Religion as a cause of war?
OutOfBreath
Posts: 1,804
by Kåre Lunden, professor emeritus of history, University of Oslo
printed in "Klassekampen" Saturday 26.08.06
I want to explain the correlation between religion and war. The wars in the middle east are waged between what is or looks like religious groupings: muslims, "christians", jews, shi'ite, sunni and so on. Many then feel that difference of religion is the cause behind the wars. Researchers in religion and conflict seems to have failed to give people a clear understanding of religion, conflict, and the relation between the two. Perhaps a layman's crash-course might help?
All known history has been marked by conflicts. (The subject of history was "kings and wars".) The reason for conflict is that natural and societal resources - territory, power, honour, beautiful women - are scarce, so that people will, in self-interest and self-promotion, rival over them. The reason the rivalry have often been violent is that haven't found less destructive methods of conflict-solving. The reason conflicts are waged between groups (as "war"), is that humans are social animals and can't exist as isolated individuals (ie language). The thought that difference of religion is a contemporary and relevant cause of war compares to the statement from the EU-debacle in 1994, that nationalism has been the main cause of war. (Nations work as secularized religion according to A.D. Smith.) Both thoughts can be tested against main observations throughout history. It's about what principles have been the foundation for the cration of warring groupings.
In the oldest times, the groups had a family (clan) character. "We" that warred against "them" were those who had the same great-grandfather on their father's side. In medieval times, the groupings were feudal. "We" were the vassals under the same lord. In newer European times the groupings were territorial dynasty-states. "We" were those being ruled by the same despotic (absolute rule) dynasty of princes. From the 1800s, the warring groupings were nation-states. "We" were those counted as being born to the same "people". In the year 2006, some political science students learn that the nation-states now are abolished. Obviously, we still have war. Between who? About what? If we consider the difference of religion theories as relevant and contemporary, we have: The warring clans had the same nature-religion. The warring feudals groups in Europe had mainly the same christian world-religion. Modern nation-states were unknown. But there were never as many wars as then. Those schooled in law of war say that in the middle ages, the condition of war was permanent, only of varying character.
The lesson of history then is: When we want to war over resources, natural and societal, we always find some principle to group ourselves by. Religion, including nationalism as secularized religion, has been one of the many phenomenon that in some cases have served as identifying mark for warring parties, and as legitimization (excuse, explanation) of the warfare over resources and power. But abolishing war through abolishing religion, is like abolishing football by changing colours on the jerseys. War can only be abolished through effective institutions for peaceful conflict-solving.
Short about the situation now: is it very hard to identify the conflicting interests in the middle east? The state Israel was founded in the 1900s on the territory of the palestinian people, with violent suppression of the most vital interests of this people, primarily the territorial. The palestinians won't have it?
Ruling circles in the US are confident they can create "a new american century" by maintaining special privileges through brutal military power, without accepting any of the restraints that applies to other nations, especially economic limitations. Is it incomprehensible that the US and us allies are met by still more terrorist bombers? How much wiser do we get in this situation by lecturing like Øverland in 1933, about religion as the 10th plague and the root of evil?
This was history without ado. She can always be made more complicated. Material and other resources can tie into religious positions. The historian Halvdan Koht thought that internal strife in Norway around 1000 AD (around the christening of Norway) was between heathen chiefs combining religious functions with political exertion of power on the one side, christian chiefs on the other. The conflicts looked like religious wars. But they ended when the chiefs on both sides found ways to share political and economic resources. Just the same with the "religion wars" in Europe in the 1600s. And how long will the difference of religion create war in the middle east, when territorial and other political problems concerning resources and power is solved?
I admit that all I have written here is given and common sense. But if a real hindrance for peace can be journalists, researchers and politicians spending their time denying what everyone really knows is a given? They might do it because it's in their best interest? Regardless of religion?
There you have it. I liked this piece, and agree with much of it. Now we'll see if it sparks any debate around here.
Peace
Dan
printed in "Klassekampen" Saturday 26.08.06
I want to explain the correlation between religion and war. The wars in the middle east are waged between what is or looks like religious groupings: muslims, "christians", jews, shi'ite, sunni and so on. Many then feel that difference of religion is the cause behind the wars. Researchers in religion and conflict seems to have failed to give people a clear understanding of religion, conflict, and the relation between the two. Perhaps a layman's crash-course might help?
All known history has been marked by conflicts. (The subject of history was "kings and wars".) The reason for conflict is that natural and societal resources - territory, power, honour, beautiful women - are scarce, so that people will, in self-interest and self-promotion, rival over them. The reason the rivalry have often been violent is that haven't found less destructive methods of conflict-solving. The reason conflicts are waged between groups (as "war"), is that humans are social animals and can't exist as isolated individuals (ie language). The thought that difference of religion is a contemporary and relevant cause of war compares to the statement from the EU-debacle in 1994, that nationalism has been the main cause of war. (Nations work as secularized religion according to A.D. Smith.) Both thoughts can be tested against main observations throughout history. It's about what principles have been the foundation for the cration of warring groupings.
