Imagine the scene.
You are at a Premier League football game in England (or the foreign equivalent in your native country) packed at the weekends with hundreds of thousands of die hard fans watching your favourite team play. Let’s imagine for a second, the dark scenario that maybe ten people are killed in or around each stadium due to crowd trouble or brawls between teams. It’s a horrible thought and thankfully not the case. Even at the fiercest derbies.
What would the Football Association do? Would they condemn the clubs/cities health and safety and policing standards? Halt further games? Postpone the league itself until the issue is addressed? Maybe all of these.
What wouldn’t happen, I’m sure, is plainly ignore the problem and refrain from taking action due to the lack of pro-violence material in The FA’s guidelines or FIFA rule books.
I mean, that would be absurd. To ignore death and violence so apparent and present because it has nothing to do with the football directly, just the nature of society around it. It wouldn’t happen. Imagine the uproar.
So why do we accept it in religion? It’s such a common response now to claim although violence occurs with religion in mind, religious scripture itself condones it, and the violence is just misinterpreted. Two points to this common misconception:
1) Scripture does support violence.
2) Even if the above was untrue, it still causes unrest. No one can argue that. So let’s put an end to it.
It is a plain example of double standards that people adopt in many belief systems, and so blatantly obvious that even the most devout of believers don’t have a leg to stand on, or should be cringing at the thought of trying.