How Many Wars Are Really Caused by Religion? (& other questions) READ FIRST POST!

[TheFightingPikachu]

I think this question deserves careful inquiry. I have often heard about "all the wars" started by religion, but I have heard very few examples brought forward. I am inclined to believe that the number of times when religion was a primary or even major cause of war are comparatively few. Therefore, I've provided a list of some wars with their causes for comparison's sake. Before I give the list, it should be noted that in no way should this list be construed as a truly random or representative selection; it is simply made up of wars I was able to think of practically off the top of my head (and a few other people's heads). I expect people to discuss wars I have not mentioned (whether caused by religion or not), and I may update the first post accordingly. Now for the list.


World War I:
"The immediate cause of the war was the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand, the heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, by a Serbian nationalist. The fundamental causes of the conflict, however, were rooted deeply in the European history of the previous century, particularly in the political and economic policies that prevailed in Europe after 1871, the year that Germany emerged as a major European power."
(Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia)


World War II:
Under the heading "Causes of the War," World Book Encyclopedia states, "Many historians trace the causes of World War II to problems left unsolved by World War I" (W:470).


The American Civil War:
"The chief and immediate cause of the war was slavery. Southern states, including the 11 states that formed the Confederacy, depended on slavery to support their economy. Southerners used slave labor to produce crops, especially cotton. Although slavery was illegal in the Northern states, only a small proportion of Northerners actively opposed it. The main debate between the North and the South on the eve of the war was whether slavery should be permitted in the Western territories recently acquired during the Mexican War (1846-1848), including New Mexico, part of California, and Utah. Opponents of slavery were concerned about its expansion, in part because they did not want to compete against slave labor."
(Encarta)


The First Crusade:

The first of the Crusades began in 1095, when armies of Christians from Western Europe responded to Pope Urban II's plea to go to war against Muslim forces in the Holy Land.

(History Channel's page on the Crusades)


The First Punic War:
"The First Punic War (264-241 bc) was the outcome of growing political and economic rivalry between the two nations. It was initiated when a band of Campanian mercenary soldiers (Mamertines), besieged in the city of Messana (now Messina), in Sicily, requested aid from both Rome and Carthage against Hiero II, king of Syracuse. Carthage already controlled part of Sicily, and the Romans, responding to this request with the intention of driving the Carthaginians from the island, provoked a declaration of war."
(Encarta)


Peloponnesian War:

After heroic roles in the defeat of the Persians (480-479 B.C.), for the next half-century Athens and Sparta assumed preeminence among the city-states, and their rivalry slowly led to the long-expected showdown. Thucydides, a contemporary historian, believed that the war broke out because of Spartan fear of the rising power of Athens, whose empire and capital increasingly isolated less imaginative and less adventurous rivals.

(History Channel's page on the Peloponnesian War)

----------



The question of how many wars have been started by religion is not the only question to consider, nor is it necessarily the most important. Here are a number of other crucial questions and groups of questions to ask about war and religion:

1. Who are the agressors in a given war? In other words, members of which religion started the war in question? It is no good to blame religion in general for the misdeeds of any particular faith.
   
   -​
2. Who were the oppressed in a given war? Sometimes, modern critics of religion give the impression that religions start wars to persecute those who don't follow any religion (i.e., atheists), which is misleading given the comparatively small number of non-religious people in earlier ages. On the other hand, some assume that people from one religion always fight those of another religion, yet in some cases, the oppressed would certainly be counted as belonging to a different division of the same religion.
   
   -​
3. Was religion a primary factor, a major contributing factor, or only a minor contributing factor? What were the other factors that caused the war, and were they more crucial than religious factors? On this basis, it can even be questioned whether religion was the primary cause of the Crusades.
   
   -​
4. How many people did the agressors kill, injure, etc.?
   
   -​
5. How many of the agressors were killed, injured, etc.? At times, people who raise the issue of religion and war forget to ask this question, giving a very lopsided impression. It should be remembered that the very definition of "war" means that someone fought back. War isn't one sided, and it's even possible for the roles of agressor and oppressed to be reversed as the tide of war turns. Also, how do the death toll statistics for each side compare?
   
   -​
6. How long did a particular religion-ignited war last? Additionally, how does this compare to the total time in which any of the involved religions have existed?
   
