Please back that up (the argument about religion being the no.1 justification for war).Old Man G Funk said:
No, it's not ALL, but it's a very vocal minority and the rest of the religion is doing little to nothing to suppress them as they reverse, as Silver pointed out, 400 years of progress. You want to stop being lumped in with the assholes, let America know that they don't speak for you as a Christian.enkidu said:
Sorry fluff, I've been gone for a week, so I didn't have a chance to answer this.fluff said:
1. This was in response to Burly, who misrepresented my argument. I was setting the record straight as to what my argument was in the first place.
2. If you want me to back it up, I'll refer you to the Crusades, Cold War, Vietnam, any war in the Medieval period, Our current "Global War on Terror," Northern Ireland, etc. etc. etc.
Religion is a warm blanket that helps people explain what doesn't make sense to them, and to help justify pretty much an action from some angle. It's a tool that can be used to gain trust where no trust should be given, and to encourage complacency.
Politics is all about power, and religion is a great way leech power.
Politics is all about power, and religion is a great way leech power.
I'll not argue about the Crusades, and I agree that some Medieval wars were 'justified' through religion but the others are rather different.Old Man G Funk said:
Regarding the Cold War and Vietnam, unless you are categorising Communism as a religion I don't see where you're coming from. Northern Ireland is not so much about religion as the domination of and discrimination against the Irish by the English, religion is window dressing on that.
The 'Global War on Terror' has conspicuously not been overtly justified by religion - it has been justified by fear. The invasion of Iraq was tied to that and the invaders have been at pains to stress that it is not a war of religion.
However as regards your initial statement that religion is the no. 1 justification for war the following do not bear that out:
American War of Independence
Boer War
Napoleonic Wars
English Civil War
Franco-Prussian War
American Civil War
World War I
World War II
Rwandan Civil War
There are many more but I picked these because they were big ones that killed lots of people.
Fluff, religion is what gets the masses all het up and behind the war. Northern Ireland is a key example. The cause is the domination and discrimination of England, but the motivation used is religious in nature. The strife between Protestant and Catholic serves as a way to motivate people to violence, just as Islam is used to motivate people to violence in the GWOT, and Bush makes references to "Crusades." Although GWOT is also justified through fear, you can not deny that there is a religious element to it.
In the cold war, many references were made to defeating the "Godless Communists," which also includes Vietnam.
The American War of Independence? Why do you think they changed the Declaration of Independence from Jefferson's original writing to one that talked about rights from a "Creator"?
Pretty much all the wars you listed, were people fighting for "God and country"?
The point I'm making is that religion is used as a tool by people in power to whip up the masses. If you told a bunch of peasants that they would be fighting in order to secure more money, land, assets, etc. for you, they wouldn't want to fight. If you go and tell them that god commands it, or they are doing god's work, they are much more likely to fight. Like I said, the number reason for war is economics, but the number one way of whipping the soldiers into a fury and getting them to fight is religion.
In the cold war, many references were made to defeating the "Godless Communists," which also includes Vietnam.
The American War of Independence? Why do you think they changed the Declaration of Independence from Jefferson's original writing to one that talked about rights from a "Creator"?
Pretty much all the wars you listed, were people fighting for "God and country"?
The point I'm making is that religion is used as a tool by people in power to whip up the masses. If you told a bunch of peasants that they would be fighting in order to secure more money, land, assets, etc. for you, they wouldn't want to fight. If you go and tell them that god commands it, or they are doing god's work, they are much more likely to fight. Like I said, the number reason for war is economics, but the number one way of whipping the soldiers into a fury and getting them to fight is religion.
I think Nationalism/Patriotism and fear and used much more. You cannot seriously be trying to tell me that 'godless communists' is a religious reference? To say someone is godless in that context is merely an allusion to a lack of humanity...Old Man G Funk said:
I see you ignored most of the wars I listed.
Godless communists IS a religious reference when juxtaposed with our "Christian" nation.
I didn't ignore the others you listed, I just didn't talk about each one explicitly.
