- This topic has 5 voices and 32 replies.
-
Posts
-
Can you think of any wars throughout history that were fought solely over religion? In other words, something unlike the Crusades which had such a heavy political/expansionist element to it.
No, but perhaps the Thirty-Years War comes close to it. I cannot think of any religious war that did not the political ambitions of kings and nobles wrapped up in it as well. Perhaps the current war against Jihadists, at least from the Jihadists point of view.
I couldn't really think of any either. Individual skirmishes have presumably been primarily religious in nature, but at the same time one has to wonder if religion was really a pretext for some other motivation. The funny thing is that from time to time you hear about all these “religious wars” being fought throughout history, and how without religion the world would be such a better place. Of course, such a view presupposes that these so-called “religious wars” did not have other, larger motives underlying them.
The motivation to war is much more complex than simple religious feeling alone. Religion can be a strong, even the primary, otivating factor but I don't think religion alone can account for a state or aristocracy going to war. The more that I think about it, the more I believe that Religion is employed as means of motivating troops, almost propaganda, if you will. This is not to denigrate religious belief but rather to describe its effects. I just cant think of any wars solely motivated by Religion, not even the Crusades.
That's what I think as well – religion may accompany other motivations for war, but for people at the top, differences in religion alone do not cause people to move armies and attack. The initial question I ask came about after I saw someone else pose it on a Yahoo discussion board, after someone else made the claim that without religion, the world would be a much more peaceful place (citing the history of “religious wars”). This is the kind of idea that seems to creep into modern consciousness, yet it's based on a faulty and vague sense of history.
The whole “religion causes wars” trope is an invention of modern atheism who want us all to believe that without religion it would be all kumbaya and granola bars. They seem to either forget or ignore the fact that the most murderous and warlike regimes in history were both atheist, Nazism and Communism, one explicitly so.
Remember, it's likely these same people who say we are not a Christian nation despite loads of evidence to the contrary. Leftist historical revisionism.
Leftist historical revisionism.
Exactly, never let the truth get in the way of the message, the way of the modern liberal, or more precisely, the post-modern liberal.
The whole "religion causes wars" trope is an invention of modern atheism who want us all to believe that without religion it would be all kumbaya and granola bars. They seem to either forget or ignore the fact that the most murderous and warlike regimes in history were both atheist, Nazism and Communism, one explicitly so.
The only problem is when they go off on their belief that Hitler was Christian. That is what they were trying to say in that same Yahoo discussion referred to earlier. I would have chimed in but I saw that other people pointed out that Hitler was not "Christian" in any legitimate sense of the word. However, it should still bother us that such a story continues to exist in the minds of some. It is the same vague, erroneous sense of history which trickles down into the minds of the masses and forms the basis of popular belief.
We shouldn't be surprised that such drivel catches on. We do live in the era of the lowest common denominator after all.
Could the Reconquista and the French Wars of Religion (cf. The Saint-Bartholomew's Day Massacre) be considered as religious wars ?
Religion, -isms, “way of life” may be better for stirring the masses to aggressive war instead of overt greed for land, resources, and in the old days slaves and dynastic aggrandizement. Revenge also works. Of course if the country is attacked no better reason can be given for going to war. A self-defense pre-emptive strike can work too if sold to the population about the inevitability.Some "tribes" that became nations or are wannabee independent nations use religion as self-identity.
Could the Reconquista and the French Wars of Religion (cf. The Saint-Bartholomew's Day Massacre) be considered as religious wars ?
I don't know the specific reasons at the top which were behind the Reconquista, but I have to imagine that there would have been a strategic reason behind kicking the Muslims out of Iberia. Enemies must have been a little too close for comfort.
Religion, -isms, "way of life" may be better for stirring the masses to aggressive war instead of overt greed for land, resources, and in the old days slaves and dynastic aggrandizement. Revenge also works. Of course if the country is attacked no better reason can be given for going to war. A self-defense pre-emptive strike can work too if sold to the population about the inevitability.Some "tribes" that became nations or are wannabee independent nations use religion as self-identity.
I think that yes, religion and religious-like ideas are used as a motivating factors for armies when leaders want to go into battle. It's a way to sell an idea. Yet, these are different from the reasons for going to war than are decided upon by kings and generals. So all those things - isms, revenge, religion, etc., that stir the masses are used as tools of motivation, whether rightly or wrongly.
