Food Shortage Plan Being Drawn Up To...
News3 mins ago
Atheism's biggest lie?
92 Answers
Thinking about a different thread I wondered if a point deserved a question of it's own.
It is often said that religion causes wars, so can anyone please name a truly religious war in the last 200 years? Or even beyond that?
It is often said that religion causes wars, so can anyone please name a truly religious war in the last 200 years? Or even beyond that?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 123everton. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Truly religious war? What do you mean? Arabs, Jews, Muslims, Palestinians, Irish Catholics and Protestants. What other reason than religion is there for these people to pick a fight with each other? Are you saying that every war in the last 200 years has no religious context at all?
Try this report from the Far East just two weeks ago:-
July 15, 2008: Despite improved security, the government extended emergency rule for the Moslem south for another three months. These rules, which suspend many legal protections for suspected terrorists, were introduced three years ago.
A company (170 troops) of Thai infantry crossed the Cambodian border near the Preah Vihear temple (which is right on the border). Thailand had seized the temple complex after World War II, when Cambodia was weak and disorganized. Back in 1962, an international court ruled that the temple belonged to Cambodia, but Thailand insisted some nearby land (4.6 square kilometers worth) was theirs. The temple was built by a Cambodian king. The dispute has simmered for decades, but earlier this year, Cambodia began pushing for more recognition that the temple was theirs. The Thais see this as a matter of national pride, and threatened Cambodia with military action. The 1200 year old temple is Hindu, dedicated to the god Shiva. Indians, and their Hindu religion, have long been present in Southeast Asia, and many Indian merchants and sailors married into the local culture (which is mostly Buddhist), but kept their Hindu religion alive. If it came to a war over the temple, Thailand would probably win. But international courts have consistently backed Cambodian claims.
Sounds a bit religious to me!
Try this report from the Far East just two weeks ago:-
July 15, 2008: Despite improved security, the government extended emergency rule for the Moslem south for another three months. These rules, which suspend many legal protections for suspected terrorists, were introduced three years ago.
A company (170 troops) of Thai infantry crossed the Cambodian border near the Preah Vihear temple (which is right on the border). Thailand had seized the temple complex after World War II, when Cambodia was weak and disorganized. Back in 1962, an international court ruled that the temple belonged to Cambodia, but Thailand insisted some nearby land (4.6 square kilometers worth) was theirs. The temple was built by a Cambodian king. The dispute has simmered for decades, but earlier this year, Cambodia began pushing for more recognition that the temple was theirs. The Thais see this as a matter of national pride, and threatened Cambodia with military action. The 1200 year old temple is Hindu, dedicated to the god Shiva. Indians, and their Hindu religion, have long been present in Southeast Asia, and many Indian merchants and sailors married into the local culture (which is mostly Buddhist), but kept their Hindu religion alive. If it came to a war over the temple, Thailand would probably win. But international courts have consistently backed Cambodian claims.
Sounds a bit religious to me!
the Thai/Cambodia case hasn't much to do with religion, despite the temple business, it's over who owns what land. And very often 'religious' conflict turns out to be more about social conflict - eg the Northern Ireland troubles were to do with discrimination between two communities; I don't think the minor points of church observance really played that big a part. Al-Qaida terrorism does seem to be religion-based, though even there it's at least partly about cultural clashes - Bin Laden hates the west more than the west's religions, which is why Muslims were just as likely to be killed on 9/11.
-- answer removed --
Thankyou JNO.
Ireland was a conflict about national identity I.R.A (Irish REPUBLICAN Army) versus the U.D.F (ULSTER Defence Force) there's no mention of religion in their titles because their aims were about the unification of Ireland or it's status in the U.K.
Truly religious war=a war fought for the sake of their God.
Ireland was a conflict about national identity I.R.A (Irish REPUBLICAN Army) versus the U.D.F (ULSTER Defence Force) there's no mention of religion in their titles because their aims were about the unification of Ireland or it's status in the U.K.
Truly religious war=a war fought for the sake of their God.
Religion doesn't cause wars per se. But it gives despots and dictators and egomaniacs an excuse to rally 'ordinary' people behind their own personal prejudices and desires for power. It's also a very easily identified 'difference' between cultures which can be used to persuade people to fight against something 'alien' to them.
A religious affiliation is a passionate and often, indoctrinated belief. Because of religious teachings people will turn away from families, children, parents and others they feel love for in their life.
A persons religious commitment often means they believe that their life doesn't belong to them but to the being they perceive has granted them life - and when a respected person or institution requires them to do something which they say will further the glory of or defend an assault on that belief they are likely to support them and give their services to 'the cause'.
History - analytical history - shows that most wars are about power - religion is just an excuse that guarantees willing martyrs.
A religious affiliation is a passionate and often, indoctrinated belief. Because of religious teachings people will turn away from families, children, parents and others they feel love for in their life.
