Has there ever truely been a religious war?

[sandandfoam]

What are you talking about? The Cathars were condemned as heretics.

As alluded to by Cynthia, the crusading armies in Beziers did not distinguish between Catholic and heretic. Everyone in the town (20,000 people according to reports from the time) was put to the sword.

 

[sandandfoam]

Remember what the Pope said

That's why I think it was about power - not religion.

 

[Valjean]

Religion and politics have always worked hand in glove, and religion's always been used as a motivator by the saintly and wicked alike.

 

[Copernicus]

As alluded to by Cynthia, the crusading armies in Beziers did not distinguish between Catholic and heretic. Everyone in the town (20,000 people according to reports from the time) was put to the sword.

How would the Pope's troops have been able to distinguish true believers from heretics? Did they wear identifying labels? The town was a Cathar stronghold. It was put to the sword because the inhabitants were considered enemies of Catholicism.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

That's why I think it was about power - not religion.

"Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet". Beziers had a sizable Gnostic population mixed in the Catholic populus, the Pope just didn't want to be bothered sorting who was loyal to Catholicism and who wasn't

 

[Copernicus]

Actually I'm still formulating an opinion which is why exercises like this are so useful. Should a war be judged by why the people who started it did so or by what the people fighting were fighting for? For example, was the reason for the American Civil War an extension of the battle between Jeffersonian and Hamilton politics, defense against an invader or a fight to end slavery? The answer will be different depending who you ask, is only one correct or could all be possibly correct?

I would classify wars in terms of the casus belli, as perceived by the opposing sides. The people who actually went to war were motivated by religious issues during the Crusades. That they were being cynically manipulated into the war by people with ulterior motives was beside the point. People died for their religion, not just the person who was the King of France or the Pope. The ultimate goal of the war was to put Christians in charge of the Holy Land.

In the case of the Civil War, you can look at all sorts of motives, but the one clear motive that was used to rally the troops was the issue of slavery. That is stated clearly in the Declaration of Causes of Secession and had been the subject of intense public debate during the election of Lincoln, which was the event that triggered the secessions.

Now, just to show I'm not entirely dodging the question, I would define a religious war as one where the decision makers went to war for religious reasons. But I'm not sure that my definition is correct.

I think that 9-10ths' point about multiple causation is a good one, but I would not classify wars as non-religious or religious on those grounds. I would look at the issues that people thought they were fighting the war over, not the realpolitik machinations behind the scenes. A war is religious if the people who fight in it would not be fighting but for some religious issue that they think is at stake.

 

[sandandfoam]

How would the Pope's troops have been able to distinguish true believers from heretics? Did they wear identifying labels? The town was a Cathar stronghold. It was put to the sword because the inhabitants were considered enemies of Catholicism.

They (the crusading army) knew there were thousands of Catholics in the town. They were apparently happy to kill them too. It makes no sense to me to argue that the crusading army considered Catholics the enemies of Catholicism.

It seems reasonable to argue that the crusading army didn't care that there were thousands of Catholics in the town. But it is hard to say the massacare was about religion when those doing the killing and many of those being killed were of the one religion.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

They (the crusading army) knew there were thousands of Catholics in the town. They were apparently happy to kill them too. It makes no sense to me to argue that the crusading army considered Catholics the enemies of Catholicism.

It seems reasonable to argue that the crusading army didn't care that there were thousands of Catholics in the town. But it is hard to say the massacare was about religion when those doing the killing and many of those being killed were of the one religion.

In Beziers those Catholics were living in peace with the Gnostics. And in the view of the Pope that was a little too close for comfort. The Pope was acting like he wanted to stamp out an infection, and that infection was Gnosticism. And know how much the Cathars influenced their Catholic neighbors

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

It almost seems like you're asking whether there have been any wars with only one causal factor. My impression is that there's virtually always more than one cause for any given war.

But does this mean that a war that's the result of religious causes mixed with non-religious ones isn't really a "religious war"? Probably not, IMO.

Very good point.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I would look at the issues that people thought they were fighting the war over, not the realpolitik machinations behind the scenes. A war is religious if the people who fight in it would not be fighting but for some religious issue that they think is at stake.

Interesting, I see it the exact opposite. To me the realpolitik is what I classify the war under rather than what the solidiers are fighting for. Not to say you're wrong, in fact, I suspect we are both right and the matter merely one of subjective perception. Thank you for your insight.

 

[JacobEzra.]

No such thing as religious war. Just just and unjust wars

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

No such thing as religious war. Just just and unjust wars

Very interesting, and what would you describe is the difference between a Just and Unjust war? With examples please.

 

[abdul lateef]

I don't think that there has ever been a time where both sides of the party (meaning the authorities) have fought for religion. But sometimes war can be religious for one side of the argument, if its self defence. In which case the people are fulfilling a religious obligation by defending themselves, and their communities, and their property.

 

[JacobEzra.]

Very interesting, and what would you describe is the difference between a Just and Unjust war? With examples please.

A just war is simply when the outcomes are greater then the destruction. Such as WWII with the Allies fighting the Axis.

Unjust war, is the opposite. When the outcome is not worth the destruction and devastation of a war. Vietnam and Iraq are examples.

 

[Copernicus]

They (the crusading army) knew there were thousands of Catholics in the town. They were apparently happy to kill them too. It makes no sense to me to argue that the crusading army considered Catholics the enemies of Catholicism.

Stephen, why else do you think there was a massacre in Beziers? Remember that this was the Albigensian Crusade, and the stated purpose of the war was to wipe out what was termed the Albigensian heresy. Pope Innocent III condemned the heresy and instigated the war on religious grounds and excommunicated Raymond VI of Toulouse for failing to engage in a war to suppress his subjects' religion. Simon de Montfort attacked Beziers with the Pope's blessing. There is no historical ambiguity here. The casus belli was religion.

It seems reasonable to argue that the crusading army didn't care that there were thousands of Catholics in the town. But it is hard to say the massacare was about religion when those doing the killing and many of those being killed were of the one religion.

The massacre itself was a tactic used in a religious war. Simon de Montfort could have behaved more humanely, but that was not the kind of person he was. The Pope excommunicated Raymond VI, who was defending the town, not the person who committed the massacre and was there doing the Pope's dirty work.