In the oldest times, the groups had a family (clan) character. "We" that warred against "them" were those who had the same great-grandfather on their father's side. In medieval times, the groupings were feudal. "We" were the vassals under the same lord. In newer European times the groupings were territorial dynasty-states. "We" were those being ruled by the same despotic (absolute rule) dynasty of princes. From the 1800s, the warring groupings were nation-states. "We" were those counted as being born to the same "people". In the year 2006, some political science students learn that the nation-states now are abolished. Obviously, we still have war. Between who? About what? If we consider the difference of religion theories as relevant and contemporary, we have: The warring clans had the same nature-religion. The warring feudals groups in Europe had mainly the same christian world-religion. Modern nation-states were unknown. But there were never as many wars as then. Those schooled in law of war say that in the middle ages, the condition of war was permanent, only of varying character.
The lesson of history then is: When we want to war over resources, natural and societal, we always find some principle to group ourselves by. Religion, including nationalism as secularized religion, has been one of the many phenomenon that in some cases have served as identifying mark for warring parties, and as legitimization (excuse, explanation) of the warfare over resources and power. But abolishing war through abolishing religion, is like abolishing football by changing colours on the jerseys. War can only be abolished through effective institutions for peaceful conflict-solving.
Short about the situation now: is it very hard to identify the conflicting interests in the middle east? The state Israel was founded in the 1900s on the territory of the palestinian people, with violent suppression of the most vital interests of this people, primarily the territorial. The palestinians won't have it?
Ruling circles in the US are confident they can create "a new american century" by maintaining special privileges through brutal military power, without accepting any of the restraints that applies to other nations, especially economic limitations. Is it incomprehensible that the US and us allies are met by still more terrorist bombers? How much wiser do we get in this situation by lecturing like Øverland in 1933, about religion as the 10th plague and the root of evil?
This was history without ado. She can always be made more complicated. Material and other resources can tie into religious positions. The historian Halvdan Koht thought that internal strife in Norway around 1000 AD (around the christening of Norway) was between heathen chiefs combining religious functions with political exertion of power on the one side, christian chiefs on the other. The conflicts looked like religious wars. But they ended when the chiefs on both sides found ways to share political and economic resources. Just the same with the "religion wars" in Europe in the 1600s. And how long will the difference of religion create war in the middle east, when territorial and other political problems concerning resources and power is solved?
I admit that all I have written here is given and common sense. But if a real hindrance for peace can be journalists, researchers and politicians spending their time denying what everyone really knows is a given? They might do it because it's in their best interest? Regardless of religion?
There you have it. I liked this piece, and agree with much of it. Now we'll see if it sparks any debate around here.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Duh.
But it may turn out that it's less of a cause of war and more of an excuse... or a way to dupe a population into supporting a war.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I have to raise this question... First let me point out that I agree that wars are not fought for religious purposes. They are only legitimized using religion as the reason to get ignorant people to support and fight the war.
So here is the question; do you think that "terrorists" would have flown planes into buildings if they thought they were doing it for power or resources, rather than an idealogy or religion?
(again, not saying the organized religion should be abolished... just a question)
This quote misuse is distressing me.
Anyhow, back to the article.
No and they probably didn't. They did it to aid their perceived group against the abuses of the other perceived group. The criteria for partition of groups can be anything in principle. Which is what the article was on about.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Actually, I have no clue at all, really. It was in the original, so I typed it out, but was wondering why I did so why the "". If I am to guess, I think this guy is generally anti-religion, and he has a distaste for christians first and foremost, and therefore will insist on using quotes. Or it is meant to emphasize that "christians" down there warring perhaps aren't living up to their own ideal.
This is just guesswork for me. Honestly, I dont know. Do as me, and pretend they aren't there.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Sad, given that Christian extremists aren't the ones attacking nations all over the world these days.
Anyhow, I think his basic point is sound. Religion is one of the social dividing lines that people use to justify wars.
Well, that's pretty hard to do.
That being said, religion as the foremost cause of war, and root of all evil, is a very common theme in this forum. Its crap of course, but, very common. Religion, in and of itself, in no way causes, endorses, or promotes war. Do people sometimes pervert religion to justify their own wicked agendas? Yes. But it is just that a perversion of religion. Not religion itself. People pervert a lot of things for this reason. It isn't like religion has been the only misused tool in world history.
Good points, cornnifer. You said it better than I did ... Religion is used to justify wars ... But that has nothing to do with the value of religion itself, and everything to do with its misuse.
they do... they are called "missionaries". they go around the world telling people they shouldnt use condoms. they also try to convert people in a very aggressive manor.... what do you think imperialism was? portual, spain, france and belgium all going forth to spread the word..... britian only wanted the money.
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
He has a distaste for religion I think, and specifically christians, which he enconters dailly in our country. But he still says religion is irrelevant to this, which is more than most people on here.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
People start wars. Religion is the fuel.
