Is violence attached to one religion more than another?
From my experience, no, not at all. Perhaps at certain times in history, different religions held a stronger "rule with an iron fist" attitude. And every religion, it seems, has it's hand in at least some violence in the past.
Here are two links, with their summary quoted for reference:
quote:The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament contain many passages outlining approaches to, and descriptions of, violent activities, centering on the ancient nation of Israel and their involvement with Gentile nations. They also provide civil guidelines on the subject of violent activity as it pertains to individuals within the nation, distinguishing individualistic from nationalistic actions.
These texts contain narratives, poetry, and instruction describing, commanding, or condemning violent actions by God, individuals, groups, and governments. These actions include war, human and animal sacrifice, murder, rape, stoning, sexism, slavery, criminal punishment, and violent language.:Introduction The texts have a history of interpretation within the Abrahamic religions and Western culture that includes justification for acts of violence as well as structural violence, and have also been used in opposition to violence.
quote:The Quran, the holy book of Islam, contains verses believed by Muslims to be revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad at different times and under different circumstances – some exhorting violence against enemies and others urging restraint and conciliation. Because some verses abrogate others, and because some are thought to be general commands while other refer to specific enemies, how the verses are understood and how they relate to each other "has been a central issue in Islamic thinking on war" according to scholars such as Charles Matthews.
While numerous scholars explain Quranic phrases on violence to be only in the context of a defensive response to oppression; violent groups have interpreted verses to endorse their violent actions and made the Quran's teachings on violence and war a topic of vigorous debate.
I do not have a lot of knowledge in the actual research into either book.
However, after taking a look at both this is what forms as my high level review:
Both holy books contain descriptions of violence.
Both religions have minor groups that use the descriptions of violence in the books as support for their violent actions.
Both religions have majority groups that denounce the use of the books as support for any/all violent actions.
Really, I don't see a difference.
If you think a large, obvious difference exists... please use this area to describe it so that others may judge as well. It would be extremely convincing if you could show how any of points 1, 2 or 3 above are not factual descriptions of reality.