Religions are Falsely accused.

[Madmogwai]

A fundamentalistic belief in Islam along with the belief that the US was at fault. Without such an extreme belief (religion) it would not have happened.

True it’s used as a recruitment tool and to whip Terrorist into a frenzy.
By men who use it to their advantage through false teachings, is that the Religion or the people at fault.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you have to look at what they stand to gain, was the war in Iraq about Weapons of mass destruction, off coarse not.
But people will swear it is.

You are still using that same fallacy. It was part of it. You probably do not remember what was happening at that time. Iraq still saw Iran as a major threat. They had just lost a war that disarmed them. They did comply, but they made it all but impossible to confirm that they did. It appears that a good part of that was because they were afraid of an Iranian invasion (whether such a fear was reasonable or not is besides the point). Many of the Democrats were as ready to invade as the Republicans were. There were countless quotes of Clinton and Gore that indicated they believed that Iraq was armed too.

 

[ChristineM]

I don’t understand your post

You cannot answer it

Yes i can and will

There were several mitigating factors, not least was Islamic fundimental extremism.

You can add American support of isreal and secular Arab nations.

And you still have not explained your "pay taxes" quip. Im assuming because you have no answer to my post listing a few of many religious wars.

 

[Subduction Zone]

True it’s used as a recruitment tool and to whip Terrorist into a frenzy.
By men who use it to their advantage through false teachings, is that the Religion or the people at fault.

And if religions did not promise what they cannot deliver, in both threats and rewards, do you think that such an action could be accomplished?

 

[Mock Turtle]

It is important to approach this topic with a balanced and critical mindset, understanding that religion, at its core, is intended to foster peace, unity, and spiritual growth. Religions provide individuals with personal guidance, moral frameworks, and a sense of purpose. They offer a path towards enlightenment, compassion, and a harmonious existence with fellow human beings.

So, when so many different but similar beliefs arise so as to cause conflict between them (history shows this), what do you suppose happens - despite their intentions? I don't think so many here see religions as being the major cause of conflict but they will at least recognise that it often is a major or contributory one, and often as much as culture, nationhood, political beliefs, or other such. And, given that religious beliefs do tend to be so deep rooted - being indoctrinated into most whilst being children - it can be seen that such beliefs might affect them just as much or even more as any others that might divide them or unite them against others. Given that the majority do not change their religious beliefs.

 

[Madmogwai]

Terrorism, in any form, is a heinous act that aims to instill fear, create division, and undermine the principles of peace and coexistence. It is essential to remember that acts of terror are committed by individuals or groups who distort religious or political ideologies to justify their violent actions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To be fair, I must say that I support distinguishing those beliefs from religion.

But that requires accepting the duty to point out the difference and the reality that most people simply won't agree with me, for a variety of reasons.

It tends to be a package deal. It is hard to find a religion that did not have these sorts of flaws. And I do not know of any that ever accomplished a large body of followers where this sort of abuse did not occur. In other words it is a religious problem, even if it was not the teaching of the founders of those religions.

 

[PureX]

Religion was used as a recruitment tool by people with non Religious motives.
Look deeper.

You're bucking a very deeply held bias, here, that generally comes with some intense loathing. Religion has become the popular scapegoat for many of humanity's evil inclinations.

But truth be told, religions are just collections of images, rituals, rules and lore that their adherents can use to help them live their lives according to whatever theological proposition they've chosen to follow. And almost none of them includes making war as a means of doing that. So it's not religion that drives a desire for war. It's something else using the cover of religion to promote warfare.

As to the complaint that religion makes people gullible and therefor susceptible to that, all I can say is that people will believe what they want to believe and religions don't cause that, nor negate it.

 

[LuisDantas]

True it’s used as a recruitment tool and to whip Terrorist into a frenzy.
By men who use it to their advantage through false teachings, is that the Religion or the people at fault.

It depends on how you define religion.

But you ought to acknowledge that there are whole countries that call that religion, while you apparently refuse to.

 

[Madmogwai]

In many cases, religious differences have been exploited by political or military leaders to justify their actions or rally support. These leaders may manipulate religious narratives to strengthen their positions or mobilize followers. It is essential to distinguish between the actions of individuals or groups who misuse religion for their own agendas and the broader principles and values of the religious faiths themselves.

Moreover, it is worth noting that there have been countless instances where religious leaders and organizations have played pivotal roles in promoting peace, reconciliation, and humanitarian efforts. Interfaith dialogue and initiatives have been instrumental in fostering understanding, tolerance, and cooperation between different religious communities.

while religious differences have undoubtedly played a role in some conflicts, it is overly simplistic to solely blame religions for wars. Wars are complex phenomena resulting from a multitude of factors, and it is crucial to consider broader socio-political contexts and individual motivations.

 

[Madmogwai]

You're bucking a very deeply held bias, here, that generally comes with some intense loathing. Religion has become the popular scapegoat for many of humanity's evil inclinations.