So he's a typical university professor?
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
WAS being the operative word here ... Missionaries today do not forceably convert people. In fact, they do a lot of good humanitarian work in the developing world.
The condom comment is off-base. Maybe some Catholics do this. Protestants do not. That so many people fail to use proper birth control methods is probably due in part to religious (not just Christian) doctrines, but it is also due to a lack of education as well as the persistence of other superstitious beliefs.
Hail, Hail!!!
If i go on a killing spree, because i think it is dictated by a certain planetary alignment that i should do so, would it be approriate and justifiable to blame my sickness on astronomy?
Because war is sometimes justified by someone's perverted, twisted, use of religion, does not mean religion CAUSED that war, because it has absolutely NOTHING to do with religious TEACHING. Religion is in no way responsible for war.
Killing spree? That's on you.
If you were sent to war to kill or be killed because you truely believed that the planetary alignment and your national horoscope said that the enemy will try to destroy you... then, yes... you can place blame in astrology, (not astronomy) for the resulting deaths. It is your belief in the relative truths of astrology that fueled your killing, not the absolute truths of Astronomy.
This is the same thing as religion and God. They are not the same. Religion is a relative truth... a subjective truth to the follower of that religion. Religions define God and give God human traits... greed, ignorance, indifference and hate. Whereas God is the absolute truth, the unknown truth. We warp God with religion in order to support our relative truth that He is one of us. Religions find sides in a war, God sides with neither.
Hail, Hail!!!
Fear is natural on humans. Some face their own fears, other will try to manipulate others. Religion doesn't factor into it really at all.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
O.k. First of all, i know the difference between astronomy and astrology, and i meant astronomy. The science. The point is if i, or anyone, tried to justify a certain abhorable act or behavior because they believed some astronomical phenomenon encouraged it, it would be absolutely ridiculous to say astronomy was the cause of that act.
Whether you are fond of religion or not, the FACT of the matter is that religious teachings do not encourage war and killing. So, it is equally ridiculous to claim that religion causes war. When someone attributes something to religious belief that is in no way part of that religion's teaching, than that is, like you said about my hypothetical killing spree "on them".
nice try though.
Which is why I seperated Astrology from Astronomy... did you get the part where Astronomy represented God and Astrology represented religion? Religion not being God because Religion is Man's relative interptretation of God... and NOT truely what God is?
We can take the current situation in the Middle East as an example. We are told about this not being a war of nations or armies, like we are used to... it is driven by ideology. The belief that Israel has no place in that region... based upon old stories recorded in writing and deemed as holy scripture. Jihad is 'Holy War'.... an extension of Mohammed's struggle against the Jews in Medina to be recognized as a phrophet.
You are saying that religion has NO responsibility in war? That the bloodshed of the Crusades had nothing to do with religion?
God does not want Israel gone... God did not want to re-capture Jeruselem from the wandering hordes... religion wanted these things.
Hail, Hail!!!
you're missing the point. Whether you personally endorse religion or not, there are some facts ABOUT religion. One of those facts is that war is not endorsed or encouraged by the core teachings of relgion. Therefore religion, in and of itself, CANNOT be said to cause war.
The crusades very obviously, had a lot to do with religion. Religion was not the CAUSE of the bloodshed, however. Just a sick excuse. Religion does not endorse war. Therefore it absolutely cannot be said, with any degree of accuracy, that religion causes war.
Except that Islam endorses war - its core teaching is based upon war. For example, where do you think the term "hudna" comes from (which is a cease fire engaged in for the sole purpose of rearming so that you can vanquish your enemy at a later time)? Mohammed himself.
Well.... it is an effective scapegoat because our leaders keep using it and we keep following them.
And I DO see your point... the Religion itself... is not the cause of War. Just its organizational power, its leaders and its followers that wage it.
...
But that makes me wonder... if Religion is not a cause of war... shouldn't the true followers of that religion refrain from War? And since they obviously don't... are soldiers/combatants non-religious?
Hail, Hail!!!
Religious people, just like others, struggle with putting their professed priorities in action in real life. Especially when following a professed priority may come at a high cost.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I know that the Jehovah's Witnesses claim that they are the only religion to have not fought in a war... any war. Which is commendable, placing God before country... maybe the Amish, too. Are the Amish a religion?
and as for Christians... I would think that, 'Turn the other cheek' thing would come into play. But, like many other arguements... the words in the Bible can be interpreted in many different ways by many different people.
...
Me? I'm not religious... so, if needed to defend my homeland... I'd fight... and kill if I have to. But, I'd only fight is those bastards were coming over here... I'm not going off to war to keep stock prices up.
Hail, Hail!!!
Yes... and many, obviously, do.
Why, of course not. Thats part of the Christian war mongering agenda found in the Bible. Sheesh.
Relevance to the debate going here? All debates here aren't about islamistic terrorists, you know. did you read the article at the top about how religion is merely used as a pretext and dividing line, among other potential ones? Do you have any input on such a view?
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965