[fluff]

If what religion you follow defines what side your on in a war (any war), then it's a religious war.
Therefore Bosnia was a religious war.

The side of the war was defined by ethnicity not religion, ergo by your logic an ethnic war.

However, the question is how the war was sold.

 

[fluff]

We were the invaders in the Afghan war, that is true, but that doesn't mean that the "defenders" didn't use religion to rally the troops.

Yes, Bosnia was "ethnic" cleansing, but the only thing that separates the ethnicities is their religion. I don't see that as changing the definition at all.

I might be wrong about Napoleon. I'm not a big Napoleon historian and I may have not been recalling correctly.

I have to agree with you, though that we have come full circle. So, whoever asked the question to begin with, here is your answer (after 11 pages, multiple flame wars, philosophical musings, etc.)

Except the troops didn't rally in Afghanistan, apart from the hardcore Taliban who stood to lose power no other Muslims gave a ****. The 'Northern Alliance were Muslim also - and what do we have there now, a de-facto Islamic state. They had to reason to fight for religion.

As for coming full circle, ie. Politics=Religion the raises the following question:

Is religion a greater force for conflict than for peace? For example Islam was created at a time of conflict and led to the formation of an Islamic empire, that resulted in many years of peace in the Middle East, until the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, which was held together for many years by the Sultan's position in Islamic culture.

The position of Rome at the centre of Catholic Christianity is due to the position of Rome at the centre of the Roman Empire, who assumed Christianity as the state religion, in part as a means of unifying it's subjects in order to stablise the empire and maintain peace...

So perhaps religion not only is used to justify wars but also to prevent them. To unify states and enable 'progress'?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

You don't think the Bosnian war was sold on, "Hey, let's go kill those guys because our god is bigger/better than their's?"

I think in Afghanistan you have to look deeper. The Taliban supported Al Qaeda due to religious reasons, and Al Qaeda attacked us with the first volley in the war (and need I mention Al Qaeda does use religion to recruit troops)? The reason we went in there was because the Taliban were protecting Al Qaeda. Why? For religious reasons.

Is religion a greater force for peace or conflict? In the context we've been discussing it, it is certainly more often used as a tool for conflict. There may be instances when those in charge use it as a tool for peace as well, as your Roman example suggests. I think that like any tool it can be used for many ends. It all depends on who is using that tool.

 

[fluff]

You don't think the Bosnian war was sold on, "Hey, let's go kill those guys because our god is bigger/better than their's?"

Nope, absolutely not, Milosevic whipped up nationalism and promised a 'Greater Serbia', a homeland for all Serbs. Serbia fought Croatia just as it fought Bosnia, the only difference was the outcome.

I think in Afghanistan you have to look deeper. The Taliban supported Al Qaeda due to religious reasons, and Al Qaeda attacked us with the first volley in the war (and need I mention Al Qaeda does use religion to recruit troops)? The reason we went in there was because the Taliban were protecting Al Qaeda. Why? For religious reasons.

But we fought alongside Muslims and we founded an effectively Islamic country. We did not go in because of religion, we went in because of a State that harboured terrorists. The war was not sold on religious grounds - which is what you were claiming. You cannot postulate one theory and then go about trying to prove an alternate one to prove your original assertion correct.

Is religion a greater force for peace or conflict? In the context we've been discussing it, it is certainly more often used as a tool for conflict. There may be instances when those in charge use it as a tool for peace as well, as your Roman example suggests. I think that like any tool it can be used for many ends. It all depends on who is using that tool.

Religion is a powerful tool for uniting large groups of people in relative peace, the issues come when those groups clash. So you exchange many smaller conflicts for fewer large ones. Once again that does not necessarily support your assertion. You are absolutely correct in saying that the product of the use of a tool depends upon the user, that is why I believe that a world without religion would hardly differ from a world with religion - the tool would be different but the end product would be the same.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Nope, absolutely not, Milosevic whipped up nationalism and promised a 'Greater Serbia', a homeland for all Serbs. Serbia fought Croatia just as it fought Bosnia, the only difference was the outcome.

So, you don't think that Christians were committing genocide against Muslims?

But we fought alongside Muslims and we founded an effectively Islamic country. We did not go in because of religion, we went in because of a State that harboured terrorists. The war was not sold on religious grounds - which is what you were claiming. You cannot postulate one theory and then go about trying to prove an alternate one to prove your original assertion correct.

Ugh. You are still looking at it from our side, not their side. Their side was highly religiously motivated.