   -​
7. Finally (and perhaps most importantly), how do all of the above pieces of information (for the war or wars started by any given religion) compare to those started by other religions, or to non-religious wars? I'm going to paraphrase some Christian scholars who wrote of an entirely different issue: To argue without reference to other wars is ignoring relevant comparative data. This is decidedly not in line with a true liberal spirit of intellectual inquiry that pursues truth at all costs.

Now, a few basic rules will be useful:

1. It should be obvious that you shouldn't spam.
   In this debate, if all you post is something like, "Yes, there are tons of wars caused by religion," then you aren't really debating and that will be counted as spam. Also, this debate is not about whether God exists. Anyone who posts here to make an issue of God's existence or non-existence is posting in the wrong topic and therefore posting spam.
   
   -​
2. This a debate, not a war.
   If you want to think of it as a war of words, it had better be a calm war. There is no reason to blatantly and directly insult religious or non-religious people. No one should be posting things like, "All religious people are violent," or "Atheists don't like morals." (While the aformentioned examples are stated as absolutes, there need be no basesless generalization or stereotyping, either.)
   
   -​
3. You should bring sources to the debate.
   This kinda goes with the first part of rule 1 above, just saying that there have been a lot of religious wars is not so very useful for a debate. People aren't just interested in someone else's say so, and that's why sources are generally important to a debate. This debate is no exception. Additionally, I strongly suggest that you avoid using purely religious sources to make your case, or using anti-religious sources.

Let me sum up all three of these rules in one example:

I do not want to hear about how many wars have been caused by religion in the Star Wars universe. Yes, I know that...

[IMG139]http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/darthvader/img/movie_sm.jpg[/IMG139]

...this guy finds your lack of faith disturbing. I know that he aims to conquer lots of people. But you see guys, though this may come as a shock to some, Darth Vader is a fictional character. Even the allegedly religious "Jedi" or "Dark Side" sources do not claim to be actual records, and indeed, admit to being...fiction. This debate is not about fictional characters or fictional wars.

 

[ebilly99]

Are we only debating international wars? The 100year war, the war of roses, the cold was of the english king and the pope. Are these involved as well?

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

First, I made it clear by including the American Civil War in my comparison list that just about any war is up for consideration; it doesn't have to be between two completely separate nations.

Now, though I'm not sure about the third war you referred to, I found some info on the Hundred Years War, and the Wars of the Roses. I CTRL+F searched in each one and didn't find the term "pope" in either of them. I think you'll need more evidence than that if you want to show that the pope was to blame.

And are you seriously trying to claim that the Cold War was caused by the pope?

 

[mattj]

Question Ebilly99, because I really am curious, were each of those wars caused by religion, or did they just involve religious people?

 

[ebilly99]

During king Henrys reign to Queen Marys and her English Church the King and the pope had a huge political war, though not a official war it was closer to the USA and USSR cold war.
No Just trying to get a feel if small wars count as well. I dont expect the pope/king being allowed but I just want to feel it out first.

 

[randomspot555]

It's increasingly rare in the era of what is considered "modern war" (depending on whom you ask when that is. I'd say anything post American Civil War) to find religion being a blatant angle in any war or use of force with nations. But even back when most powerful nations had official religions or had strong ties to particular churches and such, it wasn't always so obvious.

Let's take Spain's colonization of the Americas, focusing primarily on South America because...well, that's where it all started. The Spanish, a very Catholic nation at the time, saw it as their holy duty to spread Catholicism to what they saw as uneducated, uncivilized savages. Of course, some of these so-called savages had built very sophisticated cities, had their own languages and currency, traded amongst eachother, and even performed brain surgery. The Spanish did take it upon themselves to convert the natives to Catholicism, often at gun point, but I'd say spreading Catholicism by force was a goal a few notches below exporting crops and gold back to Spain. This isn't to say the spread of Catholicism was just being paid lip service. It was a true objective and there were a lot of priests that came to the new world. And eventually, a school of thoughts formed among the priests from the New World that since the natives were embracing Catholicism, they should be treated humanely and not as slaves. So laws were passed and yada yada yada.

