wars in the name of religion

[greenlantern]

It's my theory that if everyone realized there was no god, therefore no religion, there would be a lot fewer wars.

Some people may argue that if everyone believed in the same god that there would also be fewer wars. However, the inevitable different views on how and to what degree you should worship would ultimately provide conflict.

So without the intolerance and narrow mindedness that religions so often breed there would be a lot less turmoil in the world.

That's my opinion. Any thoughts or comment?

[Timmy Boy]

I think that a lot of "religious" wars are really to do with other political motives and are merely dressed up with religion to provide a moral justification. For example, in the 17th century, there was a great deal of religious turmoil in Europe between Protestants and Catholics, but this was also to do with sovereignty - who has the higher authority, the Pope or the King? This was also a reason for the oppression of Catholics in Britain right up until the 19th century - for a time, governments had a very real reason to believe that British Catholics, particularly those in positions of power, might defect to the other Catholic powers in Europe, such as Britain's main rival, France.

To use another example, the Taleban's ideology includes the idea that women should be completely covered at all times, but all the Qur'an actually says is that women should dress moderately; more liberal muslim clerics in both the west and the east have said this, and that there is therefore no strict requirement for muslim women to even wear a hijab. They recognise that what was considered modest attire in the middle east in (for want of a better word) Biblical times is not going to be the same thing as what's considered modest on the beach of Rio de Janeiro. Also, although the Qur'an does espouse different roles for men and women, the task of being a good housekeeper is not considered in any way demeaning - you're supposed to treat women with respect. The Taleban were just a bunch of sexist thugs abusing their religion to impose constraints on women.

[wrydolphin]

Sure, and if people were given prancing unicorns and fluffly purple puppies, we'd all just get along.


Pfft!

You really think that wars are fought for religion? Not even so called religous wars were really fought for religion, in fact, religion wasn't even a primary factor for religous wars. Resources and land were, are and will be the primary source of conflict between countries and groups. Period. Of course now you might say political power might be added, but frankly I would lob that in with resources.

You might consider building up your knowledge of history.

[greenlantern]

Sure, and if people were given prancing unicorns and fluffly purple puppies, we'd all just get along.


Pfft!

You really think that wars are fought for religion? Not even so called religous wars were really fought for religion, in fact, religion wasn't even a primary factor for religous wars. Resources and land were, are and will be the primary source of conflict between countries and groups. Period. Of course now you might say political power might be added, but frankly I would lob that in with resources.

You might consider building up your knowledge of history.

Yes I realize the religous wars were not soully fought for religion. But a large portion of the problems in the middle east today are due to religous intolerance.

I'm just saying if religion was eliminated it would leave a lot less reasons to disagree. You said politics was a reason for the wars. A lot of political forums are based on religous beliefs. Take religion out of the equation and the politics get a lot closer. And yes I realize this is a pipe dream. I'm just making an observation. No need for personal attacks.

[Lily]

We should rename this website 'Religious Planet'.

[tekkengod]

Sure, and if people were given prancing unicorns and fluffly purple puppies, we'd all just get along.


Pfft!

You really think that wars are fought for religion? Not even so called religous wars were really fought for religion, in fact, religion wasn't even a primary factor for religous wars. Resources and land were, are and will be the primary source of conflict between countries and groups. Period. Of course now you might say political power might be added, but frankly I would lob that in with resources.

You might consider building up your knowledge of history.
ok, well as timmy said, they where dressed up with religious justification. and, again, a lever only works if its attached to something.

[wrydolphin]

Oh yes, of course. We are completely ignoring the fact that most of the trouble in the Middle East, indeed- oh 95% of it, stems from nationalism. The problem lies in the fact that until relatively recently (in historical terms) much of the Middle East was a colony of a European country.

But why listen to history when it is so much easier to point out the trite and obvious and screw the underlying reality.

[Sankaku-jime]

It's my theory that if everyone realized there was no god, therefore no religion, there would be a lot fewer wars.


belief in God is a matter of faith and cant be proved either way


Some people may argue that if everyone believed in the same god that there would also be fewer wars. However, the inevitable different views on how and to what degree you should worship would ultimately provide conflict.

So without the intolerance and narrow mindedness that religions so often breed there would be a lot less turmoil in the world.

That's my opinion. Any thoughts or comment?


Religion does not cause wars, it is man that causes wars, if there were no religions man would would just find other excuses for war

[Sankaku-jime]

But a large portion of the problems in the middle east today are due to religous intolerance.




care to expand on that ?

I always thought Western Imperialism was behind most of the problems in the Middle East ?

[NewLearner]

Yes I realize the religous wars were not soully fought for religion. But a large portion of the problems in the middle east today are due to religous intolerance.

