Author: Piling » Mon Dec 30, 2013 12:51 pm
If we consider how various religions are dealing with pacifism, war and self-defense, we can see differences.
Judaism : In Ancient Testament, Law allows/praises war to defend Israeli Kingdom from any non-jewish invaders and Bible is full of great massacres. So in theory, Jews should have perpetrated the biggest number of genocides.
It was not the case : they were a persecuted or inferior minority in all the world (the current Israeli State is not ruled by Judaic laws but secular policy).
Christianity : Jesus was very clear concerning violence and war : it is absolutely forbidden, even for saving its own life. In the same way, there should not be Christian tribunals because he told to forgive all offenses and never complain to judges. There should not have been even a Christian state, because he told to not care of policy and political power.
But when Roman empire adopted Christianity, former persecuted Christians became the persecutors toward other cults. Saint Augustine forged the concept of 'Holy War' (war is allowed to defend Christianity), capital punishment was tolerated, and of course during history, Christian empires were at the origin of many persecutions and genocides, not because they were Christians but because they had the power.
Islam : it takes the median position between Judaism and Christianism : war is allowed for self defense and it adopts the concept of Holy War/ Jihad (which was invented not by a Muslim but by Christians as we have seen).
Was Islam more violent than Christianity ? Not at all, and it was even more tolerant concerning other religions but if Jews and Christians accepted an inferior status. And this is still a problem in Muslim societies.
Buddhism : Like Christ, Buddha prohibited all forms of violence, even against animals. It did not prevent many Buddhist societies to make war and accept capital punishment : Chinese people were mostly Buddhist (even if State was officially Confucianist), Japanese culture is half Buddhist half Shintoist and it was one of the big criminal State during the 2nd WW, and nowadays Burmese State is not particularly 'kind' with its Muslim minority…
So we can conclude that any opinion, religious or political, is a murdering tool in the hands of people who are persuaded to hold the truth against all others. If we look at 'secular faith' like Nazism and Marxism we can see that nazism was the worst belief, based on slavery, genocides and racism. At the contrary, Communism was, at its origin, a sort of laical Christianity, hoping in Brotherhood, sharing of goods and money, defense of poor people etc. It did not prevent that ideology to be one of the most murderous one during 20th century, not better than Nazism.
In the same way, the most archaic and intolerant religion or belief becomes harmless in an indifferent and democratic society in which it lost all power.
What we can observe everywhere is that religions are slowly vanishing except in extremist and hard winged circles. It does not mean that Atheism is the winner. At the contrary. People need more and more spirituality but out of religious institutions (Churches, temple or mosques), without priests/mollahs/lamas and without 'Sacred Book of Laws/Gods' Words' that are now archaic and reflect only Ancient Societies's mind.
Nowadays, Jihadism and Salafism shows an ugly movement inside Islam, but it is very marginal. The main reproach that we can make to Islam is its lack of tolerance concerning freedom of opinion and cults : It is difficult to live as an atheist in Muslim societies or to change its own religion.
At the contrary, in Western countries you can be what you want, not because Christians are tolerant but because Clerics have lost all political power. So a religion begins to be acceptable in a democratic society when it has no power, that is a fact.
So my conviction is that all religions are dying now, and new spiritualities are growing, but we know nothing about their future.