Currently? In the past 20 years? Even 80 years? I think it's pretty hard to pick out a major war that has had clearly defined religious obectives or influences. Even the constant fighting between Isralites and the Palestines have just as much to do with culture than their specific religion. Hell, other Muslim sects have broken out in violence against eachother as well, and they share 90% of the same beliefs!

 

[legendarypokemonmaster]

Well, the crusades to start with. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban seem to have been causing quite some chaos. Of course labeling a war as caused by solely religion, or any other thing is as inaccurate as saying that the assassination of the archduke was the only cause for WWI, or that the Treaty of Versailles caused WWII.

However, I may also add that many people have been controlled by rulers that were believed to have had "divine" authority. Some examples are the Egyptian Pharoahs, and many Chinese rulers(mandate of heaven), although I'm sure there are more recent examples in history.

EDIT: Can't forget about the 30 years war!

 

[Zweihander Nemesis]

Religion starting wars happens yes, but often enough it is not the sole reason for most people to go war with one another.

The Fourth Crusade was originally a Crusade like any other; to capture the Holy Land name of Christianity. The Crusaders financial problems grew and to pay off their debt to Venice, they were enticed to take the City of Zara, Despite it's Christian alligence. Prince Alexios then enticed the Crusaders with the assimilation of the Orthodox Church, wealth and soldiers for their campaign if they helped him take Constantinople, another Christian city as well. Which they took him up on his offer. Despite being "Crusaders" They were already excommunicated by the Pope for their actions at Zara; Yet they still had the mindset to go forward with their campaign (Though they never made it to Jerusalem or Egypt) and sacked the city for 3 days. Many noblemen in Crusades fought for more than just holiness, riches and wealth were in their sights. Though the official reasons are religious based.
Source

World War II's causes are deeply rooted in Axis Power Nationalism, as well as the rise of authoritarian and ultra-nationalistic feelings. While the Holocaust is backed by feelings of Antisemitism, it is not the cause of World War II nor does it have much to do with the war itself despite how horrendous it was.
History Channel on The Holocaust

The Gulf War is largely political-economic motivations. Iraq's goverment believed that Kuwait was stealing Iraq's "rightful" Oil as well as denying access to lands that was supposed to belong to Iraq in the beginning, side the coming of the British and the creation of Kuwait. The immense war debt that Iraq suffered post Iran-Iraq war was painful and Saddam was desperate to remove the debt and grow stronger in any way possible. Despite both Kuwait and Iraq are heavily Islamic-based countries.
Source

The Northern Crusades in the 13th Century where Poland and the Teutonic Knights aggressively forced the people of the Baltics (who were mostly Pagan) to Catholicism; despite the presence of Orthodox Christian Baltic people who were still considered "Not a true christian" in the eyes of the Pope. Though the need for land, products and resources available in the Baltics were a major factor to the launch of the Northern Crusades.
Source

 

[Manafi's Dream]

We actually entered World War II because of submarine warfare between us and Germany. No religion there

 

[bel9]

It's increasingly rare in the era of what is considered "modern war" (depending on whom you ask when that is. I'd say anything post American Civil War) to find religion being a blatant angle in any war or use of force with nations. But even back when most powerful nations had official religions or had strong ties to particular churches and such, it wasn't always so obvious.

Let's take Spain's colonization of the Americas, focusing primarily on South America because...well, that's where it all started. The Spanish, a very Catholic nation at the time, saw it as their holy duty to spread Catholicism to what they saw as uneducated, uncivilized savages. Of course, some of these so-called savages had built very sophisticated cities, had their own languages and currency, traded amongst eachother, and even performed brain surgery. The Spanish did take it upon themselves to convert the natives to Catholicism, often at gun point, but I'd say spreading Catholicism by force was a goal a few notches below exporting crops and gold back to Spain. This isn't to say the spread of Catholicism was just being paid lip service. It was a true objective and there were a lot of priests that came to the new world. And eventually, a school of thoughts formed among the priests from the New World that since the natives were embracing Catholicism, they should be treated humanely and not as slaves. So laws were passed and yada yada yada.

Currently? In the past 20 years? Even 80 years? I think it's pretty hard to pick out a major war that has had clearly defined religious obectives or influences. Even the constant fighting between Isralites and the Palestines have just as much to do with culture than their specific religion. Hell, other Muslim sects have broken out in violence against eachother as well, and they share 90% of the same beliefs!

