Written by Ernis on 07.01.2012 at 00:29

Written by Vombatus on 06.01.2012 at 17:15

Hmmm I think people will never agree if it's religion itself that causes war, or the interpretation of it... From what I remember of the Coran and the Bible (since they seem to be the major examples given here), I don't think there was a passage where they actively promote violence in order to get what you want (in a religious sense).

In fact religion has caused war. Several ancient civilizations had relatively violent religious ideologies which promoted killing those who didn't belong to the group. Semiotically speaking, it's the "us vs them" issue where "us" constantly has to prove themselves by trying to be stronger and more powerful than "them". It's "eat or be eaten", jungle law.

In pre-Columbian America wars were fought in order to get material for human sacrifices because the sun deity was in constant need of it and feeding the sun was essential for postponing the end of the world. I may be mistaking but I think the Americas were not the only place with similar traditions. At an early point many religions required human sacrifice and promoted cruelty and violence in order to please a deity. Later most cultures started to suppress this urge and replace the human sacrifice with animal or dummy sacrifice instead.

While I agree I think that more needs to be considered in order to understand examples like the ancient Americas. Promotion of sacrifice and violence was certainly a reality in this case but why was it that they sought to please their deities? In part I'm sure it was devotion to the religion itself, but I wouldn't consider it the only mindset. Many more adherents would likely have sought to please deities for more practical reasons than the purely spiritual, like rain, healthy crops, prosperity and what have you. That raises the question of whether the religion was the cause of violence or was just used as a tool to make ends meet. After all, what would have been of more pressing concern food or religious conviction? Was veneration of these deities the only reason for violence, or were there underlying causes for this?

In some cases I think that it might have been true that religious zeal was the soul inspiration for acts of violence and war, but I also think it was far more common for the religion to be a means through which one benefited, whether this involved violence or not. It was a dog eat dog world out there, still is, religion is just a feature of humanity which has often been associated with, sometimes supporting, conflict and to say that 'religion causes war' is true in a sense but also misleading and doesn't look at the whole story.

Written by Vombatus on 06.01.2012 at 17:15

Hmmm I think people will never agree if it's religion itself that causes war, or the interpretation of it... From what I remember of the Coran and the Bible (since they seem to be the major examples given here), I don't think there was a passage where they actively promote violence in order to get what you want (in a religious sense).

Tis true that Islam justifies violence if those people get attacked first for religious reasons, and that the Old Testament is full of slaughter stories... but if you take the dogma without keeping in mind political/historial/economic influence, there is no trace of free-violence in the name of God.

If you think that an imam calling to kill all infidels or a priest bitching about homosexuals is the essence of Islam or Christianity... feel free to do so, but it's just the typical easy argument for ignorant people.

Keep in mind that these scriptures, be it the Koran or the Bible or the Gita, are man-made. Whilst of course discussing whether they were actual words sent by god is irrelevant to this post, all of the scriptures are at least just interpretations of "god's will". Hence, there are bound to be discrepancies in these so called holy books.

But because of these discrepancies, there are very wrong notions which arise on how we treat others. Now the imams and the high priests realize this. I am in no way saying that religious leaders propagate any kind of violence. Most religious leaders (or at least the ones I've met) are usually bent on being moderate with following their respective scriptures, and they don't encourage a literal or an evangelical interpretation of these books. But the usual crowd, take these scriptures as word of law...and this is when chaos gets rampant. So, the only solution seemingly is to renew and remake the scriptures based on the modern consensus. Which will not be accepted by most people of religious faith for the same reason: They take these books as a blow by blow running commentary by an all powerful supernatural force. This is also magnifies any difference between any two of these books, as these people of faith can't accept when "god's will" is even skewed slightly, which again breeds intolerance and arrogance.

I find myself disliking religion more and more over time. It starts wars and there is literally no counter point to that. Weak minded people + words in a book = Religious fanatics. If somebody doesnt have the same opinion as you, killing them doesnt make you suddenly more right and in fact makes you more the fool. This isnt to say anyone who is religious is like that, but the majority in the world still are.

I see it all the time - people talking about how religion gave us laws and methods by which to live that are proper (Like thou shall not this or that) and while these values are mostly good, people still think without books like the bible we wouldnt have the laws that we do. Relating the entire human species back to some scriptures from nomadic desert tribes is honestly rather insulting.

With the above being said, I neither truly believe nor disbelieve . You are a fool though if you are on either extreme. Prove me wrong.

Written by Zealot644 on 07.01.2012 at 23:27

I find myself disliking religion more and more over time.

Candidate for best self-contradicting username of 2012, anybody?

