Name Some Wars Caused By Religion!

[spacemonkey]

The question stems from another thread:


Sunstone, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but take issue with the way you phrased the question. If you ask people to name some wars caused by religion, of course people are going to be able to name some. And this again gives the impression that religion is the major cause of war. Instead, what I was asking darkpenguin, or any of yall, to do is list the last 10 wars we've had (ten seemed like a not unwieldy number) and then systematically ascribe the causes of those wars. So then we wouldn't only be focusing on those wars that we generally think were caused by religion. We would be looking at all wars to see whether religion is a dominant cause.

By we do you mean the United States? There are wars constantly going on around the globe that involve religion that the US is not involved in. Of course the last 10 wars the US has been involved didn't involve religion, we are a secular nation.

 

[Random]

Name some wars caused by religion. Who were the participants? What were their beliefs? What, specifically, was the war over?

The war in the North of Ireland, called the Armed Struggle by some, pitted Catholics who were Irish Nationalist against Protestants who wished to maintain the Union with Britain and retain their Britishness, in the face of majority opinion on the Island as a whole. One side were deemed "Terrorists" by the opposition, whilst they terrorised the other in return.

Although official hostilities are over, the rancour between the communities of Northern Ireland is still and always was religious. The leader of the Protestant Unionists, Dr. Ian Paisley, openly despises Catholics whilst the Roman Church has always had connexions with terrorist groups like the IRA.

It is this religious context to the differences in the North that render positive political action by the governments of Ireland and Britain ineffective. It remains largely unresolved to this very day.

 

[nutshell]

what you are saying is religion is a tool that is used to propogate and support the causes of war. How is that different than saying "religion causes wars"?

IMO, the "cause" of the war is the power greedy leaders. A tool is the means to an end...it is not the end itself. Therefore, the religion is a means for those in power to get more, but it is their greed that is the actual cause.

 

[Booko]

In some sense, virtually every war is justified based on religious ideas, though none of them are really about religion.

I was wondering the other day what religious ideas anyone used to justify WWI, other than the usual "God is on our side" nonsense.

Religion is an expedient way to get poor people to do the fighting for those who will profit from victory.

Very true. A permanent underclass is also useful for that purpose.

 

[Booko]

This is the sort of thing I would have expected the U.S. State Department to be well-versed in while thinking of and planning for what would become of a post-Sadaam Iraq - yet another "religiously diverse" former British colony.

My expectations have been sorely disappointed.

I suggest your expectations were much too high. We've always been something of an isolationist country, and very few of us have any clear idea how the rest of the world lives.

You might wish to think that those who join the State Department might be far more acquainted with world history and culture, and compared to the average Joe, they are. It's just that, compared to many if not most of their counterparts in other State Departments, that ain't sayin' much.

 

[lilithu]

By we do you mean the United States? There are wars constantly going on around the globe that involve religion that the US is not involved in. Of course the last 10 wars the US has been involved didn't involve religion, we are a secular nation.

I invite you to take a look at the list I linked to in another post here:
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/massacre.html

It is not U.S. centric. Of those listed, what percentage would you say were primarily caused by relgious differences?

 

[kai]

I dont think you can say religion in itself would cause a war ,but it is one part of a national whole that makes up a sense of self, or them and us, its easier to demonise your combatant the more differences there are, and being of a different religion can be a prime source of one factor to propagate or justify a war, so i voted often because i consider it not the cause but a major factor

 

[spacemonkey]

I invite you to take a look at the list I linked to in another post here:
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/massacre.html

It is not U.S. centric. Of those listed, what percentage would you say were primarily caused by relgious differences?

I was just wondering about how you had worded it, you sait the last 10 wars "we" were in....

I'll concede the fact the majority of the wars through out history were not "caused" by war. The principle driving force behind war is the greed of the ruling class (be it for land, resources, power, or for freedom from said greed), but you can not deny that religion is often used as a tool to convice people to fight these wars.

 

[Booko]

what you are saying is religion is a tool that is used to propogate and support the causes of war. How is that different than saying "religion causes wars"?

It's like saying that motorized vehicles cause wars, just because they are used to propogate and support war.

Whether religion is a motivating factor in war is not the same question as asking whether it's useful for wartime propaganda.

 

[Booko]

"The War on Terror"! Religion plays a huge part in what's happening right now...on both "sides". Although, like many wars, it is not without the greed and lust for power elements.

A. There's more than two "sides."
B. Where religion plays a role, it's in sectarian violence among the Iraqis, though it would be fair also to say the difference is overall cultural and has much to do with the settling of old scores.
C. Religion was a nil factor in our invasion of Iraq, in terms of propaganda and actual motives. We would have invaded them just the same if they had been Christians, and never batted an eyelash.

 

[Booko]

Of course the last 10 wars the US has been involved didn't involve religion, we are a secular nation.

Good point. In fact, I can't name one war the US has been involved in where religion was a motivating factor.

I can't think of many European conflicts in the past century either, save the mess in Bosnia, and you can still argue that Bosnia was a "religious" war in the sense that it's a factor in the cultures that were in conflict. But for that subject, I'd prefer to let Djamila speak further.

 

[kai]

this may be of interest
Can religion be blamed for war?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/3513709.stm

 

[lilithu]

this may be of interest
Can religion be blamed for war?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/3513709.stm

Few truly religious wars

The War Audit says that although armed conflicts may take on religious overtones, their genesis invariably lies in factors such as ethnicity, identity, power struggles, resources, inequality and oppression - and one factor is often exacerbated by another.
It is often suggested that there has been a sharp rise in religiously motivated conflict.
But the authors of the War Audit say there have been very few genuinely religious wars in the past century.

The Israel-Arab wars from 1948 to the present day are often seen as wars over religion. In fact, they say, they have been about nationalism, self-defence or the liberation of territory.

So why is religion a factor in war at all when all the main faiths have little time for violence and advocate peace?

Because, it is suggested, leaders use differences over faith as a way of sowing hatred and mobilising support for political wars.


Thank you!! I would like to think this discussion will put the whole "religion causes war" fallacy to rest once and for all but past experience tells me otherwise. So much for people's adherance to logic.

 

[doppelganger]

Because, it is suggested, leaders use differences over faith as a way of sowing hatred and mobilising support for political wars.

Bingo! I said this early on [#5]. Religion is frequently a part of warfare because it allows those who will benefit from a victory to get the people to give up their lives to secure that victory. It's always about those other issues: perceptions of oppression, control of land and resources, revenge, etc . . .

Religion doesn't cause war by itself, though it makes getting people to wage it a lot easier. Perhaps it is often a necessary but not sufficient condition.

 

[kai]

Few truly religious wars

The War Audit says that although armed conflicts may take on religious overtones, their genesis invariably lies in factors such as ethnicity, identity, power struggles, resources, inequality and oppression - and one factor is often exacerbated by another.
It is often suggested that there has been a sharp rise in religiously motivated conflict.
But the authors of the War Audit say there have been very few genuinely religious wars in the past century.

The Israel-Arab wars from 1948 to the present day are often seen as wars over religion. In fact, they say, they have been about nationalism, self-defence or the liberation of territory.

So why is religion a factor in war at all when all the main faiths have little time for violence and advocate peace?

Because, it is suggested, leaders use differences over faith as a way of sowing hatred and mobilising support for political wars.


Thank you!! I would like to think this discussion will put the whole "religion causes war" fallacy to rest once and for all but past experience tells me otherwise. So much for people's adherance to logic.

your welcome

 

[lilithu]

Religion doesn't cause war by itself, though it makes getting people to wage it a lot easier. Perhaps it is often a necessary but not sufficient condition.

I don't think it's even necessary, honestly, DG. It is extremely effective, yes. But any ideology to which the people are tied will be effective. All you have to do is convince people that their way of life is under attack. Whether it's the abolition of slavery or the threat of Communism... Bush may claim that God is on our side but he appeals to the spread of "Democracy" more than religious arguments.

 

[doppelganger]

I don't think it's even necessary, honestly, DG. It is extremely effective, yes. But any ideology to which the people are tied will be effective. All you have to do is convince people that their way of life is under attack. Whether it's the abolition of slavery or the threat of Communism... Bush may claim that God is on our side but he appeals to the spread of "Democracy" more than religious arguments.

I don't believe there is a clear distinction between "religious" and "secular" demagoguery - jingoistic nationalism and religious jihadism are the same underlying method in my opinion.

I agree that most of Bush's rhetoric is about exporting "democracy." However, isn't it curious that the base of support that still buys that rhetoric is built around the religious right?

 

[lilithu]

I don't believe there is a clear distinction between "religious" and "secular" demagoguery - jingoistic nationalism and religious jihadism are the same underlying method in my opinion.

I think we're in agreement on this.

I agree that most of Bush's rhetoric is about exporting "democracy." However, isn't it curious that the base of support that still buys that rhetoric is built around the religious right?

That is true. The underlying current of this call to "export Democracy" is the idea that democracy is a gift to the U.S. from God, and therefore we as God's new chosen people have the responsibility to "share" that gift with the rest of the world.

But I still think the Religious Right is being led like sheep on this one. "Exporting democracy" isn't the real reason behind the current war either. If it were, I can think of other countries that were in even more "need" of our "prophetic wisdom."

It was rarely mentioned in the days leading up to the war, and only got more play after it was clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction to be found.

 

[doppelganger]

But I still think the Religious Right is being led like sheep on this one. "Exporting democracy" isn't the real reason behind the current war either. If it were, I can think of other countries that were in even more "need" of our "prophetic wisdom."

Oh, I completely agree. I was just pointing out that even in Bush's rhetoric for the war there is a religious myth to inspire the troops and support back home. But I agree that the invasion of Iraq is about the securing of American hegemony through the creation of a permanent U.S. military presence from which to control the world's largest oil reserves by force and threat of force. The Project For A New American Century manifesto called "Rebuilding America's Defenses, written in 2000 by the architects of the Iraq war who control the Bush Administration (Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Crystol, Cheney, Bolton) expressly said that this is why they wanted to invade Iraq - three years before they sold the invasion to the American public based on lies about WMD and terrorist links to Sadaam.

The plan was already in place. They were just looking for (in their own words mind you) a "catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" around which to rally American support for the complete militarization of American society that they sought - and which they are right on the brink of achieving.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf (page 51).

 

[lilithu]

The plan was already in place. They were just looking for (in their own words mind you) a "catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" around which to rally American support for the complete militarization of American society that they sought - and which they are right on the brink of achieving.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf (page 51).

Yup. And they got exactly what they wanted.

Sometimes in my darkest moments, when I think of all the things that had to happen for them to get to where we are now - Nader/the hanging chads and butterfly ballots of the 2000 election that put Bush in the White House instead of Gore, and then 9/11 - I wonder if "God" really is on their side. Or something. I'd then have to believe that's the Demiurge and the Gnostics are right.