Religions are Falsely accused.

[Augustus]

How about the Albigensian crusade? It was specifically to stamp out the 'heresy' of the Cathars by the Catholics.

It was also significantly about great houses battling for power and many other things.

How about the 30 years war, which was specifically about which areas were to be Protestant or Catholic?

It was mostly about Catholic France and Catholic Spain battling each other.

It was basically multiple wars fought for multiple reasons.

Given the expiration of a ceasefire in the Dutch war of independence along with the Franco Spanish rivalry, there was bound to be a war regardless of religion.

How about the wars which spread Islam out of the Arab peninsula and across the world? it was specifically to spread Islam.

Even more complicated.

Perhaps the later wars were more about spreading Islam than the expansion from the peninsula.

 

[Madmogwai]

One thing that you seem to ignore is that religion is a base for power. The motivation in the early crusades was *religious* power.

If so why did 3 Popes participate in Heretic practices, black magic and sexual orgies.

 

[Madmogwai]

In Germany? Where did that come from? The religious sites in the 'holy lands' were taken over by 'infidels' (meaning Moslems) and had to be recovered for the Christians (a religious motivation for the wars).

In the Albigensian campaigns, the 'motivation' was the Cathar's 'heretical' beliefs and the desire to eliminate such 'heresy'. Those are *religious* motivations.

Lol, if you say so.

 

[Stevicus]

The problem is how people use it, so again it’s still the people, not the Religion.

Well, one could also say "it's not the atomic bomb, it's just how people use it." So, maybe the best solution is to not use it at all.

 

[Augustus]

I would also add that some of the ideas of "rationalism" and "civilizing" other peoples also contributed to eugenics, Manifest Destiny, and the notion of the "white man's burden." The notion that the Enlightenment was some linear upward trajectory for humanity seems to me at odds with history and an oversimplification of the highly complex historical events that followed it.

It’s a direct offshoot of evangelical monotheism, primarily evangelical Protestantism.

It’s a religious impulse to bring light where there was once darkness.

The Christians brought light to the pagan superstitions.. The Protestants brought light to the Catholic superstitions. The Enlightenment Rationalists brought light to the religious. A combination of Evangelicals and Enlightenment Rationalists brought light to the subjects of empire.

Amazingly, not everyone has been thankful for the enlightened benevolently granting the primitives the benefits of their wisdom…

 

[PureX]

How about the Albigensian crusade? It was specifically to stamp out the 'heresy' of the Cathars by the Catholics.

Clearly a struggle for dominion dressed up in religion.

How about the 30 years war, which was specifically about which areas were to be Protestant or Catholic?

A turf war under the flags of religion.

How about the wars which spread Islam out of the Arab peninsula and across the world? it was specifically to spread Islam.

Conquest, pilage, and subjugation are always the themes. Religions just provide the warring culture's with banners and mascots.

And, let's be clear. Religion often provides a *very* good 'smokescreen' when it can be used to specifically condemn non-believers. This is NOT the promotion of 'peace' except the 'peace' of uniform belief.

People claiming to enforce "uniform belief" couldn't care less what anyone believes. They have no way of even knowing what anyone believes and no way of changing those beliefs even if they knew. It's all about compliance, and subjugation. Humans what to be in control, ... of everything and everyone. And we will use whatever it takes to get it, or to get the illusion of it. Including "God".

 

[ChristineM]

Clearly a struggle for dominion dressed up in religion.Clearly a strggle for dominion dressed up in religion.

Clearly a struggle for dominion of the Catholic religion.

A turf war under the flags of religion.

A turf war in the name of religion.

Conquest, pilage, and subjugation are always the themes. Religions just provide the warring culture's with banners and mascots.

Conquest, pilage, and subjugation are always good battle cries for religious war

People claiming to enforce "uniform belief" couldn't care less what anyone believes. They have no way of even knowing what anyone believes and no way of changing those beliefs even if they knew. It's all about compliance, and subjugation. Humans what to be in control, ... of everything and everyone. And we will use whatever it takes to get it, or to get the illusion of it. Including "God".