Didn't Napoleon think he was divinely meant to rule the world?
Wasn't part of WWII born from the religious hatred that Christians held for Jews?
Didn't both sides in the American Civil War claim to have god on their side?
Etc., etc., etc.
Besides, most of the wars fought are not on your list. You can try and grab the most recent ones and claim that they are representative of all wars fought, but that would be a fallacious claim. You are correct that Nationalism/Patriotism are used quite often, especially since the notion of a "Nation" has come about, but that has only been quite recently, and is usually used in conjunction with a religious backdrop.
I didn't ignore the others you listed, I just didn't talk about each one explicitly.
Didn't Napoleon think he was divinely meant to rule the world?
Wasn't part of WWII born from the religious hatred that Christians held for Jews?
Didn't both sides in the American Civil War claim to have god on their side?
Etc., etc., etc.
Besides, most of the wars fought are not on your list. You can try and grab the most recent ones and claim that they are representative of all wars fought, but that would be a fallacious claim. You are correct that Nationalism/Patriotism are used quite often, especially since the notion of a "Nation" has come about, but that has only been quite recently, and is usually used in conjunction with a religious backdrop.
You're really clutching at straws now... Of course people claim to have God on their side, to admit otherwise would be tantamount to saying you are in the wrong; that does not mean that god was used to justify those wars I mentioned.Old Man G Funk said:
To backup your intial assertion, religion would have to be THE PRIMARY justification for war, not some secondary sop to the god-fearing.
I did not provide a comprehensive list of all wars because such a thing is hard to define. If you possess one we can pick at it in detail, I picked those because of their size and effect, as I said.
I'm not clutching at anything.
Religion doesn't have to be "THE PRIMARY" justification for all wars at all times. If it comes in second in a war or two, it still retains its rank as the number one used justification throughout all of history.
All the wars in the Bible, and other holy books were religiously justified. Most of the wars you listed had religious justifications (the Rwandan genocide seems to be the most notable exception). Many other wars unlisted have had religious justification (wars between England/Netherlands and Spain/Portugal for instance.) On the whole, when taking into account wars over the course of human history and looking at what gets the troops in line, it is most often the appeal to doing "god's work."
Note: I'm not saying that this makes religion bad (I have other reasons for that) but that the people in power use it as a tool in order to achieve their own financially driven ends.
Religion doesn't have to be "THE PRIMARY" justification for all wars at all times. If it comes in second in a war or two, it still retains its rank as the number one used justification throughout all of history.
All the wars in the Bible, and other holy books were religiously justified. Most of the wars you listed had religious justifications (the Rwandan genocide seems to be the most notable exception). Many other wars unlisted have had religious justification (wars between England/Netherlands and Spain/Portugal for instance.) On the whole, when taking into account wars over the course of human history and looking at what gets the troops in line, it is most often the appeal to doing "god's work."
Note: I'm not saying that this makes religion bad (I have other reasons for that) but that the people in power use it as a tool in order to achieve their own financially driven ends.
Any society is going to have its common beliefs/values/traditions. The leaders, in any situation, are going to try and appeal to these. If mexico was waging war on someone, and their president declared that "We're fighting for our beloved tacos" would you be against the president, or against tacos?Old Man G Funk said:
Well, I happen to love tacos, so I'd have to be against the President. Of course, you might note that I said that the use of religion as a tool by those in charge wasn't an indictment of religion...BurlyShirley said:
Since you're here Burly, did you ever figure out the difference between the two statements I made in comment #69?
