Name Some Wars Caused By Religion!

[spacemonkey]

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.

:yes: :yes: :yes: :yes:

 

[Smoke]

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.

Supposedly.

Wars are usually fought to preserve or extend power structures; religions are generally the cause of wars only to the extent they're tied to those power structures. However, religions bear a huge responsibility for wars in that they're readily pressed into service for war, and eager to support wars. The religious tendency, at least among the Levantine religions that are the dominant religions in the world today, is to divide humanity into Us and Them. We, of course, are on the side of God, and They are on the side of Evil. The religious mindset makes it terribly easy for people to be swayed in favor of war; without religion and nationalism, wars would hardly be possible. In 1588, attacked by her fellow Christian Philip II, a Catholic, the Protestant Elizabeth I was able to assure her troops: "[W]e shall shortly have a famous victory over the enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people."

Religion is only rarely what motivates the leaders, but it's a big part of what motivates the troops. During the Russo-Japanese War, the Russian Orthodox clergy in Russia prayed for victory over the Japanese; Orthodox clergy in Japan prayed for victory over the Russians. When religious leaders pray for peace, they generally mean a peace in which their country and religion are victorious.

In this way, religion has often leaped to the service of American Wars. The religious right has uncritically supported any military action instigated by a Republican president since 1980. Before that, Christians urged the necessity of fighting the Godless Communists in Vietnam and Korea. Most egregiously, during the American Civil War, Southern preachers overwhelmingly urged on the Confederate cause, assuring the Confederacy that God was on its side. (After the war, they turned to the theme, "Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth.") On the other side, Julia Ward Howe produced one of the most revolting religious paeans to war ever written, and claimed it was written under divine inspiration:

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.

I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps:
His day is marching on.

I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
As ye deal with my condemners, so with you my grace shall deal;
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with His heel,
Since God is marching on.

He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat:
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on.​

 

[James the Persian]

The Crusades happened so Christianity could "win" back the Holy Land from Islam. Ironically Christianity left the Holy Lands as fast as it could ,so how could they "win it back".

What exactly do you mean by this? You do realise that it had only been relatively recently lost to the Muslims by the time of the First Crusade don't you? That's why, despite the Schism, the Emperor asked for aid from Rome in getting it back. Of course, in actuality the aid didn't come but Rome sent soldiers to conquer the region for the RCC instead. At the time of the First Crusade, the majority of the population was Orthodox Christian (plus Oriental Orthodox and Jews) and that includes the majority of the victims. In my opinion, the Crusades were more about power politics in the dispute between Rome and the rest of the Pentarchy than they were about religion as such (hence the fact that the fourth Crusade never even reached the Holy Land but, rather, sacked Constantinople, weakening Christianity in Europe and ultimatley, in all likelihood, leading to the fall of Constantinople and much of south east Europe to the Ottomans).

James

 

[Quiddity]

What exactly do you mean by this? You do realise that it had only been relatively recently lost to the Muslims by the time of the First Crusade don't you? That's why, despite the Schism, the Emperor asked for aid from Rome in getting it back. Of course, in actuality the aid didn't come but Rome sent soldiers to conquer the region for the RCC instead. At the time of the First Crusade, the majority of the population was Orthodox Christian (plus Oriental Orthodox and Jews) and that includes the majority of the victims. In my opinion, the Crusades were more about power politics in the dispute between Rome and the rest of the Pentarchy than they were about religion as such (hence the fact that the fourth Crusade never even reached the Holy Land but, rather, sacked Constantinople, weakening Christianity in Europe and ultimatley, in all likelihood, leading to the fall of Constantinople and much of south east Europe to the Ottomans).

James

I disagree. Albeit there is some truth in what you are saying, I do not think that was a main motivator for those who sent them. You can see it in the Popes letters that he was wary not to disturb relations with the East. If anything, I think it was an attempt to suppress Muslim expansion mixed in support of the Eastern Empire. The diversion didn't come later until the Fourth Crusade, which is as you said interconnected with power and politics.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

I think, even though it might not be an official "war" that the millions killed in the America's due to the concept of Manifest Destiny would qualify as evidence of war or at least genocide being supported by religion.