Randomspot made a good point bringing up a conflict based on religion that is not counted as a war, as well as pointing out how culture plays a role, although I will say culture does intersect and encompass religion.

Also, TFP, I find it rather foolish you would hope to prove or disprove anything based on the analysis of a mere handful of (7?) wars. Furthermore, although I agree that anyone is at fault who claims "all the wars" were started by religion, I struggle to find a large number of people making such a claim. Please enlighten me to this massive group of people (atheists are considered a minority and no atheists I know or have read argue such a claim) who believe that all war will dissipate with the absence of religion.

In fact, quite the opposite, in these authors eyes only 7% of 123 counted wars were for religious purposes. (Of course, I believe the Earth has witnessed more than 123 conflicts, although not everyone would classify a mere "conflict" as a war. Take ,for instance, Randomspot's example. There was a conflict and massive killing of "savages" all done in the name of God, yet we don't consider it a designated "war")

There are plenty of other "conflicts" or mass killings like this throughout history.

I think you are paraphrasing and misinterpreting the argument.

Well, the crusades to start with. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban seem to have been causing quite some chaos. Of course labeling a war as caused by solely religion, or any other thing is as inaccurate as saying that the assassination of the archduke was the only cause for WWI, or that the Treaty of Versailles caused WWII.

However, I may also add that many people have been controlled by rulers that were believed to have had "divine" authority. Some examples are the Egyptian Pharoahs, and many Chinese rulers(mandate of heaven), although I'm sure there are more recent examples in history.

People do take the lives of other in the name of God and it happens every day. For instance, this man claims to be fighting for the ten commandments. Whether or not you believe he acts accordingly to the ten commandments, he certainly does believe he fights for them (What you believe about the individual is irrelevant and I very much don't care to hear it). Of course, the civil war that has occurred in Uganda is more complex than just simply "religion." There were political factions that felt disenfranchised, etc.

In terms of the Crusades, the origins are still and will forever be fairly controversial. Historians are and will be biased (as will the persons he/she researches) so it is important to keep an open mind about these topics, but the overall origins and tensions stem from the confrontation between Christianity and Islam, and the changing social and political landscape of Europe, the Mediterranean, North Africa, and the Middle East.

The Islamic empire had expanded across the Africa and Middle East (the birthplace of Christianity). If you want to argue that this would not have been the least bit threatening to Christian Europe and a part of the call to arms for war be my guest.

 

[CSolarstorm]

We actually entered World War II because of submarine warfare between us and Germany. No religion there

...it was primarily submarine warfare between Japan that led the U.S. into the war. (I remember reading you do live in the U.S.?) And while it didn't start WWII exactly, anti-semitism was central to the core of the conflict between the Nazis and Jews.

So there was religion there, but it was the victim of the philsophy at fault (which, if anything was the at the time fallacious science of eugenics) rather than cause anything.

 

[Alleviate]

This trend ended hundreds of years ago in western society.

 

[Manafi's Dream]

...it was primarily submarine warfare between Japan that led the U.S. into the war. (I remember reading you do live in the U.S.?) And while it didn't start WWII exactly, anti-semitism was central to the core of the conflict between the Nazis and Jews.

So there was religion there, but it was the victim of the philsophy at fault (which, if anything was the at the time fallacious science of eugenics) rather than cause anything.

I'm sorry, I meant World War I. I remembered talking about British supply and passenger ships being destroyed by German submarines, and a few American ships were attacked, too, but I put the wrong war

 

[SurfingHaxorus]

Actally the American Civil War was fought to perseve the Union. Slavery was just an after thought.

 

[Assassin9399]

Most of the time, religion isn't the main factor why there breaks out a war, but it's one of the things that contribute. Even in the Crusades this was the case, since the first crusade was against the Turks, who conquered Jerusalem. Therefor, the pope gave the call to create an army of god, but this was mostly to show the power of the pope to summon an army against those who weren't christian. Also, remember that the pope had the power to excommunicate countries, what means that they aren't christian anymore.