Well we all already know how you feel about religion, so I can see that you're taking your shots at it, at every opportunity...and that's fine...but its somewhat unjustified in this case. While I also dont care for the "God is on our side" rhetoric, sometimes wars do need to be fought, and appealing to the masses is necessary. Using religion, other than some other commonly held value to connect, isnt of any real significiance.Old Man G Funk said:
If you want to attack someone's ideals, its really fine with me. But the last way to get someone to agree with you is to insult them. As I said, people hold their religion as dearly as they to their race, ethnicity, etc. so slamming it how you all do is just as bad, IMO. Saying Priests are molestors, catholics are drunks, muslims are terrorists, jews are greedy...its all good, right?Old Man G Funk said:
In order to back up your assertion that religion is the primary justification for war you need to demonstrate the following:Old Man G Funk said:
A majority of all wars that have religion as the primary justifier
or
A breakdown of all wars and their primary, secondary, tertiary (etc) justifiers and an algorithm to calculate how that pans out.
You have not demonstrated it all, you keep throwing out generalised statements (i.e. your opinion) with no facts or research to back it up.
Please elaborate on the religious justifications for the following wars that you are referring to:Old Man G Funk said:
American War of Independence
Boer War
Napoleonic Wars
English Civil War
Franco-Prussian War
American Civil War
World War I
World War II
Well, we are only talking about this because you deliberately or otherwise miscontrued my argument.BurlyShirley said:
And, once again Burly, you show that you can't discern between those two statements.BurlyShirley said:
Saying I think religion is bad and saying priests are molesters are two completely different things. You might want to work on your reading comprehension.
I've already commented on half of those directly. The others I didn't because I don't have as good knowledge on them as the others, so I refrained from direct comment. You simply denying what I've said doesn't mean that you are right. It just means that you won't agree with me no matter what.fluff said:
Do you really want to continue this, or are you arguing just for argument sake? I have to head out, but I'll check back later to see if you are really serious about having a serious discussion.
You might want to work on letting go of some that hatred. Have you considered yoga? How about therapy? Maybe a christian touched you in the pants as a kid...that's sad...but let it go. No need to hate everyone for their beleifs. No need to hate the belief system. Jesus didnt tell him to touch you.Old Man G Funk said:
You call that commenting? Off-hand comments about Napolean and Jews? I'd hate to see what you called in-depth analysis.Old Man G Funk said:
Of all the wars that we have talked about only the Crusades clearly have religion as the primary justifier. However you continue with your generalised statement; you made it, as far as I am concerned it is up to you to back it up.
Yeah, I'm serious, prove to me that you are, show me how these wars were justified by religion.
Burly, no hatred here, and none towards you. I understand that this concept is too difficult for you to grasp, so I won't make fun of you for it. If you ever do grasp it, then maybe we can have a discussion.BurlyShirley said:
First off, let's make sure we are speaking the same language here.fluff said:
The first and foremost reason/cause for war in my mind is economic reasons. Either the other guy has money that you want to take, or has some sort of resources that you want. That might not be true in all cases, but is for the most part.
When I speak of "justification" I'm talking about the reasons or the push that gets people to actually back and execute the war. People generally won't go to war so that their king will get richer, but they do tend to go to war for other, emotional reasons. Do we agree so far?
We agree. That is why I have been careful to try and stick with justification rather than motivation. I see what we are talking about as how the war is 'sold' to the masses.Old Man G Funk said:
People will not go to war simply to make their king richer but they will to make themselves richer. There is also the fear of becoming poorer, which I think is used much more and is far more effective. It is the reason I have most encountered amongst my countrymen for their fear of foreign nations.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm has a list of current conflicts on the planet that fit your criteria, Fluff.
It makes for interesting reading certainly, however they admit themselves that the reasons are many and varied. To call the Bosnian conflict one of religion is simplistic and inaccurate yet there it is right at the top of the page.Changleen said:
Also:
'* We are defining "religion" rather loosely here to include Communism.'
Perhaps they have an agenda?
Here's another C'n'P :http://www.abolishwar.org.uk/causes.shtml
Heh - That is funny. Personally I'd include Neo-conservatism before Communism. It's closer to a religion:fluff said:
They have a pre-conceived idea of the destiny of the entire world that revolves around them being the only true force for 'good' and conquering everyone else, and despite direct eveidence that their ideas are rubbish and don't work, they still persue them. They're also doing a great job making their followers into blinkered idiots.