Northern Ireland's problems in the past few decades b/w Protestants and Catholics, the many Pogromme's of the Middle Ages, The Crusades, the many different wars of Ottoman Expansion, the many different wars b/w Muslims/Jews/Christians all arguing over the proper way to worship "The One True God", The Holocaust, etc. etc. etc.

I really am surprised that this is even a question any longer. I kind of figured everyone pretty much accepted these things as being true.

B.

 

[koan]

No wars have been fought in the name of Buddhism. Buddhists have fought wars, though never under the Buddhist Banner.

 

[James the Persian]

I disagree. Albeit there is some truth in what you are saying, I do not think that was a main motivator for those who sent them. You can see it in the Popes letters that he was wary not to disturb relations with the East. If anything, I think it was an attempt to suppress Muslim expansion mixed in support of the Eastern Empire. The diversion didn't come later until the Fourth Crusade, which is as you said interconnected with power and politics.

I can't believe I only just saw this. I think I disagree with your answer in much the same way you disagreed with my post. There is some truth to it but as far as I can see the power politics (though obviously less overt) were there right from the First Crusade. If not, how do you explain that the Pope, rather than calling for an army to aid the Empire in reclaiming the Holy Land from the Arabs actually sent an entirely western army that circumvented the Empire and instead established a Latin kingdom?

I can see this as nothing more than the recently estranged See of Rome trying to prove itself more powerful (and therefore presumably by implication, more favoured by God) than the Empire (and by implication the rest of the Pentarchy) that had asked for help. That's clearly a political tactic and, whilst I don't doubt that halting Muslim expansion was also a factor, this could have been achieved just as well by supporting the Empire and the fact that this was not done suggests that political intrigues with the eastern Sees were at least as much of a priority (probably a higher one given that east-west cooperation would have resulted in a much stronger military force being assembled making victory that much easier). Of course, the Fourth Crusade was far more extreme, but that was some time further down the line.

James

 

[Quiddity]

I can't believe I only just saw this. I think I disagree with your answer in much the same way you disagreed with my post. There is some truth to it but as far as I can see the power politics (though obviously less overt) were there right from the First Crusade. If not, how do you explain that the Pope, rather than calling for an army to aid the Empire in reclaiming the Holy Land from the Arabs actually sent an entirely western army that circumvented the Empire and instead established a Latin kingdom?

I’m not sure I follow you. If you have an Eastern Emperor asking the west for assistance, what army could they have possibly of gathered outside of the west? Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. By the eleventh century, Asia Minor was conquered. Who in the world were they supposed to call James? The West was basically the only formidable foe against Muslim expansion. Why else would the Emperor ask for help?

I can see this as nothing more than the recently estranged See of Rome trying to prove itself more powerful (and therefore presumably by implication, more favoured by God) than the Empire (and by implication the rest of the Pentarchy) that had asked for help. That's clearly a political tactic and, whilst I don't doubt that halting Muslim expansion was also a factor, this could have been achieved just as well by supporting the Empire and the fact that this was not done suggests that political intrigues with the eastern Sees were at least as much of a priority (probably a higher one given that east-west cooperation would have resulted in a much stronger military force being assembled making victory that much easier). Of course, the Fourth Crusade was far more extreme, but that was some time further down the line.

Actually, the fact that the western armies went to the Holy Land first shows intention to me. If they were out for power as you claim, they did a horrible job at it, and in a horrible order. I don’t buy your interpretation of history for good reason. Go read the Council of Clermont and dare tell me power was the main motivator. Sorry I’m not buying it.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html

 

[Majikthise]

The first recorded accounts of warfare are between the city-states of Mesopotamia. The oldest of these was fought in c.2450 bce between Lagash and Umma.
The best surviving information comes from an inscribed pillar known as the Stele of Vultures, which the city-state of Lagesh erected to commemorate the victory over it's neighbor Umma.
After a border dispute arose between the states, Eanatum, the ruler of Lagesh, inspired by Ningursu, the god of his city, led an army to attack Umma.
Further records from Eanatum's time suggest that he led forces as far east as Elam(present day Iran).

From "BATTLE", A Visual Journey Through 5000 Years of Combat ,by R.G. Grant

I haven't read the entire book yet but the next period in history that indicated religion as impetous or tactic in warfare was this:
"From the establishment of a Muslim state in the 620s , the expansion of Islam was astonishingly swift. Within a century the Islamic Caliphate controlled much of Asia, North Africa and part of Europe. These conquests were achieved without innovative technology or tactics but were the triumph of a militant ideology , inspiring believers with a fighting spirit and urge to conquer in the name of thier faith."