Religion is a powerful tool for uniting large groups of people in relative peace, the issues come when those groups clash. So you exchange many smaller conflicts for fewer large ones. Once again that does not necessarily support your assertion. You are absolutely correct in saying that the product of the use of a tool depends upon the user, that is why I believe that a world without religion would hardly differ from a world with religion - the tool would be different but the end product would be the same.

It only works to unite people in relative peace, if those people are willing to be subjugated to the whims of the religious leaders. I'm not sure what you think it has to do with my assertion though. I wasn't saying that it supported my assertion, unless you mean my other assertion that religion is used as a tool.

It may very well be that a world without religion would be the same as a world with religion, and I think we've had this conversation before. That said, why do you get all testy when I say that IMO religion is the number one tool used (throughout history) to rally troops to war? It's not a value judgement. It doesn't mean that religion is inherently bad. It's just a numbers thing, and when I look at the numbers and do an estimation, I see religion as the number one tool used.

 

[fluff]

So, you don't think that Christians were committing genocide against Muslims?

Are you confused about what we are talking about? The question is whether the Serbs were 'sold' the war on religious grounds. They weren't.

Yes, Christians committed genocide against Muslims, but that is not the question at hand.

 

[fluff]

That said, why do you get all testy when I say that IMO religion is the number one tool used (throughout history) to rally troops to war?

Because you state it as if it is a fact yet you produce no evidence to support it

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Are you confused about what we are talking about? The question is whether the Serbs were 'sold' the war on religious grounds. They weren't.

Yes, Christians committed genocide against Muslims, but that is not the question at hand.

What was it sold on then?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Because you state it as if it is a fact yet you produce no evidence to support it

No, I state it as if it were my opinion, and I do have facts to back it up, you just choose not to listen. War after war after war, religion is in the mix. All the wars in the scriptures? Religious motivation. All the wars in the feudal era? Religious motivation. Many of the genocides/problems today? Religious motivation. Yes, there are exceptions, like Rwanda, and there are times when religion was not the main motivation used, like the American Civil War, but the exceptions do not mean that the overall pattern goes away. You can focus all you want on the exceptions and ignore the other glaring examples, but it doesn't make you right.

 

[fluff]

What was it sold on then?

Nationalism

 

[fluff]

No, I state it as if it were my opinion, and I do have facts to back it up, you just choose not to listen. War after war after war, religion is in the mix. All the wars in the scriptures? Religious motivation. All the wars in the feudal era? Religious motivation. Many of the genocides/problems today? Religious motivation. Yes, there are exceptions, like Rwanda, and there are times when religion was not the main motivation used, like the American Civil War, but the exceptions do not mean that the overall pattern goes away. You can focus all you want on the exceptions and ignore the other glaring examples, but it doesn't make you right.

By evidence I mean specific wars, with actual analysis thereof. Not like you've just written here. Give me the glaring examples, because of all the examples you've given so far the only glaring example is the crusades and I had no argument with that. I picked examples that are well known for size and impact, not specifically because they were 'exceptions'.

I have no agenda to pursue with regards to religion; I am an atheist, I am no fan of religion but I try and maintain a balanced view and seek truth, not prejudice. I often hear people make bland statements such as 'religion has caused more bloodshed than anything else in history' but I have yet to find anyone who can really back that statement up when challenged. It sounds simple, but it's much more complex.

I have looked for an unbiased source on the web without success so far, there always appears to be a preformed view with facts cherry-picked to support it.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Nationalism

In case you didn't notice, it was Christians vs. Muslims. No, religion had nothing to do with it. Get a grip.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

By evidence I mean specific wars, with actual analysis thereof. Not like you've just written here. Give me the glaring examples, because of all the examples you've given so far the only glaring example is the crusades and I had no argument with that. I picked examples that are well known for size and impact, not specifically because they were 'exceptions'.

I have no agenda to pursue with regards to religion; I am an atheist, I am no fan of religion but I try and maintain a balanced view and seek truth, not prejudice. I often hear people make bland statements such as 'religion has caused more bloodshed than anything else in history' but I have yet to find anyone who can really back that statement up when challenged. It sounds simple, but it's much more complex.

I have looked for an unbiased source on the web without success so far, there always appears to be a preformed view with facts cherry-picked to support it.

Crusades, and every other war of the time period. What about every single war in the Scriptures? Or will you just ignore all of those as inconsequential? You are just as guilty of cherry-picking facts. You completely deny that religion had anything to do with the genocide of Jews in WWII, Bosnia, most of the world's problems today, etc.

 

[fluff]

In case you didn't notice, it was Christians vs. Muslims. No, religion had nothing to do with it. Get a grip.

