- This topic has 5 voices and 32 replies.
-
Posts
-
hen I taught A.P. European History 1973-87, one of the exam questions was: The Thirty Years War. Was it religious or dynastic?
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.
I can see your point, but I would argue that it was really political identification and religious identification that were so intertwined. If you took membership in one religion, you were identified with a particular religious party.My main point/question, though, is whether people were actually warring over theological beliefs, rather than political beliefs. For example – did Catholics and Protestants ever battle it out specifically because of belief in Faith vs. Works? Yes, obviously they had serious differences, and I imagine there may have been some skirmishes over such doctrines, but were those ever the driving force behind actual wars?
Yes but weren't many political ideologies justified by whatever religion they followed? Were they loyal to a political belief or loyal to a religious belief? Was an individual's political belief because of his religious belief? For the most part, I agree with you. Anti-religion people can't look beyond their own prejudices and see it as just a religious war and nothing else. They couldn't be more wrong. But I think we should be careful to not go the other extreme and say religion was not a cause at all.
Nobody is arguing here that religion was not a cause of wars. We are, at least I am, however, saying that religion has rarely, if ever, been the primary motivator behind waging war. Religion has been interwoven and used as Phid says, but I cannot think of a single instance outside of the Bible where one nation/tribe/what have you went to war because their neighbors did not worship the same way or gods that they did.Thinking long and hard, I don't even think the current Islamic Jihadists are fighting because of religion. Current Jihadists use religion as a cover for political goals, of which their primary goal is forcing the West to disengage from the Middle East. Despite all the high rhetoric about Allah, the Jihadi leadership are just as politicaly minded as our own Western politicians. I am not even convinced that the majority of Jihadi foot soldiers are religiously motivated. I think many are just in it for the excitement and chance to kill somebody, religion just makes it easier and sanctions their activities.