Also:
"Although in priciple war between Muslims was forbidden, war against unbelievers was permitted by the tennets of Islam and encouraged by it's early history." (same book)

And after this the Crusades we all know and love.
So I would answer seldom, but with huge effectiveness.

 

[danjc2]

ok, so sometimes, religion hasn't actually CAUSED a war, but it has been used as a basis to justify commiting acts of war, war-crime etc. Most wars have had a religious tie-in. WWII was Hitler's chance to persecute the Jews. the Crusades were one religion attacking another. Although it is not always evident, most wars have a religous link. for all we know, the reason Mr. Bush was so desperate to invade Iraq (considering his main reason has disappeared faster than his last brain cell) was because he feels threatened by other organised religions. we'll never know for sure.

 

[niranjan]

Here is a link on the yogic perspective on terrorism and fanaticism arising from religion and how to prevent it....


http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50064

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Islam and judaism, loads of wars

 

[Yerda]

Islam and judaism, loads of wars

There is conflict between Islam and Hinduism or an aspect of religious antagonism in India and Pakistan is there not?

 

[wizanda]

All religions have some part? As people do what they feel is good...Else how would you get people to fight, unless they believe in something enough too die for it?

 

[PureX]

Religion and war (from wikipedia)

Religious persecution
By victimized group:

Reign of Terror

(September 5, 1793 – July 28, 1794) or simply The Terror (French: la Terreur) was a period of about ten months during the French Revolution when struggles between rival factions led to mutual radicalization which took on a violent character with mass executions by guillotine. It is generally associated with the figures of Robespierre and Georges Danton, and is popularly represented as an archetype of revolutionary violence.
The Terror itself started on September 5, 1793. The repression accelerated in June and July 1794, a period named la Grande Terreur (The Great Terror) and lasted until the executions following the coup of 9 Thermidor Year II (July 27, 1794), in which several key leaders of the Reign of Terror were executed, including Saint-Just and Maximilien Robespierre. The Terror took the lives of between 18,500 to 40,000 people (estimates vary widely, due to the difference between historical records and statistical estimates). In the single month before it ended, 1,900 executions took place.

Dechristianisation in French Revolution

The Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution is a conventional description of the results of a number of separate policies, conducted by various governments of France between the start of the French Revolution in 1789 and the Concordat of 1801.

Cristero War (Mexico)

The Cristero War (also known as the Cristiada) of 1926 to 1929 was a popular uprising against the anti-Catholic Mexican government of the time, set off specifically by the anti-clerical provisions of the Mexican Constitution of 1917.
After a period of peaceful resistance, a number of skirmishes took place in 1926. The formal rebellions began on January 1, 1927 with the rebels calling themselves Cristeros because they felt they were fighting for Christ himself. Just as the Cristeros began to hold their own against the federal forces, the rebellion was ended by diplomatic means, in large part due to the pressure of U.S. Ambassador Dwight Whitney Morrow.

Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union

Before and after the October Revolution of November 7, 1917 (October 25 Old Calendar) there was a movement within the Soviet Union to unite all of the people of the world under Communist rule (see Communist International). This included the Eastern European bloc countries as well as the Balkan States. Since some of these Slavic states tied their ethnic heritage to their ethnic churches, both the peoples and their church where targeted by the Soviet.[1] [2]
The Soviets' official religious stance was one of "religious freedom or tolerance", though the state established atheism as the only scientific truth.[citation needed] Criticism of atheism was strictly forbidden and sometimes lead to imprisonment.[3]
While religion was never outlawed in the Soviet Union and the Soviet Constitution actually guaranteed religious freedom to all Soviet citizens, persecution of Christians was still government policy

Red terror (Spain)

During the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s, many of the Republican forces were violently anti-clerical anarchists and Communists, whose assaults during what has been termed Spain's red terror included sacking and burning monasteries and churches and killing significant numbers of the Catholic clergy. One scholar notes that despite the fact that "the Church [...] suffer[ed] appalling persecution" behind Republican lines, these events have been met "with the embarrassed silence or attempts at justification of a large number of historians and memoirists."