I'm just saying if religion was eliminated it would leave a lot less reasons to disagree. You said politics was a reason for the wars. A lot of political forums are based on religous beliefs. Take religion out of the equation and the politics get a lot closer. And yes I realize this is a pipe dream. I'm just making an observation. No need for personal attacks.

I wonder what the result would be if there had been no religion in the US. What would the country be like if there had been no people following their religion and Christianity in particular.

Let's see, most of the private universities including Harvard and Princeton wouldn't exist. Without those being an influence, would the state schools have started? Possibly not.

Most orphanages were started by church groups. And don't forget all the hospitals. I believe there are still more religious non profit hospitals in the US than there are for profit ones. And what about all the rescue missions, soup kitchens, etc.

And while the US gov't gives out more financial aid than any other country in the world, by far, it is totally dwarfed by the giving that happens through churches across the US.

And of course, let's not forget that Christians and other religions have made tremendous impact on our political liberties. The majority of white people involved in the civil rights movement were church people.

[Johnno]

care to expand on that ?

I always thought Western Imperialism was behind most of the problems in the Middle East ?Most of the 'middle East' was part of the Ottoman Empire up to 1919, so to put everything down to 'Western Imperialism' is an oversimplification. I agree that Western Imperialism has made the situation since then a whole lot worse, but there was a legacy of problems there already - just as there is still a legacy of inherited problems in most of the former Ottoman colonies within Europe.

[slipthejab]

To war is part of human nature. Plain and simple.
War has always been with us and will always be with us.
No one ever wants the same as his fellow human being. Everyone wants more and better than the guy next to him. Or he wants to have what his neighbor has.

The idea that if we didn't have religion we wouldn't have war is sophomoric at best... completely ignorant of history and the the realities of humans at worst.

Religion is the easy target. So many of the soapboxers love to rant about it on this site... they actually do more promotion for it than the religious people could ever dream of doing themselves. :D Nice one guys.

People like to quanitfy things like wars started because of religion etc. But that kind of tally is inevitably simplistic. What is not quantifyable is the amount of solace and security that people derive from having a religious belief. Spend any time in a third world country and you'll find that religion is the one thing that gives many people hope for a better tommorrow.

Let's not get to proud of ourselves as humans... we are still subject to our human nature... and that means war. History proves it.... try to name a time in the history of human race where there wasn't war going on at some level in the world. Always has been... always will be.

[holyheadjch]

this site is actually quite amusing, the people here (particularly in Religion) consistantly drive me away from the point of view they are trying to promote, they would do a far better job for their causes by just shutting up and letting their opposition hang themselves.

[Johnno]

We should rename this website 'Religious Planet'.That's a good idea, but then we'd get a bunch of MA nutjobs starting threads about 'martial arts' all over the place. :rolleyes: :D

We do seem to get the same old subjects getting raised at regular intervals, don't we? :D

[Socrastein]

Oh yes, of course. We are completely ignoring the fact that most of the trouble in the Middle East, indeed- oh 95% of it, stems from nationalism.

I thought that suicide bombings were the result of Islamic fundamentalists who believe in martyrdom and think that if they sacrifice themselves to kill the infidels of the world they will instantly be whisked away to heaven, skipping Judgement day, being met by brown eyed virgins, and taking along a large amount of friends and family of their choosing. Often the families of these terrorists will celebrate their deaths, rejoicing that their loved one has ascended into heaven and consequently secured their own place in paradise.

I find it hard to believe that this is dressed up nationalism. I find it even harder to believe that if these people didn't believe that they would be met in heaven by virgins upon killing themselves that they would still be eager to blow themselves up.

I also am confused by a simple fact - many people have come from other countries to support the actions of the terrorists and blow themselves up with them. How could you call this nationalism? These people didn't grow up in the conflict areas. Rather, at some point or another they were converted to Islamic Fundamentalists, and now they at the very least fully support the actions of the terrorists, and in many cases they're out in their ranks trying to blow themselves up too.

I don't think that war is built into our nature, that's not digging deep enough. We seem to be wired to be irrational conformists. From this mass irrationality stem many evils, such as war. You'll be hard pressed to find educated, rational people thinking up intelligent, rational reasons to slaughter one another, to murder innocent people, to blow themselves up, etc. There are no good reasons to do this, only bad reasons. Religious faith is a very popular bad reason to do many terrible things. Blind nationalism is another bad reason to do bad things, a faith in patriotism. Racism is a bad reason to do bad things, a faith in your own biological superiority. The list goes on.

The problem isn't simply religion, it's irrational faith at large. People believing in, and acting on, ridiculous and unsupported propositions.

