Religion and Wars

You're playing semantics. Whether or not greed, arrogance, or pride had something to do with the crusades, religion was still the tool used to justify the war. Let's also not forget that the Crusades were championed by the Church, who offered indulgences to any who would fight in them.

 

Religion is often an excuse, but is also often a cause. Doesnt the Bible say pride is a sin? Well it seems religious people have it in abundance.

"My religion is right and yours is wrong. You are evil unbelievers who will go to my hell, and I will send you there."

Many religious people actually believe things like that, and that is what is scary. Christians are probably the worst culprits, because their religion teaches about Jesus, meek as a lamb, but how meek were the crusades? How meek was the spanish inquisition, the burning of witches or those accused of heresy? Faith is okay, but organised religion seems to be a way for the wrong people to exert a lot of influence over a lot of people and cause bad things to happen.

Two quotes come to mind:

"Anyone capable of getting themselves into a position of power should on no account be allowed to do the job."

and

"I like Jesus, its the Christians I'm not crazy about."

 

*points people in the direction of The End of Faith by Sam Harris*

Religion leads to war because religion doesn't need a rational basis for war - the basis can be off in a la la land that has no basis in reality whatsoever.

For instance, certain Christian fundamentalists believe that Christ will return when Damascus is utterly destroyed. Many of them believe that this destruction will be caused by nuclear weapons from Israel. That's why they were supporting Israel in the Lebannese war, and were hoping that Syria would get involved so that Israel would get a chance to glass their capital city.

I'm not making this up - have a look at some of the threads here from around that time: http://www.rr-bb.com/

If that isn't a reason for war on a totally bat**** crazy irrational basis for the reason of religion, I don't know what is.

Edit to add a quote: "I'm not convinced that faith can move mountains, but I've seen what it can do to skyscrapers." - William Gascoyne

 

Not entirely accurate, I'm afraid. While there are some who think that way, most Christians really do mean well. A more apt quote would have been "My religion is right and yours is wrong. You unbelievers will go to hell unless I save you from your fate by converting you to my way of life. Therefore, I will prosecute a war of ideals in which many innocents will die in order to save you from yourselves. While it is sad that many innocents must die, it is a better fate than the suffering you all will endure in the hereafter."

An apt quote for me would be "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

 

Perhaps that is true of most christians, but many of them simply want to send those of other cultures to hell and cant stand non believers.

Somebody said on this forum that any argument about religion is pointless because it isnt a rational thing, and I agree. Which Christian would defend himself here? He cant. By the sheer nature of religion - relying on faith intead of logic - he cant win an argument.

Anyway, back to war and religion, there is no good reason for religion to exist anymore. It used to be a source of common sense and morals - I still argue that the reason pork wasnt supposed to be eaten was because of the risk of worms, which later become a directive. But now, pork is as risk free as other meat. For any who disagree, think about this: if you were on a desert island, with no food whatsoever, but there were pigs who survived by eating fish, and dolphins frequented the shallow waters. Now you cant catch a fish - there are too quick for you because you are lacking nutrition. But the pigs arent used to humans so they dont fear you, and it would be easy to catch one and make supper, just as it would be easy to catch and eat a dolphin. The question is, do you eat an endangered animal nearly as intelligent as yourself, or do you go against gods will and eat a pig?

If you still think Gods will is a good reason for ANYTHING else to die, whether it be human or animal, then take another look at how peaceful your faith is.

 

Drew:

So I guess you also believe that the war in Iraq was caused by weapons of mass destruction? After all, that's what got so much support behind it. I guess their Al Quaeda (sp?) connections are to blame, too?

There's a HUGE difference between a cause and an excuse.

@Proteus:

And you honestly believe these things were caused by christianity? These things were about greed, selfishness, and the maintaining of power.

There are so many mistakes here I don't even want to get into it.

