article to be unnecessarily very long. I am sure we can be respectful to religious people while also being direct.

(some example phrases (paraphrased)- "violence is difficult to define" "there is no consensus over what a religion is" "oversimplification leads to misguided understanding" "concept of religion is modern" "religious violence is a modern myth" "secularism is more violent than religion" . . . )

It also seems as though if this article is trying to show Christianity as less violent than other religions. While sections for other religions start without much explanation, the section of Christianity starts by trying to explain why Christians were violent.

I hope I didn't offend any person with this thread.

James Goner (talk) 05:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

All of the quotes you mentioned are actual points in academic sources by experts on the topics and are found almost verbatim per the sources cited. The reality being that religion and violence are not simple things, but incredibly complex. I don't think that the article length is an issue since many religions have complex histories with violence and nonviolence. This just gets a gist of it.

The history of Christianity sections have sources which detail the diversity of views that Christians have held over the years. It fluctuates.Ramos1990 (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

This article really does have an extreme pro-religion bias to it. The article is comparing violence caused by religion and violence that occurs in a secular state. This would be like arguing that guns don't cause deaths in a country where people die of guns and car crashes because in gun-free states people also die in car crashes. The comparison that should be made would be people who die due to religion (millions) vs. people who die because of a lack of religion (zero). Of 19 (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum WP:NOTAFORUM. But either way your numbers are completely incorrect. Violence that has nothing to do with religion is the overwhelming majority of violence from violence in war to domestic violence to gang violence to drug related violence to sports related violence to racial violence to cop relate violence to military violence and so on. More chances of being beaten by a robber than for Islamic or Moron based reasons.Ramos1990 (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Attentat Nyanya VOA2.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest creation of two different wikis, one for "Violence Caused by Religion", and the other for "Violence Caused Against Religion".

I previously created a thread stating my opinion that this article seems to be religiously biased, and people replied that I was wrong. I do admit to failing to understand that this wiki talks both about violence caused by religion and violence caused against religion.

However, it seems as to me as if there's a tendency not only to compare these two different but related topics, but also to compare violence that has nothing to do with religion with violence caused by religion specifically to diminish the effect of violence caused by religion. Phrases used in this wiki such as "religious violence is a modern myth" or "secularism is more violent than religion" support my opinion. Secularism, according to it's own wiki page, most commonly refers to "separation of religion from civic affairs and the state".

I think creating two independent wiki for each of these two related topics might reduce the incentive for bias.

This thread was written in good faith and I do not mean to be disrespectful of anyone and please forgive me if I sounded as such. James Goner (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)