The other reason given for the first crusade is because the pilgrims weren't allowed anymore into Jerusalem. But please note that on the moment Jerusalem was taken by the crusaders, it was already been retaken by the Egyptians, who didn't have any problems with pilgrims.

 

[kaiser soze]

Actally the American Civil War was fought to perseve the Union. Slavery was just an after thought.

Let me elaborate: the Civil War was a fight over a state's right to succeed. "The Civil War was started because of slavery" is a major overgeneralization. It was an economic war, not a war of human rights as many would like to romanticize. Slavery might have been a cause of succession, but it wasn't a priority until the Emancipation Proclamation of 1864- four years after South Carolina succeeded. Southern Union states like Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland still had slavery for the majority of the war.

 

[PokeJustice]

Let me elaborate: the Civil War was a fight over a state's right to succeed. "The Civil War was started because of slavery" is a major overgeneralization. It was an economic war, not a war of human rights as many would like to romanticize.

That the war was, in part, caused by the economic policies of the central government is a possibility worth exploring, but we must acknowledge the primacy of slavery among the war's causes:

The basic root of the controversy over slavery to secession, in my opinion, was the aggressive, expansionist aims of the Southern "slavocracy." Very few Northerners proposed to abolish slavery in the Southern states by aggressive war; the objection – and certainly a proper one – was to the attempt of the Southern slavocracy to extend the slave system to the Western territories. The apologia that the Southerners feared that eventually they might be outnumbered and that federal abolition might ensue is no excuse; it is the age-old alibi for "preventive war." Not only did the expansionist aim of the slavocracy to protect slavery by federal fiat in the territories as "property" aim to foist the immoral system of slavery on Western territories; it even violated the principles of states' rights to which the South was supposedly devoted...

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

During king Henrys reign to Queen Marys and her English Church the King and the pope had a huge political war, though not a official war it was closer to the USA and USSR cold war.
No Just trying to get a feel if small wars count as well. I dont expect the pope/king being allowed but I just want to feel it out first.

Small wars, big wars, cold wars, hot wars...they're all up for discussion.

Now, if yo have some evidence that the pope directly or indirectly caused those wars you mentioned, by all means present it. But now it sounds almost like you are saying there was an argument between certain kings, and applying the term "war" to this disagreement. Please explain what you are talking about, carefully.

Let's take Spain's colonization of the Americas, focusing primarily on South America because...well, that's where it all started. The Spanish, a very Catholic nation at the time, saw it as their holy duty to spread Catholicism to what they saw as uneducated, uncivilized savages.

While I would not deny that such things have taken place, and I do not suggest anyone ignore them, I have specifically made this topic about war and religion for a reason.

Currently? In the past 20 years? Even 80 years? I think it's pretty hard to pick out a major war that has had clearly defined religious obectives or influences. Even the constant fighting between Isralites and the Palestines have just as much to do with culture than their specific religion. Hell, other Muslim sects have broken out in violence against eachother as well, and they share 90% of the same beliefs!

This is all true.

Also, TFP, I find it rather foolish you would hope to prove or disprove anything based on the analysis of a mere handful of (7?) wars. Furthermore, although I agree that anyone is at fault who claims "all the wars" were started by religion, I struggle to find a large number of people making such a claim. Please enlighten me to this massive group of people (atheists are considered a minority and no atheists I know or have read argue such a claim) who believe that all war will dissipate with the absence of religion.

In fact, quite the opposite, in these authors eyes only 7% of 123 counted wars were for religious purposes. (Of course, I believe the Earth has witnessed more than 123 conflicts, although not everyone would classify a mere "conflict" as a war. Take ,for instance, Randomspot's example. There was a conflict and massive killing of "savages" all done in the name of God, yet we don't consider it a designated "war")

I think you are paraphrasing and misinterpreting the argument.

First of all, I should probably clarify: My opening statement that used the phrase "'all the wars' started by religion," was not intended to mean that anyone says that all wars are started by religion. Should I have said, "all those wars"? I can change it.

Second, I never said the sample I gave was necessarily representative or random.

Third, the statistic you mention is useful and important.