Cultural Revolution

In the People's Republic of China was a struggle for power within the Communist Party of China that manifested into wide-scale social, political, and economic chaos, which grew to include large sections of Chinese society and eventually brought the entire country to the brink of civil war.
It was launched by the Communist Party of China's Chairman, Mao Zedong on May 16, 1966, officially as a campaign to rid China of its "liberal bourgeoisie" elements and to continue revolutionary class struggle. It is widely recognized, however, as a method to regain control of the party after the disastrous Great Leap Forward led to a significant loss of Mao's power to rivals Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping, and would eventually manifest into waves of power struggles between rival factions both nationally and locally.

Pontic Greek Genocide

Pontic Greek Genocide is a controversial term used to refer to the fate of Pontic Greeks during and in the aftermath of World War I. Other terms used are Pontic tragedy, Pontic annihilation, and the Turkish atrocities in Pontos and Asia Minor.

These terms are used to refer to the persecutions, massacres, expulsions, and death marches of Pontian Greek populations in the historical region of Pontus, the southeastern Black Sea provinces of the Ottoman Empire, during the early 20th century by the Young Turk administration. It has been argued that killings continued during the Turkish national movement led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk which was organized to fight against the Greek invasion of western Anatolia. There were both spontaneous and organized atrocities on either side since the Greek occupation of Smyrna and after 1919, both the Greek and Turkish national movements all either massacred or expelled the other groups under their control.

According to various sources the direct or indirect death toll of Greeks in Anatolia ranges from 300,000 to 360,000 men, women and children. The official recognition of the events is limited, and whether these incidents constitute a genocide is under debate between Greece and Turkey. The Turkish government maintains that by calling these acts "genocide", the Greek government "sustains the traditional Greek policy of distorting history".[14] Turkey similarly denies the historicity of the contemporaneous Armenian and Assyrian genocides.

New York Times headlines which observes that the entire Christian population of Trabzon was "wiped out".

--------

Many wars that are not Religious wars, often still include elements of religion such as priests blessing battleships. Also differences in religion can further inflame a war being fought for other reasons. Historically temples have been military targets that are destroyed to weaken the morale of the opponent, even when the war itself is not being waged over religious ideals.
The view upon religions versus another is very debatable. For example, in the USA, and in other places around Europe, many people would agree that terrorism is part of an ongoing war of religion. However, who is fighting who is the main topic that is so hard to define. Is it Christianity vs. Muslims? Or is it the West vs. Middle East? Or vice-versa? Many people have different views, definitions and opinions upon this subject.

See also: Jihad and Itmam al-hujjah
Jihad is to strive or struggle in the way of God, and is sometimes referred to as the sixth pillar of Islam, although it has no official status.[1] Jihad has a wider meaning in Islamic literature. It can be striving to lead a good Muslim life, praying and fasting regularly, being an attentive spouse and parent or working hard to spread the message of Islam.[2] Jihad is also used in the meaning of struggle for or defence of Islam, the holy war.[1] Despite the fact that Jihad is not supposed to include aggressive warfare, this has occurred, as exemplified by early extremists like Kharijites and contemporary groups like Egypt's Jihad Organization (which assassinated Anwar Al Sadat) as well as Jihad organizations in Lebanon, the Gulf states, and Indonesia.[1]
In Muhammad's time, after Itmam al-hujjah (completion of the proof, a doctrine in Islam related to prophets), polytheists of Arabia were asked for submission to Islam as a condition for exoneration and the others for jizya and submission to the political authority of the Muslims for exemption from death punishment and for military protection as the dhimmis of the Muslims.[3] Islamic scholars have different opinions on Jihad, however, there is a consensus that armed struggle against persecution and oppression will always continue.[3]

Crusades

The Crusades were a series of military campaigns—usually sanctioned by the Papacy—that took place during the 11th through 13th centuries. Originally, the goal was to recapture Jerusalem and the Holy Land from the Muslims and at supporting the Byzantine Empire against the Muslim Seljuq expansion into Asia Minor. The fourth crusade however was diverted and resulted in the conquest of Constantinople. Later on, Crusades were launched against other targets, either for religious reasons, such as the Albigensian Crusade, the Northern Crusades, or because of political conflict, such as the Aragonese Crusade. In 1095, at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II raised the level of war from Bellum iustum ("just war"), to bellum sacrum.