Except of course the opposing population goes to a different worship than our population, lets get them in the name of our god

 

[Yazata]

I think that historically, most so-called "wars of religion" were conducted by secular leaders, kings, emperors and the like, typically for their own secular motives, justified to the common people in religious terms so as to generate popular support.

Today in our more secular age, ruling elites still conduct wars for largely secular reasons but they make different kinds of appeals to generate popular support. They preach "Marxist revolution" or they preach "defending Democracy" or even something as blatant as the "glory of the German people".

In my opinion the common denominator to wars isn't religion, it's politics. Eliminating religion, as so many atheists preach, even if it were possible wouldn't bring an era of peace. It would just usher in an era of more obviously secular justifications for war.

We are already seeing that.

And eliminating politics is probably just as impossible as eliminating religion.

 

[Madmogwai]

Well, one could also say "it's not the atomic bomb, it's just how people use it." So, maybe the best solution is to not use it at all.

If they use Religion to mask their real intentions without Religion they will use something else.
Look at Iraq, they used weapons of mass destruction as an excuse to enter.

 

[Brickjectivity]

@Madmogwai when a religion becomes systematic it will probably become susceptible to the problems that all systems have. Analogously the parts of machines wear out, or the soil quality changes, or the climate shifts, or insects change, or humidity, or people get tired of repetition. Systems that remain the same seem doomed to fail, so I do doubt a positive view of all religion.

This is why I admire a religion with the humility to accept correction and to change, even if that religion has a bad reputation. Because if it can change it may escape the doom that all systems, all governments, all creatures and all relationships seem to meet when they are inflexible.

I admire a church that says "We don't do things right." I admire a business that admits its business mosel will eventually fail. I admire a government which contains the humble admission that it can and does make mistakes, and I admire a teacher that admires its students.

 

[Madmogwai]

@Madmogwai when a religion becomes systematic it will probably become susceptible to the problems that all systems have. Analogously the parts of machines wear out, or the soil quality changes, or the climate shifts, or insects change, or humidity, or people get tired of repetition. Systems that remain the same seem doomed to fail, so I do doubt a positive view of all religion.

This is why I admire a religion with the humility to accept correction and to change, even if that religion has a bad reputation. Because if it can change it may escape the doom that all systems, all governments, all creatures and all relationships seem to meet when they are inflexible.

I admire a church that says "We don't do things right." I admire a business that admits its business mosel will eventually fail. I admire a government which contains the humble admission that it can and does make mistakes, and I admire a teacher that admires its students.

Not all changes are for the better, and what does need changing is a matter of opinions that will never agree.
In his profound teachings, Buddha imparted wisdom that resonates even in the present day. Among his many insightful proclamations, one stands out as particularly thought-provoking: "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it."

This notion, expressed with utmost gravity, urges individuals to exercise discernment and critical thinking when encountering information or ideas. Buddha recognized the inherent fallibility of human communication and the potential for distortion or manipulation. Hence, he encouraged his followers to approach all assertions with caution, regardless of their source or perceived credibility.

By urging us not to accept information blindly, Buddha advocated for a profound shift in our approach to knowledge acquisition. He implored us to investigate, analyze, and evaluate ideas independently, relying on our own faculties of reason and intuition. In doing so, we are empowered to uncover the truth and cultivate a deeper understanding of the world around us.

This admonition is particularly relevant in today's age of information overload, where we are inundated with a barrage of opinions, half-truths, and misinformation. It serves as a reminder that we must not succumb to the allure of easy answers or succumb to the seductive power of persuasive rhetoric without careful scrutiny.

However, it is essential to note that Buddha's teachings do not advocate for a complete rejection of all information. Rather, they encourage a discerning mindset, one that is open-minded yet skeptical, receptive to new ideas but always grounded in reason and evidence.

In essence, Buddha's call to not believe what people tell us is a call to intellectual independence and personal responsibility. It is an invitation to question, to seek, and to arrive at our own conclusions through a rigorous process of inquiry. By doing so, we can navigate the complex web of information with clarity, wisdom, and discernment, ultimately leading to a deeper understanding of ourselves and the world we inhabit.