@Aikanaro:
While I'll agree that group is a little out there, I didn't see anyone supporting the war or saying it was a good thing or something to be looked forward to. I saw people reacting largely out of fear and a position of powerlessness. I also only saw one person mention Israel and nukes once as a possibility. I think you are severely overstating the radical nature of this group.

@Drew & Proteus:
How many christains do you actually know? How many of your friends are christians? You speak as though you had statistical studies proving majority, or at lease major minority opinion on these topics went one way. In my experience, most christians detest war. Many will detest other things more, like the tortures inflicted upon the Iraqi people by Saddam and his regime, and as such will support a war to end them, but the vast majority of the christians I have ever met deeply detest war.

Finally:
How many wars can you think of that were actually caused by religion? The Crusades weren't. The Spanish Inquisition wasn't (and it wasn't a war). No war in the 20th century was. No war I can think of in the 19th. My history gets a little fuzzy from there, but I seem to remember a bunch of wars between various nations over land, food, trade, shipping, slavery, colonialism, and the like, but not religion. I don't recall in wars in medieval China that were about religion. Maybe a little persicution as Buddhism comes in, but no wars. The same goes for India and Japan. It seems to me that the VAST majority of wars in recorded history were caused by the desires of men, not any 'messages from the divine'.

[ April 11, 2007, 21:39: Message edited by: NOG (No Other Gods) ]

 

Never has been a religious war? How much of history do you actually know?

Men killed other men in the crusades in the name of Christianity and Muslim. is that enough for you?

Mistakes in my post?

For the record, my parents are still Christian, my friends mostly are, I grew up in a Christian background, I went to church when I was young, I sang hymns at school, I read the Bible.

But you accuse me of not knowing anything about Christianity because I dont agree with your views. How typical of a Christian. If there is one thing common to all Christians I know, its that they dont like hearing other people disagree with their religion, but freely tell others they are on an express train to hell and damnation because they are good people but dont worship enough.

All that is needed for evil in this world is for men to look up to someone who tells them to do evil.

men are commanded to kill each other, in the conflict still going on today. What about Middle East versus America? Is that religious enough for you? What about Israel vs Palestine, fighting over a holy land? Is that not religious?

Israel vs Palestine may be fuelled by proud men, but what fills them with pride? their religion - it tells them that Jerusalem is sacred, and it must not be given up or shared. How is that not the fault of religion?

Tell me if America would be so zealous in its war against the Middle East if a) they had no oil b) they were Christian too. You know that if Iraq were Christian, dictator or no, there would have been no operation iraqi freedom. what about mugabe? hes easily as bad or worse than hussein, but no one cares because he isnt islamic and he doesnt have oil.

 

More semantics. The Iraq war was started because Bush had the country convinced that Iraq had connections to Al-Quaida and to the 9/11 attacks. WMD were just another lie to add to the pile, but if it weren't for the fact that more than half of Americans were convinced Iraq was part of the 9/11 attacks and also part of Al-Quaida, they wouldn't have supported the war. Iraq was started due to lie-fueled fear. The Crusades came from religion fueled pride and arrogance.

 

SOME RELIGIOUS WARS and MASSACRES

some truth in advertising please.

Massacres of Indian Independence (1947, Hindu vs. Muslim)

Albigensian Crusade (13th century, orthodox Christians killing heretics)

The Crusades (Christian vs. Muslim)

Russian Pogroms (Christians killing Jews, Medieval times to 20th century)

Sudanese Civil War (1983 to present, Muslims vs. Christians and Animist rebels)

Teutonic Knights and their Crusades (13th through 15th centuries, Christians vs. Pagans and other Christians)

Iconoclastic Controversy (Byzantium, 726 to 9th century, Christians against Christians)

Persecution of Christians (2nd to early 4th centuries, Romans vs. Christians)

Al Qaeda (Present day, Muslim fanatics vs. westerners)

Holy Inquisition (Christian vs. Jews, Muslims and heretics, Spain, 15th to 19th centuries, also spreading to other countries)

