causality

[bararallu]

There are a lot of threads that discuss how certain ideologies and religions 'make' people do such and such. In my opinion that just stripping the responsibility from actual people and organizations of people and abstract them on to straw men and dusty parchments, no matter how ill intended.

Most legal systems preclude this sort of argument, but we entertain it nonetheless- and often loose sight of why and how the manipulation of public opinion occurs and for what purposes it is driven.

I'd like to survey (I wish I knew how to build a survey post) the posters here:

1. Do you believe that religious texts, in and of themselves, cause violent actions? create irredentism, systemic hate, etc?
2. Do you believe that corrupt and/or zealous individuals cause violent action? create irredentism, systemic hate, etc?
3. Do you believe that without religious texts violent actions, irredentism and systemic hate would still exist?
4. Do you believe that without corrupt and/or zealous individuals violent actions, irredentism and systemic hate would still exist?

[scattergood]

There are a lot of threads that discuss how certain ideologies and religions 'make' people do such and such. In my opinion that just stripping the responsibility from actual people and organizations of people and abstract them on to straw men and dusty parchments, no matter how ill intended.

Most legal systems preclude this sort of argument, but we entertain it nonetheless- and often loose sight of why and how the manipulation of public opinion occurs and for what purposes it is driven.

I'd like to survey (I wish I knew how to build a survey post) the posters here:

1. Do you believe that religious texts, in and of themselves, cause violent actions? create irredentism, systemic hate, etc?
2. Do you believe that corrupt and/or zealous individuals cause violent action? create irredentism, systemic hate, etc?
3. Do you believe that without religious texts violent actions, irredentism and systemic hate would still exist?
4. Do you believe that without corrupt and/or zealous individuals violent actions, irredentism and systemic hate would still exist?

1) No. Texts in and of themselves do nothing, they are inanimate. It is people who carry the beliefs expressed in a text that create violence, mayhem and suffering, or beauty, transcendence, tolerance and freedom.

2) I don't like the phrasing of this question. I believe ZEALOUS individuals cause violence and hate. I also believe ZEALOUS indivudals create tolerance and freedom. It just depends on what your are ZEALOUS about. Whether such zealotry is a corruption or a corroboration of a belief system expressed by a text is a separate issue unrelated to the person.

3) ABSOLUTELY. Hiter, Stalin, Pol Pot, Adi Amin, Mao were athiestic mass murderers whose texts and ideas may have been pursued religiously, but the texts weren't religious in and of themselves. Sure spirituality, historical destiny, forces beyond humanity permeated some of these non-religious doctrines, but they weren't the monotheistic, revelatory ideologies that I think you are talking about.

4) Again, the phrasing is a bit odd. I think there will be ZEALOUS people who will pursue totalitarian and exclusionary ideologies with or without specific religious texts. There will also be people pursuing tolerant, transcendant, and freedom loving ideologies without religious texts.

[bararallu]

Fair enough, how would you rephrase question 2 & 4?

[andak01]

There are a lot of threads that discuss how certain ideologies and religions 'make' people do such and such. In my opinion that just stripping the responsibility from actual people and organizations of people and abstract them on to straw men and dusty parchments, no matter how ill intended.

Most legal systems preclude this sort of argument, but we entertain it nonetheless- and often loose sight of why and how the manipulation of public opinion occurs and for what purposes it is driven.

Great idea for a thread!

1. Do you believe that religious texts, in and of themselves, cause violent actions? create irredentism, systemic hate, etc?

It should be just as possible then that religious texts cause non-violent actions. But the people who propose the first idea never admit to the possibility of the second.

2. Do you believe that corrupt and/or zealous individuals cause violent action? create irredentism, systemic hate, etc?

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. They are the ones that propogate violent ideas. And I think the best term for them is self serving. There is always a payoff for them, and that's what we should look for.

3. Do you believe that without religious texts violent actions, irredentism and systemic hate would still exist?

Why, we'd be living in a peaceful place like France during The Terror or Stalinist Russia or Tibet after the Chinese cleaned it out.