 

[Polymath257]

I think that historically, most so-called "wars of religion" were conducted by secular leaders, kings, emperors and the like, typically for their own secular motives, justified to the common people in religious terms so as to generate popular support.

I think this ignores the fact that secular leaders often have religious motives as well as political and economic ones. Wars happen when there is a confluence of several motives. Seldom are they exclusively to gain land, or for better markets or for purely religious reasons.

But it is often the case that religious reasons are one of the primary reasons for going to war, even for the leaders.

Today in our more secular age, ruling elites still conduct wars for largely secular reasons but they make different kinds of appeals to generate popular support. They preach "Marxist revolution" or they preach "defending Democracy" or even something as blatant as the "glory of the German people".

Yes, certainly. In a secular age, religion will be a primary reason less frequently.

In my opinion the common denominator to wars isn't religion, it's politics. Eliminating religion, as so many atheists preach, even if it were possible wouldn't bring an era of peace. It would just usher in an era of more obviously secular justifications for war.

But that ignores that religion is often political. The religious beliefs play a role in what political strategies are considered to be acceptable. And politics often serves to determine which religion a person subscribes to.

it seems to be impossible to disentangle the different motives.

We are already seeing that.

And eliminating politics is probably just as impossible as eliminating religion.

To seek power seems to be a human drive. Both religion and politics serve to achieve that goal.

 

[LuisDantas]

If so why did 3 Popes participate in Heretic practices, black magic and sexual orgies.

What does this question have to do with the subject matter?

 

[Brickjectivity]

This notion, expressed with utmost gravity, urges individuals to exercise discernment and critical thinking when encountering information or ideas. Buddha recognized the inherent fallibility of human communication and the potential for distortion or manipulation. Hence, he encouraged his followers to approach all assertions with caution, regardless of their source or perceived credibility

Amazing. James in the NT scriptures spouts similar wisdom, advising not only not to trust what people say but also our own tongues.

Not all changes are for the better, and what does need changing is a matter of opinions that will never agree.
In his profound teachings, Buddha imparted wisdom that resonates even in the present day. Among his many insightful proclamations, one stands out as particularly thought-provoking: "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it."

He sounds downright Christian, too. I was moved upon hearing the story of his repentance from excess and his difficult search to better himself.

By urging us not to accept information blindly, Buddha advocated for a profound shift in our approach to knowledge acquisition. He implored us to investigate, analyze, and evaluate ideas independently, relying on our own faculties of reason and intuition. In doing so, we are empowered to uncover the truth and cultivate a deeper understanding of the world around us.

I have never heard a preacher who did not call upon his flock to verify what he was saying, but it seemed to me always only to increase the flock's trust in himself when he spoke thus. One of the easiest ways to get people to stop fact checking just might be the words "But don't take my word for it!"

This admonition is particularly relevant in today's age of information overload, where we are inundated with a barrage of opinions, half-truths, and misinformation. It serves as a reminder that we must not succumb to the allure of easy answers or succumb to the seductive power of persuasive rhetoric without careful scrutiny.

Information does not overload, but laziness underloads. We have a new highly entertained population. We love entertainmentb ut it is only when it requires work that we complain about overload and excuse ourselves from our responsibility to carry the torch of caution and curiosity.

However, it is essential to note that Buddha's teachings do not advocate for a complete rejection of all information. Rather, they encourage a discerning mindset, one that is open-minded yet skeptical, receptive to new ideas but always grounded in reason and evidence.

Buddha is known for stating that not all students are ready for his lessons or so I thought I read somewhere. A discerning mindset seems to come from suffering. I think its rare to find anyone who simply loves learning for joy of learning.

In essence, Buddha's call to not believe what people tell us is a call to intellectual independence and personal responsibility. It is an invitation to question, to seek, and to arrive at our own conclusions through a rigorous process of inquiry. By doing so, we can navigate the complex web of information with clarity, wisdom, and discernment, ultimately leading to a deeper understanding of ourselves and the world we inhabit.