Written by vezzy on 08.01.2012 at 22:31
Candidate for best self-contradicting username of 2012, anybody?

I think he's making a pun. But I'm not entirely sure.

Written by vezzy on 08.01.2012 at 22:31

Written by Zealot644 on 07.01.2012 at 23:27

I find myself disliking religion more and more over time.

Candidate for best self-contradicting username of 2012, anybody?

Heh. Didnt notice that.

Either way, it's just a moniker I've used for quite a number of years.

I think the broader issue is people not misinterpreting but rather it is people in power manipulating the masses THROUGH religion that causes war in the first place. For instance; it is widely know that if you can control the Middle East you can pretty much control the world. Now it's because of oil. Looking back in time it was because it was a perfect staging point to conquer neighboring countries. A sort of entry point if you will. Taking Jerusalem was more strategical/political then anything, and the thin veneer of religious intent was used at the time of the Crusades to convince those who would be risking their lives that it was for something more than just king and country, but for God.

Of course we know now that it was one of the worst decisions made in history. You COULD blame Catholicism for the whole affair. Or you could look at it objectively and see Catholicism as the vehicle for which powerful, corrupt people saw their wishes fulfilled. However these days wars are waged for identical reasons, but not always backed by religious fervor. Our hunt for oil in Iraq was covered up as the intent to recover WMDs and take down a heinous dictator. Same salad different dressing.

So it's not really religion but more people that are at fault here, and people will always find a way to maneuver themselves and larger groups to get an end result. That could be religion, or it could be something else. But the misconception of believing that without religion war would not exist, or that there wouldn't be as much is naive. Wishful thinking at best. But creative minded (read hardcore music fans, musicians themselves, etc.) will always feel as though they are part of a higher intellect, and that without the base culture (religion/authority) around we would all be way better off. But history repeats itself. If it's not a Pope declaring Holy War it's a sweaty guy in a turban declaring Jihad. These things have happened before, and they will happen again. With or without religion.

I am really skeptical about this "manipulating people through religion" thing that gets tossed around, to be honest. It happens in some cases to some extent, especially in totalitarian societies without much education or material welfare. But systematic manipulation from above is rarely a factor, at least not an important one, in most conflicts involving religion. Religion is simply not something you can direct without an exceptionally strong medium of communication and control. Just as often as religion seems to justify and consolidate the status quo, it's actually fighting against it and inspiring revision.

The Crusades example is a bad one, because what you described is not what the contemporary sources suggest about the Crusades - at least not the First Crusade of 1096-1099, which is the only one I've studied. There was no blanket motivation for the crusaders, neither the minor princes leading nor the peasants and knights participating. Some were doing it for adventure or fame, some for financial reasons (though Riley-Smith points out that it was hardly a profitable venture for anyone responsible for arranging anything, as they often had to raise funds before leaving and would return rather empty-handed), some adhered to the Frankish noble ethos of vendetta, some were undoubtedly doing it out of sheer religious enthusiasm, many more for the indulgences you could acquire on such a pilgrimage (remember that while penance was a religious concept, it was even moreso a legal one: canon law was the best and only international standard for enforcing order in Europe far into the time of modern states). Some of the princes undoubtedly wanted to gain principalities in the East and get even with the Byzantine Emperor (Bohemond of Taranto had a bone to pick) but others were quite possibly just doing it for idealism (maybe count Raymond of Toulouse). There were also some trade interests to look out for, but that applied more to later Crusades. So it's absolutely too crude and inaccurate to make generalizations about the role of religion or greed in something like the First Crusade, let alone the Crusades as a whole. History is never that straightforward.

Religion is part of life and society like many other aspects, so it will be involved in things for better and for worse. Treating it as an independent agent is unsatisfactory in the best case scenario, blatantly misleading on average.

Written by IronAngel on 01.02.2012 at 02:45

Religion is part of life and society like many other aspects, so it will be involved in things for better and for worse. Treating it as an independent agent is unsatisfactory in the best case scenario, blatantly misleading on average.

I agree, there is no way to separate religion from any context in order to analyse it's role in conflict within that context. It is far too entrenched in other aspects of any context to allow for a clean examination of how exactly it incites war and violence.

Religion, by theyself, doesn't causes war. The people who have the power and the money uses the religion as a "cause" to make a war.

In history we have a lot of example, who really domain in the holy wars is the greed of few powerful guys. Today we have some examples, the taleban... (Plz I don't have nothing against the arabian ppl, I know some of them and I love them, I'm referring about some greed ones who command the taleban, ok?!)

Written by nehrodwarf on 08.04.2012 at 17:15

Religion, by theyself, doesn't causes war. The people who have the power and the money uses the religion as a "cause" to make a war.

In history we have a lot of example, who really domain in the holy wars is the greed of few powerful guys. Today we have some examples, the taleban... (Plz I don't have nothing against the arabian ppl, I know some of them and I love them, I'm referring about some greed ones who command the taleban, ok?!)

Sorry mate, but since when was Taleban Arabian?

Written by Ernis on 08.04.2012 at 19:58

Written by nehrodwarf on 08.04.2012 at 17:15

Religion, by theyself, doesn't causes war. The people who have the power and the money uses the religion as a "cause" to make a war.

In history we have a lot of example, who really domain in the holy wars is the greed of few powerful guys. Today we have some examples, the taleban... (Plz I don't have nothing against the arabian ppl, I know some of them and I love them, I'm referring about some greed ones who command the taleban, ok?!)

Sorry mate, but since when was Taleban Arabian?

I know that Taleban is from Afeghanistan, I write arabian as a general way. Anyway I made a mistake and I'm sorry for this.

Written by nehrodwarf on 09.04.2012 at 17:40

Written by Ernis on 08.04.2012 at 19:58

Written by nehrodwarf on 08.04.2012 at 17:15

Religion, by theyself, doesn't causes war. The people who have the power and the money uses the religion as a "cause" to make a war.

In history we have a lot of example, who really domain in the holy wars is the greed of few powerful guys. Today we have some examples, the taleban... (Plz I don't have nothing against the arabian ppl, I know some of them and I love them, I'm referring about some greed ones who command the taleban, ok?!)

Sorry mate, but since when was Taleban Arabian?

I know that Taleban is from Afeghanistan, I write arabian as a general way. Anyway I made a mistake and I'm sorry for this.

You have to be sorry again for writing "Taleban" instead of "Taliban". But, now it's fixed.

Written by Cynic Metalhead on 09.04.2012 at 18:06

You have to be sorry again for writing "Taleban" instead of "Taliban". But, now it's fixed.

Taleban should be an alternative spelling because it should be closer to the pronunciation of the name... at least that's what I read from wikipedia...

Written by nehrodwarf on 09.04.2012 at 17:40

I know that Taleban is from Afeghanistan, I write arabian as a general way. Anyway I made a mistake and I'm sorry for this.

Don't worry, it's all right : )

Ernis- Wiki is a houseload of fallacious facts which misled many ardent wiki fans. I am not saying Wiki are always wrong but majority they just lack the real structured facts. AS far as "Taleban" is concerned...uhm may be you're right but if you have to spell that deadly define group....it has to be Taliban no matter how.

Written by Cynic Metalhead on 09.04.2012 at 20:28

Ernis- Wiki is a houseload of fallacious facts which misled many ardent wiki fans. I am not saying Wiki are always wrong but majority they just lack the real structured facts. AS far as "Taleban" is concerned...uhm may be you're right but if you have to spell that deadly define group....it has to be Taliban no matter how.

It might be... however, the linguistic topics are reportedly reliable (at least that's what the professor at the university told when I apologised for having used some wiki materials for a research paper...) Sorry for the offtopic...

Written by Ernis on 09.04.2012 at 20:32

Written by Cynic Metalhead on 09.04.2012 at 20:28

Ernis- Wiki is a houseload of fallacious facts which misled many ardent wiki fans. I am not saying Wiki are always wrong but majority they just lack the real structured facts. AS far as "Taleban" is concerned...uhm may be you're right but if you have to spell that deadly define group....it has to be Taliban no matter how.

It might be... however, the linguistic topics are reportedly reliable (at least that's what the professor at the university told when I apologised for having used some wiki materials for a research paper...) Sorry for the offtopic...

Now that is exactly for UK full time fluffy, hideous and figureless professors says us too. You know why? cause Wiki can be edited by anyone at any point of time. All you need is fucking sign up, erase the stuff and write your own shit. So probably i just don't rely everything on wiki.

I don't think that any major war has EVER been started by the actual faith of a religion.
I haven't read over all 15 pages, but I'm sure this has been mentioned... the topic creator used the words millions of years. I'd love to hear him rattle off some details of the religious conflicts from a million years ago. hehe

Moving on:
Think about what people in power decide to fight for: Land, wealth, capital, influence, control. Too much is never enough.
Now think about what people fight for who lack that power: Freedom, revenge, envy, equality, necessity and sometimes the same 5 things listed from the first group.