Siege and Massacre at Jerusalem (1099, Christians, killing Jews and Muslims) (

Thirty Years War (Christians, Catholics vs. Protestants, Germany, 1618 to 1648)

(The Religious Wars" of 16th century France (Catholics vs. Protestants)

Bosnian Civil War (1990s, Orthodox Christians vs. Muslims and Roman Catholics) (

East Timor (1970s to present day, Muslims mainly killing Christians)


Hussite Wars (Roman Catholics vs. Hussites, Central Europe--Bohemia/Moravia, 15th century)


Indonesia (Halmohera, Ambon: 1990s to present: Muslims killing Christians)

Ivory Coast (present day, Christians vs. Muslims)


St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre (1572: Lyon, France: Catholics killing Protestants)

Sri Lanka (1983 to present, Hindus mainly killing Buddhists)


"The Troubles" (Catholics vs. Protestants, Northern Ireland, 1969 to present day)

Salem Witch Trials (1692, Christians vs. the imperfectly orthodox)


Forced Conversions of Saxons (772-804, Charlemagne, Christians vs. Pagans)

Sack of Constantinople, 1204 (Roman Catholics killing Orthodox Christians)

Chatila (1982, Christians or Jews killing Muslims)

 

Rwanda, anyone?

Additionally, all that fun stuff around the Reformation/Counter-Reformation (some of which kin mentioned), consisting of actual wars, riots, 'lynchings' (for lack of a better word), and so on.

It's very much what Aik said: you don't need a rational reason for war if you've got God/Allah/Spaghetti Monster. This is not, to be clear, the sole province of religion; nationalism doesn't need a rational reason for war, either (see all the folks advocating war with Iran over the fifteen captives).

 

Proteus:

Did I say that? I don't think I did. I said I couldn't think of any other than God's command to the Jews. That's one right there (maybe more depending on how you count it). What I said was I couldn't think of any more.

Did you even read my post? The Crusades WERE NOT ABOUT RELIGION! It was only an excuse!

Yes. Mainly, that eating pork wasn't a sin, it made you unclean, which meant you couldn't come into the temple area or do a number of other things for a certain period of time. Basically, this is like quarantine. Therefore, you aren't damned for eating pork, you just run the risk of getting sick, and possibly getting other people sick as well.

No, actually, I didn't. I asked you how many of your friends and family were christian, because the behaviour you described to me was totally unlike the behaviour I have seen in christians over the years.

Then you know a very poor selection of christians, I am sorry to say. The religion they have presented to you is not the religion I follow, and shows no trace of the relationship I have with my God. Please do not associate them with me any more. If all that takes is a change in title in your mind, then so be it.

That does indeed make evil prosper.

Not really. It isn't about Christianity vs. Islam, it is about free nations that have plenty vs. restricted nations that don't. Dictators and fanatic leaders always oppose those that could show their blind followers another way.

Ok, but I'm not entirely sure I'd seperate that from the original war(s) in which the Jews conquered that land. Maybe they're seperate, maybe it's just a bigger war.

I can agree with you on the oil issue, not the Christianity one. If Hussein had claimed to be Christian, I hope to God that war still would have happened.

Drew:

No, the crusades came from pride and greed fueled by power and authority. Why do you think they waited so long to invade? Do you think they had forgotten about the promised land and just suddenly remembered, 'Oh, hey, there are these vile, filthy blasphemers occupying the closest thing we have to a holy place. We didn't know that!' I don't think so. The crusades happened because the political and financial arenas in Europe weren't willing to endure another war between the nations. There was no real profit to be had. So why not loot and plunder someone else instead! And it'll go a lot better if we work together, but how can we get all these people to work together? I know, we'll say God wants it to happen!

Voila, the cause of the crusades.

Kin:

Isn't that where a whole bunch of Muslims were forced out of their homes in India and had to move to the newly created Pakistan, and a whole bunch of Buddhists were forced to move out of their homes in the newly created Pakistan and move to India? Hmm, could general anger at being forcefully displaced have had anything to do with it?