4. Do you believe that without corrupt and/or zealous individuals violent actions, irredentism and systemic hate would still exist?

That's a little harder to say. Leaders are like magnifying glasses.

[KettleWhistle]

1. Do you believe that religious texts, in and of themselves, cause violent actions? create irredentism, systemic hate, etc?

Some do and some don't. There are benign religions that merely dictate rules for its followers. Like Judaism. Or the Druze religion. Or Bahai. And there are those like Russian Orthodox church that has canonical writings that declare Jews to be some version of the anti-Christ, that do. I really hate it when some people bundle all the religions in the same bag.

2. Do you believe that corrupt and/or zealous individuals cause violent action? create irredentism, systemic hate, etc?

Well, of course.

3. Do you believe that without religious texts violent actions, irredentism and systemic hate would still exist?

Yes, obviously.

4. Do you believe that without corrupt and/or zealous individuals violent actions, irredentism and systemic hate would still exist?

No.

[varian]

There are a lot of threads that discuss how certain ideologies and religions 'make' people do such and such. In my opinion that just stripping the responsibility from actual people and organizations of people and abstract them on to straw men and dusty parchments, no matter how ill intended.

Most legal systems preclude this sort of argument, but we entertain it nonetheless- and often loose sight of why and how the manipulation of public opinion occurs and for what purposes it is driven.

I'd like to survey (I wish I knew how to build a survey post) the posters here:

1. Do you believe that religious texts, in and of themselves, cause violent actions? create irredentism, systemic hate, etc?
2. Do you believe that corrupt and/or zealous individuals cause violent action? create irredentism, systemic hate, etc?
3. Do you believe that without religious texts violent actions, irredentism and systemic hate would still exist?
4. Do you believe that without corrupt and/or zealous individuals violent actions, irredentism and systemic hate would still exist?

1) Religious texts are meant to be behavior modifiers or directors and rely heavily on the interpretations of the divers readers, adherents, or "clergy." They can and will elicit various responses in each person that will answer whether that individual will react with violence, irredentism, or hate. If "state religions" join forces with governing or secular bodies, then the results usually lean towards the despotic.

2) Corrupt engenders the negative view. Corrupt and zealous modifies or accentuates the proclivity towards the negative and would easily lean toward violence, irredentism, and hate.

Zealousness by itself does not negate the leanings toward violence, irredentism, and hate. An additional issue that would have to be factored in is motive. If the motive is corrupt, then the outcome would tend to be negative to the degree of the evil zealousness employed. If the motive was altruistic, then the intent of the zealousness would be for good, no matter what the outcome. Good intentions can go bad (e.g. bad judgment or planning), but they would not be premeditated to end badly.

3) In short; Yes!

4) My short answer would also be Yes, however, if redeemed equitably, irredentism usually wants to reacquire geography for advantageous, utilitarian reasons; e.g. food, mineral wealth, water, ethnicity, population, tax base, infrastructure, or other economic reasons. Irredentism may lead to violence and hate, irrespective on whether corruption and, or zealousness is involved.

[bararallu]

Interesting answers. Thanks. Answers seem to run the gambit.

Let me ask some follow-on survey questions:

1. Do you believe that hate is programmatic and that regimes that program it are guilty of incitement (in the general legal definition)?

2. If governments do not directly incite hate, but do not control organized entities within their borders who do so, are they as responsible as the inciting parties?

3. The majority of of the 19 terrorists that attacked the US on 9/11 where from SA. In the order of responsibility where would you say the blame be leveled (you can exclude categories of course): (1) The actual terrorists, (2)AQ, (3) Clerics & Muftis that educated them in SA; (4) SA gov; (5) Jihadist ideology; (6) Sunni Islam; (7) Islam generally (in all variations) (8) [Pan] Arab chauvinism (nationalism) (9) the Quran (10) Religion generally; (11) Human Nature.

4. Aside from the order of "responsibility" above, is there a difference to you in qualifying an order of "causality", if so what is that order?