Look, have you forgotten what you're talking about? The war on Bosnia was sold on nationalism just as the war on Croatia was. Yes, Bosnia was Christians vs Muslims, Croatia was Christians vs Christians. That the religions were different was not how the support for war was whipped up, it was whipped up by promises of a Greater Serbia for all Serbs, not all Christians, geddit?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Look, have you forgotten what you're talking about? The war on Bosnia was sold on nationalism just as the war on Croatia was. Yes, Bosnia was Christians vs Muslims, Croatia was Christians vs Christians. That the religions were different was not how the support for war was whipped up, it was whipped up by promises of a Greater Serbia for all Serbs, not all Christians, geddit?

That was part of it, but another big part of it was, "Let's go kill those mofos that are Muslim."

 

[fluff]

Crusades, and every other war of the time period. What about every single war in the Scriptures? Or will you just ignore all of those as inconsequential? You are just as guilty of cherry-picking facts. You completely deny that religion had anything to do with the genocide of Jews in WWII, Bosnia, most of the world's problems today, etc.

The Norman invasion of England was religiously motivated? Wars between England and France? Which 'every other war of the period' are you referring to?

Wars in the scriptures? I thought you derided those as a source of historical reference. Are you serious?

Genocide of Jews in WWII was motivated by religion/ethnic hatred but that was not WWII, in case YOU haven't noticed that war was not fought between Germany and Jews, but (primarily) between Germany, France, Britain, Russia,Japan, and the US (in that order) most of which are 'Christian' nations.

Even if I were cherry-picking (as opposed to using major wars that everyone is aware of (which is what I am doing)), at least I am providing specific examples. Furthermore I am not the one who made the initial sweeping generalisation.

 

[fluff]

That was part of it, but another big part of it was, "Let's go kill those mofos that are Muslim."

That's certainly what happened, but that's not how it began.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I have no agenda to pursue with regards to religion; I am an atheist, I am no fan of religion but I try and maintain a balanced view and seek truth, not prejudice. I often hear people make bland statements such as 'religion has caused more bloodshed than anything else in history' but I have yet to find anyone who can really back that statement up when challenged. It sounds simple, but it's much more complex.

I wanted to respond further to some of the things you said here.

I wouldn't say that religion has caused more bloodshed than anything else, because greed has actually caused the most bloodshed. Religion is a tool that people in power weild in order to fulfill their own greedy desires.

I have looked for an unbiased source on the web without success so far, there always appears to be a preformed view with facts cherry-picked to support it.

And good luck finding something unbiased, especially in this country. We are inundated with the meme that religion=good in this country. We are taught from a very early age that everything that is religious is good and everything that is bad is borne of humans. Why is it that atheists are the most despised and distrusted people in the US? Just as you are tired of the religion causes bloodshed idea, I'm equally tired of the religion=good idea.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

That's certainly what happened, but that's not how it began.

No, it began as a greedy power grab. But, that's not what we are talking about, is it? We are talking about how the fighters buy into it.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

The Norman invasion of England was religiously motivated? Wars between England and France? Which 'every other war of the period' are you referring to?

Wars in the scriptures? I thought you derided those as a source of historical reference. Are you serious?

Genocide of Jews in WWII was motivated by religion/ethnic hatred but that was not WWII, in case YOU haven't noticed that war was not fought between Germany and Jews, but (primarily) between Germany, France, Britain, Russia,Japan, and the US (in that order) most of which are 'Christian' nations.

Even if I were cherry-picking (as opposed to using major wars that everyone is aware of (which is what I am doing)), at least I am providing specific examples. Furthermore I am not the one who made the initial sweeping generalisation.

Yes, the wars between England and France, and the Normandy invasion had religious components to them. The people were fighting for their god, and the king that had been divinely placed to rule them by god.

I deride references to miracles and an uncritical rendering of a human Jesus, but the Bible does get some facts correct, else it would not be good historical fiction.

Glad to see that you finally admit there was a religious part to WWII. I never said that religion was the biggest part of it, but that it played a part.

The "sweeping generalization" I made is my opinion, based on the level to which religion tends to play a role in just about every conflict. Feel free to come to your own conclusions, it matters not one whit to me. Be an apologist for all I care, I will continue to call it as I see it.

Edit: If I sound testy, it is because I find it hard to believe that you are serious when you deny that any religious involvement occurred in a war between Christians and Muslims in the Yugoslavia region.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

If anyone is actually following along, here's an interesting take on the topic. It doesn't support me 100%, but it doesn't completely dispute me either.

http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/cot/t0w26religiouswar.htm