I've already talked about that one. And that includes all the crusades.

Don't know too much about those, but it sounds possible.

See: Second Sudanese Civil War
Specifically:

That's not religious.

And you're trying to tell me that was actually about religion and not a bunch of prideful idiots refusing to listen to the other side?

A conflict spewing from the percieved threat that any other religion posed to the Roman rule. Again, really about power and methods of maintaining power, not religion itself.

Adressed above. It isn't really about religion so much as lifestyle and freedoms.

Just like the Red Scare in the US, it was about maintaining power through fear, not actually religion.

Politics involving the Habsburg Dynasty, not religion. Remember, Catholic France sided with the Protestants.

Largely a powerstrugle between the King's family and the Nobility (or upper class). The long established Catholic King had never ruled absolutely, and when the current King died with no obvious heir, conflict was guaranteed. That it came down to the 'loyal Catholics' and the 'troublesome Protestants who were challenging the established order' is no suprise.

Political struggles after the breakup of Yugoslavia. Not religious.

Kin, you seem to be confusing ethnic groups and societies with religions. While each ethnic group does tend to be more or less a single religion, that does not make everything they do religiously motivated. With the religious patchwork found throughout the area, there's no suprise that many such conflicts involve groups of different religions. The evidence that this is not genuinely religious, however, is that neighbors of the same religion still go to war with each other, that neighbors of the same religion do not always help each other out, that neighbors of differing religions do sometimes help each other out, and most importantly, that particular forces frequently switch sides. While two different religions may be involved, the religions are not the cause of it.

AMaster:
You seem to be largely on the same page that Kin is. Also, please remember that the Reformation cause so much trouble not because the religions are opposed to each other, but because Catholicism was the established method of rule. The King ruled because God appointed him, and if someone else over there was saying something different about God, then they may get people to question why the King really rules, so the King has to wipe them out before that happens. Voila, a war that really has nothing to do with religion, even though it seems to.

 

You can say it all you want, but repeating it over and over again won't actually make it true. The Crusades were fueled by religion. The warriors who went to fight in them did so knowing that they would be assuring their place in heaven by fighting in the Crusades. They fought because their religion said that they would gain a "higher reward" (in the form of indulgences) for doing so.
They were fighting in the Crusades for what they felt was a "holy cause", bringing salvation to the heathen unbelievers of the Muslim world in order to re-claim the Holy Land in the name of Jesus Christ.....and assuring their own salvation in the process. You need to learn more about the Crusades and the workings of the early church, kid. Just because cynical old men were pulling the strings behind the war doesn't change the fact that the people actually doing the fighting were volunteering to do so because of their faith.
The fact that religion was abused to start the Crusades has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it was religion that was used to start the crusades. Every time religion is used to start a war, it is an "abuse" of religion. Abuse or not, it is still religion being used as justification.

[ April 12, 2007, 03:02: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

This argument is untenable. There is virtually nothing to support it in the scholarship on the subject. If you don't believe me, say so, and I'll provide you a list of articles, books, and authors which support my case and undercut yours.

I'd do it now, but I don't have the stuff handy.

 

Sound like a reasonable interpretation of this, but that does not justify trying to accelerate this along. Remember that it may be some other cause too. Remember also that they are fundamentalists...

Again, a fundamentalist group (Muslim this time, but still a fundamentalist). A radical not representative of the masses.

I'm not the one sending them there. They punch their own tickets to damnation by their own actions and refusal of Christ...

Because what proves our faith to us is personal, and not easily described to others. To those outside the faith, it becomes nearly impossible to describe...

But how many such claims have actually been God's will, instead of the will of someone who presumed to speak for God? You are introducing another component into the cauldron here, specifically:

Who says these religious authorities are actually right in what they say is God's will?