It just so happens that religion is the most widespread and motivational faith out there, and from it stems the most widespread destruction, hatred, and intolerance. It's by no means the exclusive cause. It is however the largest.

[slipthejab]

Yeah I can see it now... everyone become an atheist and all your misery and sorrow will be over forever! No more war! No more fighting and killing! No more murder or drugs or abuse! :D

w00t!

Mankinds greatest conundrum solved by the atheists!!!!

It'd still take a NY second for someone to find a reason for war or any of the other of the above.
Puhleeeze..... let's not kid ourselves. ;)

[Socrastein]

How do you read what I said and get the impression that I said the problem is theists? Where in my post did I say that what we need is a world full of atheists? Where did I imply that this would solve anything?

I'd suggest taking the time to understand what someone is saying before you fire your little quips. From your response I can only assume that you didn't actually read what I wrote.

[wrydolphin]

Yes, the majority of the problem in the Middle East does stem from nationalism. The Islamic extremist movement actually piggy backed and took over the more public aspects of the movement, but yes. The problem all started with nationalism. Keep in mind that part of nationalism is bringing up your own culture and what is more Arab then Islam? All you are doing is looking at the obvious and ignoring the history of the area.

I suggest a book titled (if I remember correctly as it is in storage and I can't look it up) A History of the Isreali-Palestinian Conlict. If that is off, I will post it after I move and unpack.

[Socrastein]

All you are doing is looking at the obvious and ignoring the history of the area.

Actually, I'm trying to look at both. I don't think it's exclusively religious, I don't think it's exclusively political. I think many atheists want to blame religion for everything, and I think many theists want to blame everything but religion. Both positions are flawed in my opinion.

[wrydolphin]

There is no such thing as exclusivity. At least not historically anyway. The case of the current problems are caused, in my opinion, by nationalism. But religion does make the problem worse. The problem I have is when people point to only one part of the equation and say, this is the source while ignoring the history of the conflict and the area.

[Capt Ann]

If you are interested in a very good, balanced presentation of the issues (including things that would be considered 'pro' and 'con' to all sides involved), may I recommend "Wounded Spirits in the Promised Land".

[Kwajman]

Sure, and if people were given prancing unicorns and fluffly purple puppies, we'd all just get along.


Pfft!

You really think that wars are fought for religion? Not even so called religous wars were really fought for religion, in fact, religion wasn't even a primary factor for religous wars.
.

True! Religion was just the excuse du jour for the last 1500 years or so to take other peoples land/wives/gold. Maybe it makes the soldiers feel better to be fighting for a 'just' cause......

[karate princess]

wars just contridict most religions

[Deepsey]

How do you read what I said and get the impression that I said the problem is theists? Where in my post did I say that what we need is a world full of atheists? Where did I imply that this would solve anything?

I'd suggest taking the time to understand what someone is saying before you fire your little quips. From your response I can only assume that you didn't actually read what I wrote.

"Oh yes, of course. We are completely ignoring the fact that most of the trouble in the Middle East, indeed- oh 95% of it, stems from nationalism."
To this you say. No. The end most of the trouble stems from Islamic fundametalis.


It just so happens that religion is the most widespread and motivational faith out there, and from it stems the most widespread destruction, hatred, and intolerance.
There you say that theists are the problem. (and the absence of theists is the absence of the problems. That is atheism)

Also you signature.
...

Peace leads to war. And war is lead for peace. Noone is more right than someone else. And no human is innocent.
I dont know about about isreal that much.
But i know that that is a country forced into someones home.
If someone comes to my home, with a Haha attitude. I would go to defend myself. I am sure that you wouldnt let me force your out of your home either.

Now. If someone takes over my home, that will cause me alot of suffering. And i will become confused, and decide on revenge (I cant be blamed). - When i am confused i focus on what will ease my suffering. And the quran happens to be talking to me and about the rewards. .... I would think. What the heck. This life is not worth living. I'll just kill myself and all my sins will be erased and i will go to heaven.

You ways will only cause a temporarly peace.

[Deepsey]

religions are supposed to put an end to wars. Imagine what was before that. - The probabely belived in religions totally. Now we belive what we want, and drop the rest.
The religion wont work in that case. And it is not to be blames then. We are. Eventually, we will start another war. And well get back to where we started. :D

[CKava]

Mind you there do seem to be a fair amount of religious texts that legitmise violence... as long as its against heretics/non-believers.

[WatchfulAbyss]

Is it fair assume that relgion at the very least, makes wars easy to mask and can help fuel them. I think if nothing else, there is a advantage in using religion to get people to fight wars........