A persons religious commitment often means they believe that their life doesn't belong to them but to the being they perceive has granted them life - and when a respected person or institution requires them to do something which they say will further the glory of or defend an assault on that belief they are likely to support them and give their services to 'the cause'.
History - analytical history - shows that most wars are about power - religion is just an excuse that guarantees willing martyrs.
The Crusades 'll accept (but that was a very long time ago)but the Reformation? I don't know a huge amount about it but I feel that there was a movement amongst Kings of the time to have the "right" to govern their countries without reference to an equally corrupt court in Rome.
Firetracie that's a good answer but it has nothing to do with the question, the question is'nt about an individuals reason to fight or collective banners that they chose to fall under (gott mitt uns etc.) but actual war aims for a religious doctrine.
Firetracie that's a good answer but it has nothing to do with the question, the question is'nt about an individuals reason to fight or collective banners that they chose to fall under (gott mitt uns etc.) but actual war aims for a religious doctrine.
Sorry everton, but war is about individuals. War cannot be waged unless those who incite / desire it have troops to fight for them.
Humans invented religion. Through religion it is easier to manipulate people. Because of religion people will give their wealth, their land, their lives. No war has ever been about religion in truth. Every war in history is about land, power, and money. Even the crusades was about the power and expansion of the roman catholic church.
There's not one religion which supports these aims for their own ends - so in order to achieve the following necessary to conduct a war the powers involved call on the 'faithful' to support them.
Religion hasn't always been the banner under which people have united in conflict. Sometimes it's just been political or territorial but religious difference have been used so often because it guarantees following from the faithful.
Religion doesn't cause wars - it enables them.
Humans invented religion. Through religion it is easier to manipulate people. Because of religion people will give their wealth, their land, their lives. No war has ever been about religion in truth. Every war in history is about land, power, and money. Even the crusades was about the power and expansion of the roman catholic church.
There's not one religion which supports these aims for their own ends - so in order to achieve the following necessary to conduct a war the powers involved call on the 'faithful' to support them.
Religion hasn't always been the banner under which people have united in conflict. Sometimes it's just been political or territorial but religious difference have been used so often because it guarantees following from the faithful.
Religion doesn't cause wars - it enables them.
To some extent, the nature of a war is in the eye of the beholder.
Toi find a truly religious war means going back to the wars of Islamic expansion beginning in the 7th Century, the Crusades starting in the 11th Century and the Reformation wars beginning in the 16th Century.
A War Audit carried out in 2004 said that although armed conflicts may take on religious overtones, their genesis invariably lies in factors such as ethnicity, identity, power struggles, resources, inequality and oppression - and one factor is often exacerbated by another.
Even the Israel-Arab wars from 1948 to the present day are often seen as wars over religion but are in fact about nationalism, self-defence or the liberation of territory.
Toi find a truly religious war means going back to the wars of Islamic expansion beginning in the 7th Century, the Crusades starting in the 11th Century and the Reformation wars beginning in the 16th Century.
A War Audit carried out in 2004 said that although armed conflicts may take on religious overtones, their genesis invariably lies in factors such as ethnicity, identity, power struggles, resources, inequality and oppression - and one factor is often exacerbated by another.
Even the Israel-Arab wars from 1948 to the present day are often seen as wars over religion but are in fact about nationalism, self-defence or the liberation of territory.
Example 1. The Irish Conflict. Is blamed on religion but was about consolidating the power of the British throne. The throne was protestant - established not because of religion but because of a king who couldn't father a son and didn't like being told what to do by Rome.These laws banned Catholics from a) having a gun b) being professionals (except medical) c) being involved in politics d) owning land e) receiving education (except for that in the Protestant faith) f) owning a horse over �5 value. Presbeterians were also marginalised but their numbers were insufficient to result in any conflict being attributed to them, It was never about faith - it was about fealty and subservience to a lord who decided his rights were greater than those of the established church of the time. The division of geographical territory happened much later and the conflict was still portrayed as being a religious one - though it was purely political.
Example 2. Isreal / Palestine. The state of Isreal didn't exist and hadn't for many years. Way back in history the 'Jews' were exiled from their land and yet maintained an association with it in their culture. After the end of the second world war they were granted 'rights' to their ancestral land by the United Nations - led by the United States. Why? Because there were many Jews of great wealth and power in the USA who had the ears of the powers that be and - despite the fact that the land they laid claim to had been home to another nation for about 1,500 year it was in the USA's best interests to have a sympathetic and supportive administration in that area.