At the order of a Pope that didn't like the fact that non Catholic savages held the holy land. And how many of these crusades sacked Constantinople on their way through? Most of the Nobles that led Crusades did so for the "indulgences" promised, not as a show of faith or to gain prestige over their fellow nobles. This behavious is not advocated in Christian doctrine...

My own Contrributions:

Some of this is not actually religion, but the abuse of religion. Someone in authority (see Proteus "Anyone capable of getting themselves into a position of power should on no account be allowed to do the job.") lets it go to his head and calls upon the followers to attack those he doesn't like.

Also forgotten are World War II, where a dictator channelled the frustrations of an economically struggling nation against a religious group (the Jews) and seeks out their destruction, and several massacres throughout Ohio, Illinois and Missouri between the 1820's and 1840's where the Mormons were driven out of one community after another because the locals didn't like what they taught. Also, in 1880, a Local priest was suspected of being one of the ring leaders in a massacre against the Donnely family in Lucan Ontario.

Religion may be a factor, but not the only factor. They have also been forced into positions to defend themselves from oppression. Please take that into account...

 

You apparently don't understand what an indulgence is, Gnarff. In Roman Catholic theology, an indulgence is the full or partial remission of temporal punishment due to sins which have already been forgiven. The indulgence is granted by the church after the sinner has confessed and received absolution.** The church still gives indulgences to this day.....most often during the sacrament of reconciliation. For more information on how indulgences work, Wikipedia has a pretty good page.

The church offered a certain degree of forgiveness of temporal punishment for sins already committed for serving in the crusades. We all know this. Hell, I'm the one who brought it up in the first place. No one is actually arguing that the crusades weren't an abuse of Christian doctrine. We are simply pointing out that Christian doctrine was used to justify the Crusades.....whether or not it was an abuse of Christian doctrine is irrelevant to that fact. We all know that Christianity shouldn't have been used to justify the crusades. That, however, doesn't change the fact that it was.

**Since it explained indulgences so concisely and I'm too lazy to bother digging out my old copy of the Catechism right now, this was taken lock, stock, and barrel from the Wikipedia entry to which I linked.

[ April 12, 2007, 11:00: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

@NOG: The only war you claim was religious was (is) still a war, and the command for that war was given by men. If you choose that God choose to give that command to men, so be it, but remember, kiling is still killing, and surely God would prefer to convert people rather than kill them? obviously not.

War in the name of religion but without the sanctioning of God (and I cant see how God would sanction killing) is still war. NOG, the Crusades were about religion and religion only. Whoever caused it, whatever the real reason, the justification was always religion. Whatever the rulers said, the soldiers obeyed their orders to KILL other men because of their faith. If your King commanded you to kill another man, who was of a different faith but not evil, would you do so? I hope not.

As long as their are people and books who claim to the voice of God, that voice will never reach the people in its true form. People will distort it and twist the words for their own good, that has and always will happen (mostly because there never was a voice to begin with).

NOG, whatever the reasons for not eating pork back then, is it still justifiable that people not eat pork today? Are they sill unclean?

 

One word. Trichinosis. Then again I think it is bad to eat all meat. Or fish. Or eggs. Or milk. So I guess I'm a bit biased.

 

The Word according to Nakia.

Religion doesn't cause wars human beings cause wars.

Hokay, a rather simplistic statement so to continue:

Creation of Religion according to Nakia:

Him looked out on the world and found it a strange and mysterious place so Him went and contemplated under a rock for 28 days and nights. Him returned to his cave and spoke thusly:

"The world is a strange and mysterious place so there must be something else that made this world."

Him lead his people back to the rock and said, "This Rock has spoken to me and told me many things. In this rock is embodied the Creator of this World. We will pray to this Rock and bring sacrifices to it."

So they did so.

Later another tribe/clan came upon the Rock and wanted to claim it and the lands around it for their own. Thus began the first war.

It is 5:18AM here in the Garden State and this appropo of nothing.

 

True. Except humans always have some sort of excuse when starting a war. Religion is often that excuse.