But the faith itself of any religion is innocent. Faith doesn't spark wars on it's own, only when a human hand twists it's message to their own agenda. And since dogma can be manipulated and used as a tool by men of power and corruption for a myriad of reasons, the faith of a given religion itself often burdens the brunt of the blame, unfairly I might add. Religious leaders who have sparked crusades and jihads and other religious wars, they are not motivated by faith, they are motivated by greed and power. They may use their faith as a facade or a justification, but no one who truly believes the peace promoting faith of Christianity or Buddhism or any religion that promotes peace at it's core belief system would start something like a land grab war of attrition. And that is what most wars historically have been, either land grabs or ways to impose influence. Religion, along with political ideology can be used as tools to achieve this. Karl Marx famously called religion "The opiate of the people"; yet did his own Marxist ideology not become an opiate for masses itself? Of course it did.

There are not many sturdy justifications for provoking wars and especially not for inspiring people to fight for you by abusing their faith and their loyalty to whatever position you hold in a given organized religion. However, in the Middle Ages, a general mentality existed amongst most civilizations which necessitated the will to expand and control and influence simply to survive as a culture. There was no global economy like what we have today. The world powers in our modern world can't destroy each other without severely hurting their own economy. In some instances that has been true in ages past, but many times and places in history that simply wasn't the case. You could dominate, assimilate and rebuild because the world was ruled by kings and religious leaders, not corporations. But these days, everyone's economy is so vitally connected to one another that a war in which a religious leader who spurned followers with faith would be impractical in most parts of the world. The Middle East is one of the only holdouts left on the planet that matters. Even then, they don't really fight for religious reasons. Oh sure a suicide bomber may be emboldened by personal faith, but who planted that agenda in him and why? The why is not for matters of faith but for matters of control, or when control is out of reach, for spite. Contempt for the more successful nations of the world, that is what really motivates that culture toward war much more so than the teachings of the Koran or any holy text. One day when there is a Starbucks on every corner of Baghdad though, then maybe the Anti-Western sentiment will back off. If that is all it takes to squelch a death to the infidels mentality, which it probably will be in the long term future, then I guess it wasn't really about religion after all, but due to social reasoning.

A quick example of how in the modern world, vastly different cultures depend on another is this: An atheist in China who owns a factory should love Christmas as much as any devout Christian in America. Without Christmas, when will Americans buy massive amounts of the crap that his factory produces?

Religion do causes wars. People just can't realise that their faith is not the only or the right one. I think this is the main cause of certain wars. People also want everybody to believe the same, but that's impossible as we are all different individuals. Reigion is not te only cause of war though.

Written by Infernal Eternal on 27.06.2012 at 15:07
Religion do causes wars. People just can't realise that their faith is not the only or the right one. I think this is the main cause of certain wars. People also want everybody to believe the same, but that's impossible as we are all different individuals. Reigion is not te only cause of war though.

You're making this out to be far more black and white than it really is in my opinion.

People cause wars, it really is that simple. People are also a product of war, but that thought isn't so simple.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 28.06.2012 at 05:10

Written by Infernal Eternal on 27.06.2012 at 15:07
Religion do causes wars. People just can't realise that their faith is not the only or the right one. I think this is the main cause of certain wars. People also want everybody to believe the same, but that's impossible as we are all different individuals. Reigion is not te only cause of war though.

You're making this out to be far more black and white than it really is in my opinion.

You're right, religion isn't the only cause of wars but generally my point is that we all can't stand difference.

Actually yes it does. all thoughout history this has happened
here is a list:

The Crusades, (christians and islam )
the French Wars of Religion, (French Catholics and Protestants)
the Muslim conquests, (again islam vs christianty)
and the Reconquista (christians and muslims)
WWII (hitler and the jews)
the thirty years war: (protracted conflict between Catholics and Protestants across Europe.)
and we also have the war now (believe it or not) with america (which is so ignorant and devout to christianty) fighting the radical islamist terrorists (which percive christianty as a threat) give me one reason why the war we are fighting now isn't a religious war! (minus the oil) you know that
(i believe it was santorum who called america the land of christians or god's country?) proof is in the jelly. (anybody get that? santorum's jelly?)
but face it religion is an excuse to start war.

now we can cite some minor influnces such as:

the native americans and the spanish: (they brought catholicism to america )
or the american revolution: (they escaped europe to be free from religion BUT the english came here to bring us back and make us christian again and thus we were fighting for Free religion.)

i can say many more but i believe i made a point.

Written by axelx666 on 03.07.2012 at 16:01
i can say many more but i believe i made a point.

You haven't made a point - all you did was list a bunch of wars/battles that dealt with opposing religious parties. You never cited any information to suggest those wars were solely initiated by said opposing religions.