Possibly they included Communisum due to the communist's tendancy to replace "God" with socialisim's founding fathers Marx/Lenin etc etc or in the case of china Mao who was treated (during the cultural revolution) as a god by the red guards?
Otherwise dammed if I can work that one out?
Otherwise dammed if I can work that one out?
[emphasis mine]fluff said:
England is a lot more secular than many other places in the world. It's a lot harder to sell a war under religious pretext in England than it is in, say, Sudan. Changleen beat me to the punch with his site (although I'm glad he did because now I know that site exists) but look at the sheer number of conflicts on the list. What you are experiencing at home is certainly different from what the rest of the world is experiencing. Couple that with the fact that a couple hundred years ago England was the same way as those other places are now, and you come to a pretty convincing conclusion (IMO).
Perhaps they feel that striving to eliminate god through force of arms fits their definition of "religious in nature."DaveW said:
Possible, it did seem to be treated like a religion but many of it's adherents.
That website encompasses any conflict where any of the protagonists do not share the exact same religion. That is entirely different from religion being the cause or justification of the war - they are pushing an agenda and their list does not bear examination. The first two on the list - Afghanistan and Bosnia are particularly poor examples.Old Man G Funk said:
I am not saying that no wars are justified on religious pretexts, but that's a lot different to saying most wars are. In almost all of the wars listed there are other factors.
If, as you suggest, we go back a couple of hundred years in the UK you reach the Napoleonic wars - not as different as you think. More telling is the fact that any war does not need to be sold to the people as universal suffrage and literacy are not yet in place. Go back further and half the population would be ignorant of what a Frenchman even looked like (check out the origins of the derogatory term 'monkey hanger').
I don't feel like those are poor examples. In Afghanistan we battled against the Taliban, whose schtick is fundamentalist Islam. Do you not think that they rallied the troops behind defending Islam? Wasn't Bosnia a religious war?fluff said:
There are other factors in every war. I grant that.
Yet, without literacy and suffrage, people always seemed to be fighting for god. Napoleon was divinely tapped to rule the world, right? He certainly used that as a hook to get his troops in line. The defenders might not have been similarly inclined (it's easier to rally people to defend themselves after all.)
As you say, it is easier to rally defenders, you need not sell them the war, hence the Afghan war becomes a question of how it was sold to the invader, and I think it was not on the grounds of a war against Islam.Old Man G Funk said:
And Bosnia was not about religion, it was nationalistic/ethnic - a quest for a greater Serbia. The protagonists were of different religions but that was not how it was sold to the Serbs (the invaders).
As I understood it much of Napolean's sales-pitch had to do with spreading freedom and democracy... sounds oddly familiar.
From the man himself:
'I closed the gulf of anarchy and brought order out of chaos. I rewarded merit regardless of birth or wealth, wherever I found it. I abolished feudalism and restored equality to all regardless of religion and before the law. I fought the decrepit monarchies of the Old Regime because the alternative was the destruction of all this. I purified the Revolution.'
Old Man G Funk said:
Bosnia was termed "Ethnic cleansing"
but the Ethnicity normaly attributed as the one being "Cleansed" was Muslim Bosnians. So i guess you could call it religious?
That is a part of the world where your religion IS your ethnicity (or so it seems to me).
If we keep changing the meaning of religion it makes no sense. What is the ethnic difference between the English and the Scots? They fought for years yet are really no different at all.DaveW said:
The Serbs and the Croats are both 'Christian' nations yet they fought at the same time and for the same reasons. In fact Serbia at this time was nominally Communist, so we're back to politics as religion (which is, of course, where it all began).
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.
Yugoslavia was a communist republic that allowed religion, or at least tolerated it far more than most of that political bent*.
*heh heh "Political bent", how poetically accurate lol
Therefore Bosnia was a religious war.
Yugoslavia was a communist republic that allowed religion, or at least tolerated it far more than most of that political bent*.
*heh heh "Political bent", how poetically accurate lol
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.)
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.)