But truth be told, religions are just collections of images, rituals, rules and lore that their adherents can use to help them live their lives according to whatever theological proposition they've chosen to follow. And almost none of them includes making war as a means of doing that. So it's not religion that drives a desire for war. It's something else using the cover of religion to promote warfare.

As to the complaint that religion makes people gullible and therefor susceptible to that, all I can say is that people will believe what they want to believe and religions don't cause that, nor negate it.

That is what I said.

 

[ChristineM]

In many cases, religious differences have been exploited by political or military leaders to justify their actions or rally support. These leaders may manipulate religious narratives to strengthen their positions or mobilize followers. It is essential to distinguish between the actions of individuals or groups who misuse religion for their own agendas and the broader principles and values of the religious faiths themselves.

Moreover, it is worth noting that there have been countless instances where religious leaders and organizations have played pivotal roles in promoting peace, reconciliation, and humanitarian efforts. Interfaith dialogue and initiatives have been instrumental in fostering understanding, tolerance, and cooperation between different religious communities.

while religious differences have undoubtedly played a role in some conflicts, it is overly simplistic to solely blame religions for wars. Wars are complex phenomena resulting from a multitude of factors, and it is crucial to consider broader socio-political contexts and individual motivations.

And it is narrow minded to ignore the part religion has played in wars, often times the war is purely religious

---

 

[Augustus]

As it is said "War is a continuation of politics by other means."

My pedantic quibble of the day…

For most (if not all) of human history war, has been an integral tool of politics not something distinct.

iirc that’s what Clausewitz was saying, war is simply a political tool or means to achieve sstated policy objectives. The popular version is a minor mistranslation.

It’s not politics by other means but another means of politics.

 

[Madmogwai]

It depends on how you define religion.

But you ought to acknowledge that there are whole countries that call that religion, while you apparently refuse to.

Call what Religion

 

[Madmogwai]

And it is narrow minded to ignore the part religion has played in wars, often times the war is purely religious

---

Name a purely Religious War please

 

[Augustus]

Religions have often been wrongly accused of being the root cause of conflicts and wars throughout history. However, it is crucial to recognize that religions themselves do not initiate wars. Rather, it is the manipulation of religious beliefs by leaders and individuals that serves as a smokescreen to further their own ulterior motives, such as the acquisition of land and control over valuable resources.

When people say "religion has caused many/most of the world's wars" or they say "greedy leaders and individuals" have caused most of the world's wars they are often 2 sides of the same coin: a desire to think human violence is an "error" that can be fixed if only we could move past these nasty religions or find a way of choosing good leaders.

The problems are soluble if we can find a scapegoat on whom to pin the failings of human nature.

Religions can be violent as humans are a violent species. And while I personally don't think there is any way to differentiate religious belief systems from irreligious ones, even if we went by standard usage there is no reason to think secular ideologies have been any less violent (probably actually more so pound for pound).

Ultimately though its not about bad religions, or bad secular ideologies or bad leaders, it's just human nature and there is no escaping this.

We can be kind and altruistic, and violent and venal, all are equally human and there is no escaping this unfortunately.

 

[wellwisher]

Religions have often been wrongly accused of being the root cause of conflicts and wars throughout history. However, it is crucial to recognize that religions themselves do not initiate wars. Rather, it is the manipulation of religious beliefs by leaders and individuals that serves as a smokescreen to further their own ulterior motives, such as the acquisition of land and control over valuable resources.

It is important to approach this topic with a balanced and critical mindset, understanding that religion, at its core, is intended to foster peace, unity, and spiritual growth. Religions provide individuals with personal guidance, moral frameworks, and a sense of purpose. They offer a path towards enlightenment, compassion, and a harmonious existence with fellow human beings.

Nevertheless, throughout history, we have witnessed instances where leaders have exploited religious sentiments to achieve their political or economic goals. By manipulating religious doctrines and spreading divisive ideologies, these leaders have effectively masked their true intentions, diverting attention away from their aggressive territorial ambitions. In doing so, they have successfully rallied masses under the guise of religious fervor, thus justifying their actions in the eyes of their followers.

A prime example of this manipulation can be observed in various historical conflicts, where leaders have misused religion as a tool for territorial expansion. They have utilized religious rhetoric to mobilize armies, instilling a sense of righteousness and divine sanction in their followers. By harnessing the power of religious devotion, these leaders have not only justified their conquests but also ensured unwavering support from their followers.

However, it is essential to distinguish between the actions of these leaders and the teachings of the religions they claim to represent. Religions, when practiced genuinely, emphasize love, tolerance, and peace. They advocate for the well-being of all individuals, regardless of their faith or background. The notion that religion inherently promotes violence is an oversimplification and a misinterpretation of the true essence of these belief systems.

To avoid falling into the trap of blaming religions for conflicts, it is imperative that we critically examine the underlying motives behind wars. By doing so, we can separate the genuine teachings of religions from the manipulative tactics employed by leaders. This understanding will enable us to address the root causes of conflicts more effectively and strive towards a more peaceful and inclusive world.