Most obvious example - World War II. Germany was trying to establish an empire throughout Europe and the world leaders worked together to oppose Hitler's goal.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 03.07.2012 at 16:22

Written by axelx666 on 03.07.2012 at 16:01
i can say many more but i believe i made a point.

You haven't made a point - all you did was list a bunch of wars/battles that dealt with opposing religious parties. You never cited any information to suggest those wars were solely initiated by said opposing religions.

Most obvious example - World War II. Germany was trying to establish an empire throughout Europe and the world leaders worked together to oppose Hitler's goal.

i did.

that party vs that party
simple as that.

and it's history look it up yourself.
for instance: the christians wanted to convert the muslims and islamists in the crusades. see?
or hitler wanted to get rid of the jews and spread nazism all over the world.
look up the war and read it for yourself. it's a lot of information, too much to type.

Written by axelx666 on 03.07.2012 at 16:49
look up the war and read it for yourself. it's a lot of information, too much to type.

Nah, I read up enough about wars and religion in school, no need for me to revisit it. I'm thinking by the sounds of it either you chose to focus on one very specific aspect or you just haven't really learned enough about these things in-depth. It's rather idiotic to suggest Nazism was the defining element of WWII. It wasn't until the Polish invasion that other countries decided to step in and put an end to Hitler's regime, coupled with Hitler's brief affiliation with the Italians and Russians, the rest of the world was far more concerned with having to yield to a massive totalitarian empire rather than jumping in the way of Hitler's purge of Germany. It wasn't until 1941 that Jews were being massacred in overwhelming numbers.

If not for the Pearl Harbor incident, the United States never would have joined the foray. They didn't have any interest in fighting for the Jews.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 03.07.2012 at 17:01

Written by axelx666 on 03.07.2012 at 16:49
look up the war and read it for yourself. it's a lot of information, too much to type.

Nah, I read up enough about wars and religion in school, no need for me to revisit it. I'm thinking by the sounds of it either you chose to focus on one very specific aspect or you just haven't really learned enough about these things in-depth. It's rather idiotic to suggest Nazism was the defining element of WWII. It wasn't until the Polish invasion that other countries decided to step in and put an end to Hitler's regime, coupled with Hitler's brief affiliation with the Italians and Russians, the rest of the world was far more concerned with having to yield to a massive totalitarian empire rather than jumping in the way of Hitler's purge of Germany. It wasn't until 1941 that Jews were being massacred in overwhelming numbers.

If not for the Pearl Harbor incident, the United States never would have joined the foray. They didn't have any interest in fighting for the Jews.

well sooner or later they would've reached american shores i mean you have heard of a game called "Turning Point: Fall of Liberty?" in it the same thing would happen but this is what if winston churchhill was killed (he got hit by a taxi in the game) but the russians would have taken interest
if we didn't step in don't you think? but if not then he'd have to come to america to finish the job, then we would've crushed them. and the war would be on american soil. and if we lost all minorties except for blond,blue eyed,intelligent,german people would be wiped out.

there's your alternate future.

but i do believe we are getting off topic..so let's jump back on that train.

None of that is relevant to the topic at hand. You're discussing a potential alternate reality when you're supposed to be proving me wrong, that World War II (and the other wars you listed) are solely caused by religion.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 03.07.2012 at 17:16

None of that is relevant to the topic at hand. You're discussing a potential alternate reality when you're supposed to be proving me wrong, that World War II (and the other wars you listed) are solely caused by religion.

that's what i just said in the edited post (musta not got there fast enough)

but WWII is caused by religion due to hitler's hatred of jews.
and the other wars are too.

let's go though it again.


the crusades: christians bringing christianty to the islamists.

the french wars of religion: it's about the french catholics and the protestants fighting due to protestant ideas being introduced in france.

the muslim conquests: when muhammed wanted to spread muslim all over europe
and the reconquista: when several christian kingdoms took back the iberian penisula from muslims

the thirty years war: when 225 german states could choose their own religion (lutheran or catholic) this brought about conflict within the states.
the lebanese civil war: when the civil war between christians and druz errupted it killed 10,000 people thus bringing about the war and other groups joined in sunni,maroite,palesiniens,muslim etc

second sundaese civil war: Muslims vs. Christians and Traditional African Religions


btw notice how CHRISTIANTY is in nearly all of these?
so do i have enough proof now?

Written by axelx666 on 03.07.2012 at 17:29
so do i have enough proof now?

No, because you're ignoring the various elements of war and focusing solely on the religious aspects. The Crusades, for example, while predominantly religious-based, have territorial and economic elements as well. You should read up on the Byzantine Empire for some interesting information on that subject.