[wrydolphin]

Its called scapegoating. And unfortunately religion is an easy way to do it. But it is human nature to do this. Keep in mind that almost every tribal name the world over translates directly to "The People" as in we are The People and you are not The People, but if we like you you might be people, just never People.

It happens in more then religion and take away religion or even if all people were of the exact same religion, this phenomen would still occur.

[WatchfulAbyss]

Its called scapegoating. And unfortunately religion is an easy way to do it. But it is human nature to do this. Keep in mind that almost every tribal name the world over translates directly to "The People" as in we are The People and you are not The People, but if we like you you might be people, just never People.

It happens in more then religion and take away religion or even if all people were of the exact same religion, this phenomen would still occur.

I am not saying it wouldn't happen, not in anyway. I just wonder if any others would be as easy to use on folks. I may just be underestimating the gullibility of people.

[tekkengod]

again, the only time a lever works, is when its attached to something.

[WatchfulAbyss]

again, the only time a lever works, is when its attached to something.


Absolutely. What I want to know is, are there other levers that could funtion as well as the religion one.......

[wrydolphin]

Of course there are. Tekken's problem is that he only acknowledges one lever, and the other's bedammed because they don't fit into his notion that everything that is wrong with the world revolves around religion.

Look at human history- race, culture, language, fasions, and geographical location have all played their parts as levers. Many native American tribes hated the Apaches and Commanches because of their horse culture. Groups within the same religious complex (say Buddism) have fought over geography and resources with culture playing a significant role in alienation of the two sides. Each conflict has mutliple levers to push it on, however, if you take away any one of them then that conflict continues. It is only after removing several levers that you are able to resolve the conflict. Usually however, the levers are not removed unless one side or the other has clear victory. Which, lets face it, doesn't happen all that often.

[tekkengod]

Look at human history- race, culture, language, fasions, and geographical location have all played their parts as levers. Many native American tribes hated the Apaches and Commanches because of their horse culture. Groups within the same religious complex (say Buddism) have fought over geography and resources with culture playing a significant role in alienation of the two sides. Each conflict has mutliple levers to push it on, however, if you take away any one of them then that conflict continues. It is only after removing several levers that you are able to resolve the conflict. Usually however, the levers are not removed unless one side or the other has clear victory. Which, lets face it, doesn't happen all that often.

no no, don't put words in my mouth, of course race/culture/language ect. function in a similar way. but when people say religion has been "scapegoated" i throw the bs flag, no one ever says "well racisim was hijacked" no, for religion to be usable in that circumstance, talk of "god" and all the after life idealistic stuff has to work on the people, so don't say scapegoatted, say it was functioning the way it was designed to.

[WatchfulAbyss]

Of course there are. Tekken's problem is that he only acknowledges one lever, and the other's bedammed because they don't fit into his notion that everything that is wrong with the world revolves around religion.

Look at human history- race, culture, language, fasions, and geographical location have all played their parts as levers. Many native American tribes hated the Apaches and Commanches because of their horse culture. Groups within the same religious complex (say Buddism) have fought over geography and resources with culture playing a significant role in alienation of the two sides. Each conflict has mutliple levers to push it on, however, if you take away any one of them then that conflict continues. It is only after removing several levers that you are able to resolve the conflict. Usually however, the levers are not removed unless one side or the other has clear victory. Which, lets face it, doesn't happen all that often.


The human condition it is then?

[wrydolphin]

I don't have to put words in your mouth, Tekken, you put them there yourself. Usually along with a foot.

Please clarify, blind, I don't quite catch your question.

[WatchfulAbyss]

Please clarify, blind, I don't quite catch your question.

Basically, human nature, thats what I was saying by the human condition. I geuss what it all boils down to, is, people will fight about it/something/anything for as long as there are people to do so, atleast on one level or another. I personally don't think religion by itself can be blamed, used and twisted in the rite way it can be a powerful tool though. I don't really know rather it was a question or not at this point :confused:

To be honest, I think threads like this just go to show that you can bicker about anything really. Opinions can be dangerouse on both sides........

[wrydolphin]

Ah, I see where you are now.

Exactly. For what ever reason, xenophobia seems to be a part of our make up as humans. Right or wrong, we seek to define ourselves into groups and as such, define others as not in the group. Once you place others outside your special group, it makes it much easier to attack them as they aren't as real to you. If you have doubts to our nature, go spend some time with kids and teens and watch how they interact. Grownups are sometimes just kids with a meaner set of toys.

[Yama Tombo]

I think with or without religion there would be wars. Once you get over religion, you still have to reconcile characteristics of man like:

greed, jealousy, lust, and yada yada yada.