By recognizing this distinction, we can focus on fostering understanding, empathy, and dialogue among different religious communities, rather than perpetuating stereotypes and misconceptions. Only through such efforts can we overcome the divisive forces that hinder global peace and harmony.

There was recent court case based one two religious people who were scapegoated in Washington DC, by the Leftist injustice system, during the George Floyd riots.

Judges Say Lawsuit Against D.C. For Arrest Of Anti-Abortion Protesters Who Chalked Sidewalk Can Proceed

This injustice occurred was during a Black Lives Matter riot in DC. The black live matter demonstrators, under the Liberal protection of the swamp injustice system, defaced public and private property in Washington DC, against town ordinances. Nobody was arrested for all that destruction, except two anti abortion protesters who wrote, "unborn black lives matter ", in chalk on a sidewalk. The dual standard of the application of the town ordinance, placed blame only on the two religious people engaged in a lawful anti-abortion protest. DC lost the suit. The lie come out fast but the truth slowly catches up.

The way this Lefty game works, as it works in many areas of culture, was to selectively apply justice down political lines, so only the religious people appears to stand out as the criminal, targeted, blamed and arrested for a lessor evil. It then selectively shelters their own worse Lefty offenders, who went way beyond chalk on a sidewalk. DC was sued for selective violation of 1st Amendment rights and lost the case. The good guys are learning to fight back against the criminal left in legal ways.

It turned out that the "don't shoot with hands in the air" narrative used to rally the Black Lives Matter demonstrations during the George Floyd riots was not even real. This narrative was made up by the Left and was an example of yelling fire in a theatre. The Lefty media yelled fired; don't shoot, which fueled the riots, which cause destruction.

This "yelling fire in a theater analogy, should be tried in count. Like yelling fire , it caused the boneheads to stampede and destroy DC and other cities, not of their own accord, but with the fear prompting of the Lefty Leadership who instigated the mob fear. I hoping someone will sue and go after the fake news media and DNC and make them compensate for all damages. I am tired of law protecting the criminals and then misused on the innocent.

The question is, say I yell fire in a theatre, but say I was convinced there was a fire; lie about it, is this protected by free speech? If so that means all speech is protected if we lie about intent. Or does it come down to outcome, such as the people in the theatre, running in fear, causing injury and damage?

Much of the Lefty blame on religion, for war, never places any blame on the godless, who yell fire. If anyone is listening out there, this a a good law suit that can put sand in many lefty criminal games. All the destruction will have a way to be compensated or the criminal masterminds can be placed in jail.

 

[Madmogwai]

When people say "religion has caused many/most of the world's wars" or they say "greedy leaders and individuals" have caused most of the world's wars they are often 2 sides of the same coin: a desire to think human violence is an "error" that can be fixed if only we could move past these nasty religions or find a way of choosing good leaders.

The problems are soluble if we can find a scapegoat on whom to pin the failings of human nature.

Religions can be violent as humans are a violent species. And while I personally don't think there is any way to differentiate religious belief systems from irreligious ones, even if we went by standard usage there is no reason to think secular ideologies have been any less violent (probably actually more so pound for pound).

Ultimately though its not about bad religions, or bad secular ideologies or bad leaders, it's just human nature and there is no escaping this.

We can be kind and altruistic, and violent and venal, all are equally human and there is no escaping this unfortunately.

Exactly, it is man’s choice,

 

[Jimmy]

Our history would be even worse without religion imo. Religions a convenient scapegoat for some imo.

 

[HonestJoe]

Religions have often been wrongly accused of being the root cause of conflicts and wars throughout history. However, it is crucial to recognize that religions themselves do not initiate wars. Rather, it is the manipulation of religious beliefs by leaders and individuals that serves as a smokescreen to further their own ulterior motives, such as the acquisition of land and control over valuable resources.

Religions (or religion in general) are indeed wrongly blamed for bad things done by religious people (or those claiming to be) but then they're just as likely to be credited for good things done by religious people. Religion is no more (or less) able than any other social structure, moral philosophy or organisation to be used to make bad people do good things or good people do bad things.

Also, if you're saying religion can be abused to cause massive harm so often and easily, that would suggest some level of underlying flaw in the concept that should be be considered.

It is important to approach this topic with a balanced and critical mindset, understanding that religion, at its core, is intended to foster peace, unity, and spiritual growth. Religions provide individuals with personal guidance, moral frameworks, and a sense of purpose. They offer a path towards enlightenment, compassion, and a harmonious existence with fellow human beings.

That doesn't sound especially balanced or critical to me. You're presenting religion as an unconditionally great and positive thing, apparently blaming anything bad associated with religion on selfish non-religious people manipulating the poor innocent religious.

I'd suggest that talking about what religion is in general is flawed in the first place, since the term covers a massive range of different things, especially historically. Also, a lot of religions have a basis of saying (directly or indirectly) other religions are fundamentally bad and wrong. The purpose/intention of any given religion will be individual, and can also change significantly between generations of followers and locations, so you can only consider the positives and negatives of religion in the specific context of a religion as practiced in a particular time and place.