Example 2. Isreal / Palestine. The state of Isreal didn't exist and hadn't for many years. Way back in history the 'Jews' were exiled from their land and yet maintained an association with it in their culture. After the end of the second world war they were granted 'rights' to their ancestral land by the United Nations - led by the United States. Why? Because there were many Jews of great wealth and power in the USA who had the ears of the powers that be and - despite the fact that the land they laid claim to had been home to another nation for about 1,500 year it was in the USA's best interests to have a sympathetic and supportive administration in that area.
Example 3. The Roman Catholic was established there because of a roman emporer who, realising the religion was sweeping his lands and concerned about losing his power because this new religion threatened the long held belief that the emporer was a god, embraced it and invited it into the seat of the very culture which had first persecuted and killed it's followers. The resulting church was all about power and control - as had been the roman empire - and set about using it's new found 'army' to convert the world to their view and persecute, in turn, those who didn't embrace it (the inqusitions),
Example 4 - The Middle East terrorism - Islam has more followers than any other religion. Dispersed throughout the world, as are followers of most religions - land and political affiliations may change but religion is mostly an protected and indoctrinated belief system - those who came to hold a position of power and respect within this community were also people who preached separatism and denounced the powers which wielded economic control over their homelands. They were dismissed as 'third world' by western powers who had the industrialisation to provide economic solutions to the problems those countries faced - offering medicine, arms to 'resolve' internal power conflicts those coutries and courted their establishments - for economic and territorial reasons. The people who control and drive these conflicts do not want to 'convert' their opponents to Islam - they want to use the people who DO believe to fight against a society which teaches people that their is not god - other than consumerism - something which would result in their 'faithful' being bound only first and foremost to their own needs and not the establishment which relies on them to provide for and revere them.
No religion will ever truly be responsible for any war. It's the greed, desire and quest for power of an individual - and those they choose to surround themselves with -
Example 4 - The Middle East terrorism - Islam has more followers than any other religion. Dispersed throughout the world, as are followers of most religions - land and political affiliations may change but religion is mostly an protected and indoctrinated belief system - those who came to hold a position of power and respect within this community were also people who preached separatism and denounced the powers which wielded economic control over their homelands. They were dismissed as 'third world' by western powers who had the industrialisation to provide economic solutions to the problems those countries faced - offering medicine, arms to 'resolve' internal power conflicts those coutries and courted their establishments - for economic and territorial reasons. The people who control and drive these conflicts do not want to 'convert' their opponents to Islam - they want to use the people who DO believe to fight against a society which teaches people that their is not god - other than consumerism - something which would result in their 'faithful' being bound only first and foremost to their own needs and not the establishment which relies on them to provide for and revere them.
No religion will ever truly be responsible for any war. It's the greed, desire and quest for power of an individual - and those they choose to surround themselves with -
Could'nt you have just said yes it is atheisms's biggest lie and saved yourself alot of time?
You've covered roughly 2000 years of world history and decided that none of it was the fault of religion, I agree that governments start wars and people just fight them.
But that is'nt really the question.
I'm asking for examples were a war was prosecuted for a supposed religious aim, we've got the Crusades and the Reformation, and even in that we have dissent.
I don't see were religion has enabled the conflicts you've mentioned, Ireland was about the sovreignty of the land, Israel is about the sovreignty of the land also with regard to Israel alot of Jews could'nt or would'nt go home because it was under Soviet control, or they just did'nt want to (can't blame em really) or when they did go home they found someone else living there who told them fcuk off! France did'nt want em, Britain did'nt want em nor did America. We kinda sh1t on Palestine and left the Arabs to smell the cheese.
And your final example far from enabling war seemed more inclined to preventing it.
I don't think Islam has more followers than any other religion either, the last time I heard it was now bigger than Catholicism.
You've covered roughly 2000 years of world history and decided that none of it was the fault of religion, I agree that governments start wars and people just fight them.
But that is'nt really the question.
I'm asking for examples were a war was prosecuted for a supposed religious aim, we've got the Crusades and the Reformation, and even in that we have dissent.
I don't see were religion has enabled the conflicts you've mentioned, Ireland was about the sovreignty of the land, Israel is about the sovreignty of the land also with regard to Israel alot of Jews could'nt or would'nt go home because it was under Soviet control, or they just did'nt want to (can't blame em really) or when they did go home they found someone else living there who told them fcuk off! France did'nt want em, Britain did'nt want em nor did America. We kinda sh1t on Palestine and left the Arabs to smell the cheese.
And your final example far from enabling war seemed more inclined to preventing it.
I don't think Islam has more followers than any other religion either, the last time I heard it was now bigger than Catholicism.
The current war in Afghanistan
(I did post this on the other thread)
One side is attempting to establish a fundamentalist Islamic state and the other is attempting to establish a secular one.
I know we don't like refering to athiesm or secularism as a religion but when secularism fights a religiously motivated opposing force you've got to see it as a religious war - I'm pretty certain the Taliban do!
