Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Full Version: Iran & Saudi Arabia fight war of words over Muslim holy sites
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
https://www.worldreligionnews.com/religi...holy-sites

EXCERPT: . . . Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, has attacked Saudi Arabian control over Mecca and Medina, the two holiest sites in Islam. He sharply criticized the Saudi government’s management of important mosques in the two cities. The Ayatollah specifically pointed out the Mina Stampede. The 2015 catastrophic incident resulted in the death of almost 800 Muslims.

The Mina Stampede happened in Jamarat, approximately two miles distant from Mecca. The stampede led to the death of pilgrims of multiple nationalities, including Iran, Pakistan, Philippines, Netherlands, Somalia, Nigeria, Indonesia, and Turkey.

The Government of Saudi Arabia responded by executing a cleric belonging to the Shi’ite branch of Islam. Iran is a Shi’ite country, while Saudi Arabia is Sunni. The execution led to massive Iranian protests. A few Iranians even stormed the Saudi embassy in Tehran. Diplomatic relations between the two countries were severed in 2015. Riyadh barred Iranians from Hajj, the holy pilgrimage Muslims take to Mecca. Khamenei protested, pointing out that Mecca and Medina belong to all Muslims....

MORE: https://www.worldreligionnews.com/religi...holy-sites
If there were no religions and people never died or killed for them, would nature compensate for the lost opportunities to cull the population? Of course this question implies that people are going to kill one another regardless but my intention for asking it was to bring attention to the point I'm trying to make.... One less reason to kill people would be a good thing, right?
(Jul 21, 2018 02:33 AM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]If there were no religions and people never died or killed for them, would nature compensate for the lost opportunities to cull the population? Of course this question implies that people are going to kill one another regardless but my intention for asking it was to bring attention to the point I'm trying to make.... One less reason to kill people would be a good thing, right?


Since there are multiple sources for integrating people together into distinct social groups or divisions, the historical grudges that those accumulate between each other over time will provide the fodder for conflict. As well as competition for resources, territory, travel / trade routes, anger over unpopular laws, class envy or rivalry, egocentric leaders trying to acquire more power or jockeying for status and personal legacy, etc. Enemies / threats and scapegoats (prejudice) are needed sometimes to manage and mobilize a population or membership better; declarations of impending doom, if something isn't changed, can also be appealed to.

Religion is just one (created) identity that a social group, sub-division, or movement can be founded upon. Others are common ancestry, physical traits affinity, male or female status, sexual orientations, lifestyle, language, customs, nationality, politics, economics, caste, value-systems, professions or skills, age, common interests, crime, mythology, metaphysics, habits, etc. Religion can be a potpourri of bits of all those things but once collected and organized into a system it's just another competing nucleus for a potential, distinct "tribe" or "fellowship" to be build up around. An individual may belong to several social groups, but some will carry more importance than others or demand more from a member.

Warfare, pogroms, torture, imprisonment, terrorism, etc are sort of substrate independent or neutral as to the "tribe" or "fellowship" in which they are realized. They just need large, competing social groups which build up grudges and worries about each other to exist, without it mattering much what specific attractor slash organizer brought each one's members together. Even philosophically non-violent people in Tibet were finally forced to take up arms or present some form of resistance / protest when the survival of their culture was at stake from Sino-Marxist intruders. (For all the good that did.)

~