There are no "Religions of peace".....

[The Grand Nudger]

It's understandable, most of us want to be the good guys.   The funny/troubling bit is that it;s this desire coupled with the fundamental core of theism of any stripe...that ones cultural prejudices can be elevated to the status of a universe in proper order, that keeps us doing the same shit over and over and rationalizing that after the fact as people having been "doing it wrong"

Nope, they nailed it. It just hasn't aged well.

[Jackie]

It's understandable, most of us want to be the good guys.   The funny/troubling bit is that it;s this desire coupled with the fundamental core of theism of any stripe...that ones cultural prejudices can be elevated to the status of a universe in proper order, that keeps us doing the same shit over and over and rationalizing that after the fact as people having been "doing it wrong"

Nope, they nailed it.  It just hasn't aged well.

The majority claims virtue because they are the majority. The minority claims virtue because they are not.

Problem is in the scope of our species history, the terms majority and minority are hollow knowing times change and knowing we are not a separate species.

[tackattack]

[The Grand Nudger]

-For Brian
In a sense, sure, the virtue claims of a given subset change with respect to their sociopolitical position.

---

So any dogmatic social structure is inherently divisive and destructive by the exclusivity of it's dogma? Well I believe power does corrupt so I would tend to agree with that. That's why I actually believe with part of Brian's point that a solution should be based in the individual (not societal structure) as that is where the impetus of morality, responsibility and judgement are rooted.

It's not really an issue of power corrupting something.  The thing in question is fundamentally rotten, it's not as if, if it were weak, it wouldn't be..it just wouldn't be able to express that rottenness.

Jainism, to continue using it as the example, is as rotten as it ever was...when it was in power the circumstances required to express that existed, presently they don't.....but here's to hoping they get a chance to be the best version of their worst selves again!...(or would it be the worst version of their best selves...?)

[fredd bear]

-For Brian
In a sense, sure, the virtue claims of a given subset change with respect to their sociopolitical position.

---

So any dogmatic social structure is inherently divisive and destructive by the exclusivity of it's dogma? Well I believe power does corrupt so I would tend to agree with that. That's why I actually believe with part of Brian's point that a solution should be based in the individual (not societal structure) as that is where the impetus of morality, responsibility and judgement are rooted.

It's not really an issue of power corrupting something.  The thing in question is fundamentally rotten, it's not as if, if it were weak, it wouldn't be..it just wouldn't be able to express that rottenness.

Jainism, to continue using it as the example, is as rotten as it ever was...when it was in power the circumstances required to express that existed, presently they don't.....but here's to hoping they get a chance to be the best version of their worst selves again!...(or would it be the worst version of their best selves...?)  

Haven't heard much about the Jains, except that they tend to carry the doctrine of 'ahimsa' to absurd levels.

Could you give me a run down on how they are rotten, or perhaps point me in a direction?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not about them, people are people.  The religion has all of the problems of it's various components and has produced exactly the same things that any other religion would.  

Unfamiliarity with it's tenets and history, combined with the less than stellar track record of other more recognizable faiths leaves people with the mistaken impression that it's a better or different sort of religion than others.

[Jackie]

It's not about them, people are people.  The religion has all of the problems of it's various components and has produced exactly the same things that any other religion would.  

Unfamiliarity with it's tenets and history, combined with the less than stellar track record of other more recognizable faiths leaves people with the mistaken impression that it's a better or different sort of religion than others.

This, right here.^^^^^^^^^

In terms of knowing that humans have always been capable of both cruelty and compassion and will always be, in the scope of our entire species existence and our future, one cannot and should not get stuck on short term focus. 

Power shifts over time and so do social norms what is now, may not be in the future. There is no given peace in the world, there are only humans capable of it when they want to. Labels do not have any magic power to make the holder of that position to only do good.

There are no perfect religions, because there are no perfect humans.  Humans are people, and our evolution will not magically create 100% worldwide peace. We are capable as a species though, to do more to work to a less violent world by accepting more that we are not a separate species.

[tackattack]

So if the problem is systemic in the species, why rail against one group (religious)? If some people feel being religious helps them be better people or some people see religion as a more objective moral authority than society, doesn't that mean it makes a positive difference (whether entirely peaceful or not)?

[The Grand Nudger]

Some things act as force multipliers for our worst impulses.  Just as before, while there's a wide range of nasty things that both the religious and non religious share, there are nasty things unique to the religious just as there are nasty things unique to specific religions and specific forms of religion.

Note, though, that you went ahead and said "but mom, timmy hit him too!"

Some people feel many things, that doesn;t mean that their feels are an accurate representation of reality, so..no...feeling like something helps doesn't actually make a thing a force for good.

I'm told that heroin feels great. The objective moral authority of religion tends to be something decidedly non-objective. I don't actually concern myself much with violence in some non-specified form, so I'd be the wrong guy to ask. I think that a measured application of violence can be a force for good. I don't long for a world where everyone sings kumbayah so much as a world where shitty people are more terrified of the good ones than the good ones are of them. My only comments on thus notion of "religions of peace" is that there just isn't any such thing. There has never been a religion that can't be leveraged in equal measure to justify violence. That's more a feature than a bug...the violent ones aren't getting it wrong, we're engaging in escapism by imagining such a thing in the first place.

[bennyboy]

Not all Buddhists are peaceful, but I would say that it's a particularly peaceful religion.

Seems that far to many are not getting it.

There is a HUGE difference between "seemingly peaceful" now, and peaceful in the past and peaceful forever. There is also geography and majority vs minority going on in human history, and since nothing ever stays the same, my point is it still amounts to human behavior not labels.

There is no corner of the globe that has been violence free, ever. Study enough of human history, and that becomes obvious. I cant say this enough, there is not one nation that does not have hospitals and prisons.

Give any sect of any population enough power, they still have the potential to become what they claim to have fought to defeat.

That's intrinsic to bald apes, in particular male ones.  Violence can be found in secular or formally atheist societies, as well-- bald apes are perfectly happy to leverage whatever memes are in the spotlight to turn each other to fight, in order to gain personal advantage or to vent feelings of offense. Somewhere, the following words have certainly been uttered just before a mortal beating: "What the fuck did you just say about GHANDI?!?!?!" "What the fuck did you just say about PUPPIES!?!?!?" "What the fuck did you just say about my COOKING!?!?!?!"