- This topic has 5 voices and 32 replies.
-
Posts
-
Could the Reconquista and the French Wars of Religion (cf. The Saint-Bartholomew's Day Massacre) be considered as religious wars ?
The reconquista was war for revanche dressed up in religious terms. The Spaniards wanted their land back and Religion gave them a righteuos cloak. The princes of Spain spent almost as much time fighting each other as they did the Moors. It was only when the Kingdoms of Leon and Navarre were united under Ferdinand and Isabella that the Spanish managed to pool enough resources to finally eject the Muslims from the Iberian peninsula.
Could the Civil War be partially about religion? Northern, white Chrisitians wanted to stop slavery.
Could the Civil War be partially about religion? Northern, white Chrisitians wanted to stop slavery.
What about the Southern, white Christians that wanted to keep it. Many of them were of the same confession.A side question, (may need it's own thread) where in the bible does it condemn human slavery? I have been wracking my brain if there is a passage that explicitly condemns slavery. To the best of my knowledge the Jews themselves kept slaves and I cant think of a passage in the NT that says it is wrong. It is certain that slavery was a common practice until relatively recent history.
There aren't any Bible passages condemning it. (just like there aren't any specifically condemning abortion) I would like to see how and why the British ended slavery. Was it for the same reason as the northerners? All created equal?
I believe the British abolished slavery because of agitation from Humanists and because it no longer made a profit. I think it was only later that they dressed up its abolition in moral terms. They abolished it in 1832.
Industrial “Wage Slaves” including small children became more profitable to hire than to purchase agricultural slaves at auctions, house servants included.
Industrial “Wage Slaves” including small children became more profitable to hire than to purchase agricultural slaves at auctions, house servants included.
That's the point I was trying to make to Donroc
Among other issues, the civil war was about the divine right of kings and conflicts between the Anglicans, Catholics and Puritans or other Protestant dissenters. And from the civil war to the Revolution there were Acts of religious tolerance presented by Parliament or the monarchy.This doesn't mean religion was “bad,” it's just the way it was. If viewed objectively, it was more about political power, alliances (foreign and domestic), and liberty…but to say religion had nothing to do with it would be an error. However, if someone is going to blame religion for the civil war, I hope they also praise religion for the English Revolution.
Among other issues, the civil war was about the divine right of kings and conflicts between the Anglicans, Catholics and Puritans or other Protestant dissenters. And from the civil war to the Revolution there were Acts of religious tolerance presented by Parliament or the monarchy.This doesn't mean religion was “bad,” it's just the way it was. If viewed objectively, it was more about political power, alliances (foreign and domestic), and liberty…but to say religion had nothing to do with it would be an error. However, if someone is going to blame religion for the civil war, I hope they also praise religion for the English Revolution.
That's kind of the point, though, isn't it? Most wars which are considered to be “religious wars” are really about politics, rather than religion. In other words, people have been far more likely to battle it out over the right to political control than to force a particular set of religious beliefs on another. Religion is often times a context for war because political allegiances are aligned among religious groups. I hope I'm not making a distinction where none is merited, but I do think that the distinction between politics and religion is one which is so often forgot, especially by people who make offhand comments about religion is the “greatest cause of war”, or something like that.
There is distinction between religion and politics, but I still think it's wrong to say religion wasn't a cause or reason. (I know, I did a Romney flop since my last post a few weeks ago). Religion and politics were so intertwined…again, nothing wrong with that, it's just the way it was. I don't know if this is the right way to think about it, but I look at the differing religious sects as just being different political parties more or less. Like in Northern Ireland. The Troubles were between Nationalists and Unionists. It just so happens that, for the most part, Catholics were the Nationalists and the Protestants were the Unionists. And in the English wars, they weren't trying to prevent Catholics from gaining the Crown so much as they were trying to stop France from influencing English affairs.
So the fact the English went so far as to pass a still extant law that Catholics are unable to hold the throne irrelevant? To be honest, I think that law was a reaction to Mary Queen of Scots too.The thing that sticks in my mind is what was the paramount issue, religion or politics? Often, even most of the time, politics is paramount and religion is used as a tool to increase the popularity of a particular war or justify politics and not the other way around. A good example of a religious war that I can think of is the Thirty-Years war. From what I have studied, the primary reason for the beginning of the war was religious (sectarian differences) but it rapidly mutated into a political/dynastic/strategic conflict in which religion became a motivating rather than a primary factor in the wars continuance.