Wars of Religion

French Wars of Religion
In 16th Century France there was a succession of wars between Roman Catholics and Protestants (Hugenots primarily). The series of wars has been known as the Wars of Religion.

Thirty years war

German states, Scandinavia (Sweden, primarily) and Poland were beset by religious warfare. Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism figured in the opposing sides of this conflict, though Catholic France did take the side of the Protestants but purely for political reasons.

Milhemet Mitzvah

The Judaic term for a holy war. The way of declaring one is outlined in the Hebrew Bible.

Saxon Wars

The Saxon Wars have been descibed as a religious war.

 

[PureX]

Many wars, genocides, and other pogroms are based on cultural differences, which include religious differences. There are often other motives involved as well, like greed and vengeance and a general lust for violence just for violence sake, but cultural differences seem to be the most common reason that people kill each other en masse.

So I would have to say that religion does figure prominently in the cause of war.

 

[McBell]

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

Talk about a bait and switch...

 

[joeboonda]

Yet millions died last century alone by godless atheistic and communist regimes: Hitler killed 11-16 million not including those who died in the war, Stalin killed 40 million, Mao Tse-tung killed 72 million people. All in all the Communists alone, who are atheists by constitution are responsible for killing 130 million people not including those killed in war. In this century alone, at the hands of ungodly pagan states, about 170 million people have been killed. The Inquisition involve about 12,000 people in Spain and 30,000 altogether. The idea that more people have died because of religious wars thatn anything else is utterly falacious. More people have been killed in the twentieth century alone by atheistic states than in all other wars--religious and otherwise. Christians are on far more solid ground than most people realize--rock solid. We don't need to shrink back in embarrassment over historically incorrect assertions regarding God's relation to Evil. (from Skeptics Answered D.J. Kennedy p.117-118)

 

[McBell]

Yet millions died last century alone by godless atheistic and communist regimes: Hitler killed 11-16 million not including those who died in the war, Stalin killed 40 million, Mao Tse-tung killed 72 million people. All in all the Communists alone, who are atheists by constitution are responsible for killing 130 million people not including those killed in war. In this century alone, at the hands of ungodly pagan states, about 170 million people have been killed. The Inquisition involve about 12,000 people in Spain and 30,000 altogether. The idea that more people have died because of religious wars thatn anything else is utterly falacious. More people have been killed in the twentieth century alone by atheistic states than in all other wars--religious and otherwise. Christians are on far more solid ground than most people realize--rock solid. We don't need to shrink back in embarrassment over historically incorrect assertions regarding God's relation to Evil. (from Skeptics Answered D.J. Kennedy p.117-118)

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-2]Some claim that Hitler was an atheist and point to his actions in criticizing atheism. However, this is nonsense! Hitler was born and bred a Catholic, he grew up in a religion and in a culture that was anti-semitic. He was motivated by a desire to purge the earth of the evil Jews and set out to 'cleanse' the world of Jews in his 'final solution'.. In Mein Kampf, he states, "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work." Again, in a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926, Hitler stated: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews . . . The work that Christ started but could not finish, I--Adolf Hitler--will conclude." In a Reichstag speech in 1938, Hitler again confirmed the religious origins of his crusade, "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord's work." He was a Catholic until his death. Hitler discussed his Catholocism with many including Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941. He told Engle, "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so," he told . Hitler was nearly assassinated in Munich in November, 1939. His response: "Now I am completely content. The fact that I left the Burgerbraukeller earlier than usual is a corroboration of Providence's intention to let me reach my goal." The Pope also sent his special personal congratulations! Later the Pope was to publicly describe Hitler's opposition to Russia as a "high-minded gallantry in defense of the foundation of Christian culture." Several German bishops openly supported Hitler's invasion of Russia, calling it a "European crusade." Other religious victims of Hitler's wrath were in Yugoslavia, where Hitler installed a Croatian, Ante Pavelic, as his puppet, and Pavelic, a Catholic like Hitler, began extermination of the Serbs, who were Greek Orthodox. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-2] "Hitler's Religion" from the book Lead Us Not Into Penn Station, by Anne Nicol Gaylor, 1983.[/SIZE][/FONT]

​

 

[doppelganger]

http://www.voicesofunreason.com/fullThread$8449

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison.

Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.

As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice . . .

And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery.

When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited."