• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

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

Assassin9399

Wanna hug?
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.

True, but these weren't the reasons why the pope called for a crusade. Also with riches I think you should add that there were a lot of knights without land, who'd love the idea of getting a castle somewhere where they can play being a boss.
 
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.
There have been a number of threads that seemed to attract that kind of atheist/agnostic response like moths to a flame, though I didn't find one that was about this topic specifically.

I think it is true to say that religion can fuel conflicts significantly more often than it fuels war in particular. A large portion of the reason I started this debate was because I believe such arguments have been made into exaggerated arguments against Christianity in particular (i.e., the Atheism Club's weekly quote last week).

But I couldn't just think that it was exaggerated without giving an opportunity for people to present evidence if many wars have been started by religion. That said, I'm disappointed at the lack of response from atheists/agnostics.


In addition, I thought all the other questions would be useful for analyzing the issue in more depth, and for looking at more religions than just my own. I want to point out again that I can't accept either of the extreme views of Islam, "Islam is a religion of peace" or "Many Muslims are secretly terrorists."

I'm also planning to do a detailed analysis of the causes of the Crusades, but I'll wait a bit for that. I just hope I get some more rseponse....
 

SwiftSoul

Kinkmeister General
Honestly, you're likely not to get too many responses to this for several reasons. Notably:
- Attributing a war or conflict to one singular reason is fallacious in itself. The US can be said to have entered WW II because of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but it can also be said we were planning to anyway, and the attack was just an excuse to justify what they were going to do anyway. Or, possibly, that we had foreknowledge of the attack and did nothing to stop it for the perfect excuse to go to war (or it wasn't actually the Japanese, but that's a theory for another day). Of course, all of these can be applied to the so-called War on Terrorism we've been fighting for a decade, only this time with a constitution-suspending act that was either prepared beforehand or drafted in half a week (it takes much longer to draft a bill) that had the expiration clauses removed later. But I digress...
- The definition of a war is subjective. I feel that what Saint Patrick did with slaughtering (and converting, but he preferred slaughter) most of the Pagans of Ireland was an act of war, as were the events of Salem Village. Both of which were almost exclusively religious in nature. To others, they may not be considered as such.
- The winners write the history books. The true motivation for many conflicts are lost to history, because some historical resources cannot be trusted when motivations are recorded. Despite the propaganda, Irish Pagans around the time of the Roman empire weren't actually ritualistic sacrificers, for one. And it is heavily believed that the Aztecs did not do sacrifices as often or fervently as believed, but that it was instead an attempt to make any potential invaders think twice.
- White superiority and Christian superiority have long overlapped. Manifest destiny: was it because the Indians were not white or not "civilized" Christians that they were seen as unintelligent savages undeserving of living on the land that no man truly owns? These "savages" actually had structured tribes, similar to how Druidic Pagan circles were set up. Same with conquest of Africa, same with Nazi Germany. It's discrimination against heterodoxy in general.
- Israel and the surrounding areas have always had charged climates because of the three main religions that conflict there, all of which are much more similar than either would admit and all worship the same God, but say he's different because of the different name attributed to each (Iehova, Allah, Emmanuel, Yaweh, and The Father are all the same God. In fact, there are several names for him, likely because they are all euphemisms and not actually "names", as the God of the Abrahamic religions of Islam, Judaism and Christianity has no name that mortals may speak, lest they invoke his true power). Now, it's debatable whether some of the struggles there are only religious, or the mostly political, seen as religious just because a lot of these nations do not like each other due to religious differences and intolerance.

With all this, I say that most of this is down to speculation
 

Ces

Well-Known Member
My history teacher said The Crusades weren't solely caused by religion. Due to improvements in farming, lords would often fight over land, since they actually had the time, whereas many months of a year used to be spent on the farms. The Church basically manipulated the lords into fighting against Muslims, since they were "not fit to live in the holy land". I'm not really sure if this is correct, I may have made mistakes on reiterating what my teacher said, but it was along those lines.
 
Honestly, you're likely not to get too many responses to this for several reasons. Notably:
- Attributing a war or conflict to one singular reason is fallacious in itself. The US can be said to have entered WW II because of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but it can also be said we were planning to anyway, and the attack was just an excuse to justify what they were going to do anyway. Or, possibly, that we had foreknowledge of the attack and did nothing to stop it for the perfect excuse to go to war (or it wasn't actually the Japanese, but that's a theory for another day). Of course, all of these can be applied to the so-called War on Terrorism we've been fighting for a decade, only this time with a constitution-suspending act that was either prepared beforehand or drafted in half a week (it takes much longer to draft a bill) that had the expiration clauses removed later. But I digress...
Conspiracy theories/borderline conspiracy theories aside, I am glad you recognize that most often there is no single cause of a war. I only wish the critics who brought it up had a more careful view of the causes of war.

- The definition of a war is subjective. I feel that what Saint Patrick did with slaughtering (and converting, but he preferred slaughter) most of the Pagans of Ireland was an act of war, as were the events of Salem Village. Both of which were almost exclusively religious in nature. To others, they may not be considered as such.
Three things here. First, while there is some variation in the definition of the word "war," I'm not sure this means the definition is subjective.

Second, you want to use the Salem Witch Trials as an example of war? When only a few hundred people, all from the same general area, were involved? The injustices took place in trails. Was there any open fighting? Also, while it was mostly religious, it wasn't exclusively religious; other motives have been discussed and, at times, exaggerated.

Third, you need to provide evidence for your claim that Saint Patrick slaughtered most of the pagans of Ireland. I checked two sources and didn't find that. That doesn't disprove it, but remember...the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim--in this case, you.

- The winners write the history books. The true motivation for many conflicts are lost to history, because some historical resources cannot be trusted when motivations are recorded. Despite the propaganda, Irish Pagans around the time of the Roman empire weren't actually ritualistic sacrificers, for one. And it is heavily believed that the Aztecs did not do sacrifices as often or fervently as believed, but that it was instead an attempt to make any potential invaders think twice.
Your opening sentence there has been repeated so often that I think it has become a meme. While I recognize the tendency of people to want to suppress ideas they don't like, is it really true that the winners write the history books, even in most cases, or is this statement another way for people to ignore ideas they find inconvenient?

- White superiority and Christian superiority have long overlapped. Manifest destiny: was it because the Indians were not white or not "civilized" Christians that they were seen as unintelligent savages undeserving of living on the land that no man truly owns? These "savages" actually had structured tribes, similar to how Druidic Pagan circles were set up. Same with conquest of Africa, same with Nazi Germany. It's discrimination against heterodoxy in general.
I merely want to point out that this actually runs against the theme of many of the largest, most prominent religiously-fueled conflicts. The Crusaders and the Muslims were both Caucasians! The Salem Witch Trials? Both the aggressors and the oppressed were Caucasian. Though victims of the Spanish Inquisition came from different ethnic backgrounds, many were Spanish and, in fact, Caucasian! Given those notable counterexamples, that would mean white superiority and Christianity overlap...except for the many times when they do not.

- Israel and the surrounding areas have always had charged climates because of the three main religions that conflict there, all of which are much more similar than either would admit and all worship the same God, but say he's different because of the different name attributed to each (Iehova, Allah, Emmanuel, Yaweh, and The Father are all the same God. In fact, there are several names for him, likely because they are all euphemisms and not actually "names", as the God of the Abrahamic religions of Islam, Judaism and Christianity has no name that mortals may speak, lest they invoke his true power). Now, it's debatable whether some of the struggles there are only religious, or the mostly political, seen as religious just because a lot of these nations do not like each other due to religious differences and intolerance.
This point is not stated with anywhere near enough precision. Since Christianity only began in the first century A.D., and Islam more than five centuries after that, then conflict between Islam, Christianity, and Judaism cannot lead one to conclude that those areas have always been charged. Indeed, numerous conflicts before the start of the Christian era involved Jewish resistance to conquering Romans. Jews also resisted the conquests of the Greeks before that. Though these conquests do not seem to have had any religious motive of which I am aware, the Romans and Greeks were still pagans, which makes your omission of their numerous conflicts (and your subsequent blame of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), somewhat dishonorable.

With all this, I say that most of this is down to speculation
First, I believe there is a place for saying when we aren't sure of something. Indeed, I would caution those who wish to vehemently accuse or vehemently defend a given religion that they need to be careful to avoid oversimplification. This does not mean that we can't be sure of much about the past, though, so I hope you weren't indicating that.

Second, I want to point out that from what you've said, your final statement is a non sequitur. You said that you believe Saint Patrick was guilty of slaughtering non-Christians, yet you apparently don't believe this is mere speculation. Or is this an implicit admission that you don't have evidence of this belief?

Finally, I just want to point out that you've only added to my belief that people who criticize religion (or religions) for causing or fueling conflicts often arrive at their conclusions by an incomplete look at the evidence.
 

SwiftSoul

Kinkmeister General
I am trying to remain impartial here, but yes, I consider an attempt of genocide (Saint Patrick was said to rid Ireland of "snakes", which was a euphemism for the native Celtic and Gaelic Pagans) or an equivalent (Salem Village) as an act of war. I'm saying those had major religious motivations, although it wasn't the only motivation and wasn't the only reason for those two events. And, although you seem to think I do, I don't hate Christianity or religion in general. I hate the beliefs of those who use any religion to justify hate for their fellow man or woman, but that's as far as I hate. I'll admit Christianity does not make sense to me, despite my studies in the Bible and listening and reading several sermons and articles, but that's as much as I'll say about that here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Patrick#St._Patrick_banishes_all_snakes_from_Ireland
There is a valid citation there.
http://books.google.com/books?id=7A...&q=st. patrick snakes symbol of druids&f=true
This is where it is from.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/03/090316-st-patricks-day-facts.html
Nat Geo.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080313-snakes-ireland_2.html
Nat Geo shows that there were no literal snakes in Ireland

In addition, this is known through Druid oral tradition, supported highly by concrete evidence.
 

MasterLucario

No life till leather
Since the first post pretty much explained most wars, I'll aim at the ones in Afghanistan and surrounding countries. Sure, the aggressors try to make it seem like a religious war, that they are "purging the world of all infidels deemed by Allah." But It's just a cover up. The modern war is based mostly on their hatred towards Western ways and "imperialistic goals". religion has had very little impact on wars, except the Crusades and the conquering of Mexico by the Conquistadors.
 

Cereza

Beautiful Witch
As one beautiful woman once said:
"Wars are always based on misunderstandings,and lack of education"
--Priscila Machado--
and lets remember that its not a war until at least 2 sides decide to attack meaning that both of them are responsible for it.
 

MasterLucario

No life till leather
actually the crusades had a lot more to it than "lol lets go try do dis for god", and mexico was mostly "get gold, convert if you feel like it, get some slaves too"

I know their were more goals than just religion in the Crusades, but it was up there, with how prominent Christianity was at the time. But religion was a major reason for expansion in the Spanish Empire.
 

draya the dark master

Sort of Undead atm♥
Although wars are often fought in "the name of god" I highly doubt that religion is the primary cause... I believe that the cause of most (if not all) wars in the past was some kind of political, fantail or social gain.

WWI: the Keizer wanted to regain lost German territory... it backfired when Germany lost the war and when Germany went into the depression like the rest of the world they had it much worse because they had to pay off all their war reparations to the allies… this debt is what is believed to have drove Germany to start the second world war.

WWII: Hitler (although quite messed up in the head) rose to power because he promised to bring Germany out of the depression, and carried that promise... however what the German people didn’t know that to do this Hitler was taking the Jews and giving their well-paying jobs to the German citizens... another way Hitler created jobs was by building the factory’s to build germanise massive war arsenal... which went ignored by the allies up until Poland was taken.
Unlike popular belief the attack on the Jews was less about religion and more about culture… Hitler believed that the Jews where taking the jobs from the true German citizens.

Sorry there is no links… I’ll try and find some later :)
 

Assassin9399

Wanna hug?
As one beautiful woman once said:
"Wars are always based on misunderstandings,and lack of education"
--Priscila Machado--
and lets remember that its not a war until at least 2 sides decide to attack meaning that both of them are responsible for it.

"War does not determine who is right - only who is left." ~ Bertrand Russell
"All the arms we need are for hugging." ~ Author Unknown
"In peace, sons bury their fathers; in war, fathers bury their sons." ~ Herodotus

but also:

"We make war so that we may live in peace" ~ Aristotle
"Nobody is driven in to war by ignorance, and no one who thinks he will gain anything from it is deterred by fear." ~ Hemocrates
"A wise man in times of peace prepares for war." ~ Horace

War isn't just fulishness, it's a way to get what you want. If a bully wants something and it isn't given to him he beats someone into crap. If a ruler wants something, he'll use his army to beat the other one into crap.
As long as there are humans there will be war, I think. It's something which belongs to the humankind Not that I like war, but I think it's true, since there is always war somewhere ):.
 

arbiter7x

Brock Obama
The Crusades

Pretty much EVERY civil war in Europe from the Dark Ages to the 1800's (Protestants VS Catholics lol)

I think there is at least one between Shia and Sunni Muslims in the Middle East

WWII in Europe (at least part of it was instigated by the holocaust)

The JIHAD!
 

Assassin9399

Wanna hug?
The Crusades

Pretty much EVERY civil war in Europe from the Dark Ages to the 1800's (Protestants VS Catholics lol)

I think there is at least one between Shia and Sunni Muslims in the Middle East

WWII in Europe (at least part of it was instigated by the holocaust)

The JIHAD!

True, but not the most important reason, it was more to show the pope's power, and the lords wanted more land. Did you know about the people crusade?

Again, not the most important thing. Also, if I recall right, the French Revolution wasn't about religion.

Don't know anything about that war

Meh, it wasn't about the war, it was about that Hitler, and so the Nazi's hated the jews. The war wasn't fought because of that.

Don't know much about that either, I guess you're right
 
Oh, why not? Let's bring it back from the brink!

I am trying to remain impartial here, but yes, I consider an attempt of genocide (Saint Patrick was said to rid Ireland of "snakes", which was a euphemism for the native Celtic and Gaelic Pagans) or an equivalent (Salem Village) as an act of war. I'm saying those had major religious motivations, although it wasn't the only motivation and wasn't the only reason for those two events. And, although you seem to think I do, I don't hate Christianity or religion in general. I hate the beliefs of those who use any religion to justify hate for their fellow man or woman, but that's as far as I hate. I'll admit Christianity does not make sense to me, despite my studies in the Bible and listening and reading several sermons and articles, but that's as much as I'll say about that here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Patrick#St._Patrick_banishes_all_snakes_from_Ireland
There is a valid citation there.
http://books.google.com/books?id=7A...&q=st. patrick snakes symbol of druids&f=true
This is where it is from.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/03/090316-st-patricks-day-facts.html
Nat Geo.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080313-snakes-ireland_2.html
Nat Geo shows that there were no literal snakes in Ireland

In addition, this is known through Druid oral tradition, supported highly by concrete evidence.
You can color me skeptical of the theory since it is only mentioned as one possibility on the article. And I doubt you'd accept Christian oral tradition (or written evidence) anywhere near that quickly. That's hardly neutral.

I think it is certainly quite likely that the absence of snakes started the myth.


Additionally, wherever did I accuse you of hating Christians? Putting words in my mouth isn't the way to debate.


Also, in what way does the term "war" fit the decidedly wrong Salem Witch Trials?




You know, considering how often the topic of war and religion pops up elsewhere on the Debate Forum, I'm ashamed that so few people seem ready to talk about it and back up their positions.
 

Gergovia

Banned
I think many wars in Europe during the 1500's and 1600's were pretty much exclusively caused by religious beliefs.
 

Argenton

Finishing Trainer
Having actually studied the first Crusade at university, I would go so far as to say that it was not caused by Relgion, but merely that because Relgion was a predominate feature in 11th century life, it would there undoubtly play some sort of role in any conflict.

From what I can assertain from my studies:

The Turks that were migrating west from Asia defeated the Byzantine army and took over much land. The Byzantine emperor Alexis Comnenus opened up diplomatic relations with Pope Urban II and asked for help. Urban II agreed as he saw it as a chance to solidify papal rule in western Europe. However, Urban II's preaching went further than expected, and instead of just soldiers, many peasants and poor people took arms and marched off to liberate Byzantine in the name of God.