(I did post this on the other thread)
One side is attempting to establish a fundamentalist Islamic state and the other is attempting to establish a secular one.
I know we don't like refering to athiesm or secularism as a religion but when secularism fights a religiously motivated opposing force you've got to see it as a religious war - I'm pretty certain the Taliban do!
The Islamist fundamentalist terror war primarily lead by Osama bin Laden, is more about political order in the Arab countries, and the presence of US forces in Muslim countries, than it is about religious conversion of foreigners or expansion of territory in the name of God. Nonetheless, to bin Laden, it is a war of religious duty. Do you really share that view jake?
But the religious duty he identifies flows from his disaffections with the political order and with the fact that a foreign, non-Muslim power has stationed military forces in Saudi Arabia, a situation he sees as contrary to his religious traditions, especially when those forces are being used to attack other Muslim countries.
The original Taliban uprising in Afghanistan arose to oppose and put an end to the lawlessness of the �warlords� in the city of Kandahar in the failed state of Afghanistan. A string of attacks to put an end to crime culminated in the assertion of Taliban control over the whole city of Kandahar, but this was made possible in part by provision of material support from Pakistan, which had decided to switch its loyalties in the Afghanistan imbroglio. By August 1998, the Taliban had taken military control of almost all of the country. By the fall of Kabul in 1996, the Taliban had declared their aims to be the taking of power over all of Afghanistan and to rule in the name of the entire Afghan people, claiming in the process a broad ethnic diversity in their ranks.
Lets not forget the Taliban's strict policies and condescending behaviour toward their people, including strict shariah law, the treatment of women, prohibitions on culture (no music or �arts�), ethnic massacres and persecution (most notably Mazar-i-Sharif).
cont'd
But the religious duty he identifies flows from his disaffections with the political order and with the fact that a foreign, non-Muslim power has stationed military forces in Saudi Arabia, a situation he sees as contrary to his religious traditions, especially when those forces are being used to attack other Muslim countries.
The original Taliban uprising in Afghanistan arose to oppose and put an end to the lawlessness of the �warlords� in the city of Kandahar in the failed state of Afghanistan. A string of attacks to put an end to crime culminated in the assertion of Taliban control over the whole city of Kandahar, but this was made possible in part by provision of material support from Pakistan, which had decided to switch its loyalties in the Afghanistan imbroglio. By August 1998, the Taliban had taken military control of almost all of the country. By the fall of Kabul in 1996, the Taliban had declared their aims to be the taking of power over all of Afghanistan and to rule in the name of the entire Afghan people, claiming in the process a broad ethnic diversity in their ranks.
Lets not forget the Taliban's strict policies and condescending behaviour toward their people, including strict shariah law, the treatment of women, prohibitions on culture (no music or �arts�), ethnic massacres and persecution (most notably Mazar-i-Sharif).
cont'd
Initially foreign powers supported the Taliban regime in the hope that it would serve as a force to restore order in Afghanistan after years of division into corrupt, lawless warlord fiefdoms. It wasn�t really until the Taliban attacked the city of Mazar (and killed several Iranian diplomats) that it all went tits up�.
Armed conflict is rarely, if ever, solely about religion or religious differences.
Armed conflict is rarely, if ever, solely about religion or religious differences.
If you don't think the war in Iraq is between Muslims and Christians, maybe you should read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/us/26atheist .html?scp=6&sq=christian%20pentagon&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/us/26atheist .html?scp=6&sq=christian%20pentagon&st=cse
Terambulan � Muslims or Hindu did not have much of a problem in living together in India. In fact they lived there for centuries. Problem only started when Britain took over from Muslims and then they used their well known formula of divide and rule there. All of a sudden Muslims started finding a pig�s head dumped on the doorstep of the mosque and a cow�s in front of a Hindu Temple. Otherwise to this date there are more Muslims in India than the whole population of Pakistan. Yes there are problems among them but that are mostly influenced by the politicians. But sorry this question is not about this.
I merely point out that to one side of this conflict it is a religious war.
The other side is motivated my political influence in a key strategic location and to deny safe havens to a threat.
But that doesn't stop it stoking "anti-muslim" feeling - you only have to read this site to see that.
You can't motivate secular western countries with appeals to religion any more but you can on appeals to race and that old "friend" patriotism
Wars have never been solely about religion they've never been solely about anything but religious divides are a great wedge to drive between people in war time
The other side is motivated my political influence in a key strategic location and to deny safe havens to a threat.
But that doesn't stop it stoking "anti-muslim" feeling - you only have to read this site to see that.
You can't motivate secular western countries with appeals to religion any more but you can on appeals to race and that old "friend" patriotism
Wars have never been solely about religion they've never been solely about anything but religious divides are a great wedge to drive between people in war time
Latest Posts
The Starmer Stasi At It Again......
News4 mins ago
News8 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.