Well said. I call for the same, but I doubt many wish to hear it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thus Religion was not the reason.

Wrong. One more time. Religion was not the only reason. It never is. It is still a very very big part of many of the examples given to you.


Please quit using a black and white fallacy.

 

[Heyo]

I think that historically, most so-called "wars of religion" were conducted by secular leaders, kings, emperors and the like, typically for their own secular motives, justified to the common people in religious terms so as to generate popular support.

Think again. Historically, leaders were often spiritual and secular leaders in personal union or religious and political leaders were of the same class and ruled in union.

Today in our more secular age, ruling elites still conduct wars for largely secular reasons but they make different kinds of appeals to generate popular support. They preach "Marxist revolution" or they preach "defending Democracy" or even something as blatant as the "glory of the German people".

In my opinion the common denominator to wars isn't religion, it's politics. Eliminating religion, as so many atheists preach, even if it were possible wouldn't bring an era of peace. It would just usher in an era of more obviously secular justifications for war.

Eliminating religion (or simply decoupling it from politics) takes away one excuse for war. That doesn't prevent wars but it makes them harder to sell. It is hard, maybe even impossible, to determine how many wars that will prevent, delay or reduce in scope but that is not a reason to let religion keep its influence.

We are already seeing that.

We are also seeing wars become less frequent.

And eliminating politics is probably just as impossible as eliminating religion.

Separating them is not impossible (though difficult) and imo both religion and politics benefit from it.

 

[Heyo]

Yes it was the Pope, increasing their wealth.
Religion with good intentions would not be spread by the sword, but if your motives were to take land, then you send in Armies.

Not all religious leaders have good intentions. That was one of the main points in your OP that you formulated it so as if all religions only ever have good intentions and the main point of my answer.
Do I interpret this post right when I say we agree that religions (represented by their leaders and followers) don't have always good intentions?

 

[Heyo]

I agree that societal conditions can mitigate our nature, and the ability to provide security and well being makes violence less likely, but I don’t think these are anything more than transitory provisions and sooner or later us humans will mess it up.

We cannot be saved from ourselves.

That sounds overly pessimistic, almost fatalistic - and it has all the signs of a self fulfilling prophesy.

 

[Revoltingest]

Exploiting religion to do wrong
is still religion doing wrong.
How so?
Religion is vulnerable to cultish leaders.
Masses blindly follow them.
They set aside of reality based reason.
Much scripture is violent, even towards adherents.

 

[PureX]

Clearly a struggle for dominion of the Catholic religion.

Religions cannot "struggle", or dominate a territory. Only people can do that. This was people struggling to dominate territory. The religious factionalism was just the rallying cry they used to identify themselves from the "other" Christians.

A turf war in the name of religion.

Exactly. "Under the heading (flag) of religion", but not caused by. And not for the sake of the religion, either. Caused by the human desire to subjugate and control those they fear or see as tyrants or competitors, and for the sake of gaining control over that imagined "threat". It's a story as old as humanity itself. And you know it. The religious aspect is just a way of avoiding the true nature and reason for the attack. Just as every war ever fought throughout history was started by people lying to themselves and to each other about why they think they need to attack their fellow humans.

Conquest, pilage, and subjugation are always good battle cries for religious war

They are the true reasons for war. They are rarely the actual battle cry, however, as humans don't like to see themselves as such stupid, blood-thirsty barbarians. Some do, but not most.

Except of course the opposing population goes to a different worship than our population, lets get them in the name of our god

Or in the name of our racial superiority. Or in the name of economic "justice". Or in the name of historical justice. Or in the name of revenge for some perceived iniquity perpetrated against us, or in the name of manifest destiny, or in the name of ... all of these and more. When the truth is always the same. The alphas among us just want to because they are programmed to conquer and subjugate. It's in their DNA. And everyone else gets bamboozled into following their lust for destruction because we're too stupid or frightened or weak to tell them no.