So from this, one can argue it was more 'politics' and conquest that sparked the first Crusade, but it merely used the facade of relgion in order to ignite the flame of war in the hearts of the people of western Europe.

My source for this is actually just my lecturer, and I dont know his personal source for this lecture, so I cant 100% vouch for its legitimacy.
I also apologise if this point has been made already, as truth be told I couldnt be bothered to read through every single post so far.
 

Qymaen

Petals and Leaves
Most wars are caused by religion or somehow connected to religion, but they are also the ones that are usually not the most bloody. More likely they are wars that don't last long.
 

Kierzor

Kinda reminiscing
There was civil war in northern Ireland thought the late 20th century. This was partly caused by religion but mostly it was to paramilitary organisations trying I control the country. Fortunately this ended a few years back but we still get flashes of violence here and there. Especially around parade season. This violence we have now
Is purely sectarian as there is no other reason for it and it's not a good reason to start off with.
 

Litovoi

Astral Shadow
The Islamic conquests are one.

In the name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the
Most Merciful
by the night as it enshrouds
by the day as it illuminates
by Him Who created the male and female
indeed your affairs lead to various ends.
For who gives (of himself) and acts righteously,
and conforms to goodness,
We will give him ease.
But as for him who is *****rdly cleaning himself,
self-sufficient and rejects goodness,
We will indeed ease his path to adversity.
Nor shall his wealth save him as he perishes
for Guidance is from Us
and to Us belongs the Last and First (92:1-14)

Muhammad was able to win the early support of some of his relatives and
close friends. His first converts were his wife, his cousin Ali, and Abu Bakr,
a leading merchant of the Koraysh tribe who was highly respected for his
integrity. Abu Bakr remained the constant companion of the Prophet during his
persecution and exile and later became the first caliph (leader) of Islam. But
opposition to Muhammad's message was very strong, especially from Mecca's
leading citizens. Many thought Muhammad was a poor poet attempting to pass on
his own literary creations as the word of God. Others believed him to be
possessed by demons. Muhammad's strong monotheism worried those residents of
Mecca who obtained their income from the pilgrims to the Kaaba. Most of
Muhammad's early converts were among the poorest of the city's residents, and
Mecca's leading citizens feared social revolution.

http://history-world.org/islam2.htm

Many had assumed that Islam was simply the militant imposition of the culture of 7th century Arabia on illiterate Third World tribes, with little relevance to the developed nations of today. However, the events of September 11, 2001, certainly have punctured the comfort of those nave presumptions. Islam has been, from its inception, a militant warrior code with an agenda of world conquest. Now, with its possession of nuclear weapons, its agenda can no longer be ignored.


Mohammed was born at Mecca, Arabia, in a.d. 570, and his Islam quickly spread beyond the borders of the tribal groups of Arabia. The 7th century was startled with the rapid advances of his militant religion: Syria fell in 634; Jerusalem in 637; Egypt in 638; Persia in 640; North Africa in 689; and Spain in 711. Both Christians and Jews throughout Europe were terrified until the Islamic troops were halted by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours, France, in 732.

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2002/421/

The Muslim conquests brought about the collapse of the Sassanid Empire and a great territorial loss for the Byzantine Empire. The reasons for the Muslim success are hard to reconstruct in hindsight, primarily because only fragmentary sources from the period have survived. Most historians agree that the Sassanid Persian and Byzantine Roman empires were militarily and economically exhausted from decades of fighting one another. The rapid fall of Visigothic Spain remains a bit mysterious however.

Jews and Christians in Persia and Jews and Monophysites in Syria were dissatisfied and sometimes even welcomed the Muslim forces, largely because of religious conflict in both empires.[2] In the case of Byzantine Egypt, Palestine and Syria, these lands had only a few years before been reacquired from the Persians, and had not been ruled by the Byzantines for over 25 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests

Also, WWII was caused by Hitler. He attempted a Coup de Tas twice, the first time he failed, the second time he succeeded. He then took control over Germany and created a tyranny. He wanted power so he expanded. He used Germany's loss during WWI to create anger in the Germans, so that they would support him.
 
Top