And, nope, no, I'm not misinterpreting. It's just that I'm not specifically talking about what atheist/agnostic authors have said, since on these forums I've heard people make a big deal out of the allegedly many wars started by religion. I knew I had, but didn't prepare for that specifically, so I did a search through some debates in which I took part, finding quite a bit of stuff. In this intelligent post, GhostAnime expressly says that we shouldn't blame "just religion" for things like religious wars, yet says religion and war "have a very positive correlation," without giving a source. (I don't think he had the figure of 7% in mind.) Then there's this one, and this one. I even foundone quote where somebody implies that religion motivates war today! (This conflicts with randomspot555's accurate point in this thread.) I'm sure I could find more, but this proves that some people do at times accuse religion of starting many wars without proof, and occasionally repeat such a thing....

Perhaps more importantly, when I'd nearly completed this debate, a leader of the Atheism Club posted this:

Weekly quote

Christianity did not come with tidings of great joy, but with a message of eternal grief. It came with the threat of everlasting torture on its lips. It meant war on earth and perdition hereafter

L.F.D.

Granted most of this quote seems to be directed at the concept of eternal punishment, but when it says that Christianity "meant war on earth" as a deliberate antithesis of the phrase "peace on earth," this prominent atheist of yesteryear was clearly accusing Christianity of starting many wars. The quote was highly ironic because other members of the club had just been openly discussing whether they stereotype religious people, with some admitting that they had and that they recognized it was wrong.

So, yes, the claim that religion starts many wars has been repeated many times, even by people who should probably know better. I'm not misinterpreting, and analyzing this claim, whether it comes from popular culture via internetz or from Robert Ingersoll, was a major goal of starting this thread.

 

[legendarypokemonmaster]

People do take the lives of other in the name of God and it happens every day. For instance, this man claims to be fighting for the ten commandments. Whether or not you believe he acts accordingly to the ten commandments, he certainly does believe he fights for them (What you believe about the individual is irrelevant and I very much don't care to hear it). Of course, the civil war that has occurred in Uganda is more complex than just simply "religion." There were political factions that felt disenfranchised, etc.

In terms of the Crusades, the origins are still and will forever be fairly controversial. Historians are and will be biased (as will the persons he/she researches) so it is important to keep an open mind about these topics, but the overall origins and tensions stem from the confrontation between Christianity and Islam, and the changing social and political landscape of Europe, the Mediterranean, North Africa, and the Middle East.

The Islamic empire had expanded across the Africa and Middle East (the birthplace of Christianity). If you want to argue that this would not have been the least bit threatening to Christian Europe and a part of the call to arms for war be my guest.

It is inaccurate to say any single thing causes or has caused a war. Yes, Europe certainly would have felt threatened by the expanding Arabic empire, though partially because of differing religions. The pope called for a "holy war" to take back Jerusalem in the name of God, but there were surely other motives too. The catholic church was also quite powerful in europe at this time. People fought in the wars for three reasons:
1) Forgiveness of sins, a way into heaven
2) Riches, that they would gain from winning battles and pillaging
3) To be honored for their heroics in the war when they returned.
To sum up the reasons for fighting: God, Gold, and Glory.

 

[CSolarstorm]

It is inaccurate to say any single thing causes or has caused a war. Yes, Europe certainly would have felt threatened by the expanding Arabic empire, though partially because of differing religions. The pope called for a "holy war" to take back Jerusalem in the name of God, but there were surely other motives too. The catholic church was also quite powerful in europe at this time. People fought in the wars for three reasons:
1) Forgiveness of sins, a way into heaven
2) Riches, that they would gain from winning battles and pillaging
3) To be honored for their heroics in the war when they returned.
To sum up the reasons for fighting: God, Gold, and Glory.

For glory, God, and gold, and the...Virgina Companyyy...

Ah, Disney movies.

I think the answer is that religion, being close to the heart of humanity, has been known to cause and correlate with conflict in general. Wars, though...the causes of those are so multifaceted that we'd be hard pressed to find a single war that was ever started exclusively over religion. They may contain religion just because it will inevitably come up in the discourse of whatever conflict is going on and probably become fuel for mudslinging.

The question is awfully familiar. Perhaps even a year old, but it's been here before. I remember I brought up the Salem Witch trials and the war promised in Revelations last time. It seems to me like it's responding to a popular, but misguided athiest talking point that has over time become a straw man.