Religion as an excuse for war?

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by sachetm

The Baptists are pretty fundamentalist, from what I know of them. Aren't they a worldwide sect?

I once made a similar comment on a Christian debate board, and was scolded by a friend from a Canadian branch of the Baptist movement.

My (more recent) understanding is that the Baptist movement is diverse - but that it's the so-called "Southern Baptist" movement of the US that is often seen to be most conversative, right-wing and fundamentalist.

However, it should perhaps be made as a salient point that extremism pokes its ugly head into every sphere of human expression. If fundamentalism be a form of extremism, then it most certainly is not restrictied to either the Southern Baptists, the USA, Christianity or even Monotheism.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by sachetm

Would that apply to all of North American, IYO, or just to the United States?

Hi sachetm -

From this side of the pond I would say United States.

[brucegdc]

The more dogmatic of most faiths seem to be the ones with the largest vocal cords. Probably because they're more focussed. If religion and rules of it are the primary focus of your life, you're going to tend to be very vocal about them. If you're a "there are many paths" variety, then you're likely going to be quieter, since you're listening to others.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by poolking

Why do many countries use religion as an excuse for war?

It is far too easy in today's society to say "Im doing it in the name of religion."

So using religion as an excuse means it is okay to perpertrate some of the most heinous atrocities on the planet?

What do you think?

Considering that there are various religious systems in the world today and in history, and that wars and violence have been perpetrated owing to and for religion; the conclusion seems inescapable that if there were no religion, then a lot of war and violence among mankind would disappear.

No religion equals at least less of war and violence.

Is that good for mankind, less war and less violence. Of course some people maintain that war and violence is an essential character of human nature, it serves a purpose in the long perspective of advantage to mankind, like prevention of over population.

Where am I getting to?

To that last contention that war and violence is good for mankind or necessary, I maintain that whatever good obtained through war and violence can be achieved as well and better by non-violent ways and means, and certainly without wars. For example, the excessive growth of population can be checked by the science and technology of birth control.

My point however is over how the disappearance of religion is one cause less for mankind to go into wars and violence; and consequently there would be less wars and violence.

Shall we then abolish religion? And is it possible?

Institutionalized religion will disappear with the advance of knowledge and critical thought. And it is institutionalized religion that goes to war and commits violence on fellow humans. So, we who aspire after ending of war and the banishment of violence should exert efforts each in his own convenient at least ways and means and time to propound knowledge and critical thought.

Personal religion can be with us for an indefinitely stretched time duration of human history. I consider myself to be a religious person, and I belong to an institutional group, but without any kind of binding loyalty that necessitates the acceptance of fixed doctrines, morals, and even social and political policies. One thing for sure, I will never kill or hurt for religion, my religious sympathies or preferences, personal ones; and those are the only ones I have. And correlatively I would never accept any pain or loss and certainly not death for the sake of my religious sympathies. And I would not feel guilt or shame for not accepting any such sacrifice for my personal religious inclinations.

For me, religion in terms of adherence is like or should be like hairdo and cuisine. People who aspire after knowledge and cultivate critical thought should never hurt or kill others for religion, and never be passive victims for their religion either. There is no hurting others over hairdo and cuisine, is there?

So to the question:

...using religion as an excuse means it is okay to perpertrate some of the most heinous atrocities on the planet?

What do you think?

No, it is absolutely not acceptable to perpetrate any atrocity whatever in the name of religion; because the number and diversity of religions in mankind and in its history shows that religion is or should be no different from hairdo and cuisine.

And we should all who aspire after knowledge and critical thought and look forward to a world without wars and violence, should exert at least convenient efforts to propagate knowledge and critical thought.

Susma Rio Sep

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

the conclusion seems inescapable that if there were no religion, then a lot of war and violence among mankind would disappear.

I am inclined to disagree.

Those who seek sanctity never start wars.

Those who seek power do.

Those who seek power always do so under the mantle of something other - religion, politics, economics, whatever - purely as a means of justification.

The

[mikie8]

@ thomas areyou saying that churchs and religions have no power ?

sorry to disagree but althogh religions may not start the war they are an integral part of it .
Anyone here church of england ? as they invest more in weapons production than anyone else in the country even more than the government . imho religion is control of the masses and if not hte reason war starts its the reason they are not stopped .

[I, Brian]

As perhaps may have been pointed out earlier, religion is often used as a political tool. Those who argue that religion itself is the sole cause of war have perhaps completely underestimated the close historical connection between politics and religion, that infused so much of human history - certainly the Western roots.

[brucegdc]

In other words, humans have been using religion as an excuse for their bad behavior.

Getting rid of religion merely gets rid of one excuse.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by brucegdc

In other words, humans have been using religion as an excuse for their bad behavior.

Getting rid of religion merely gets rid of one excuse.

It seems inescapable, the conclusion that whatever role religion plays in wars and violence among mankind, if religion is not with mankind, mankind would be deprived of one cause or catalyst or justification or prop or whatever religion plays in wars and in religion.

That is good for mankind, yes.

The solution to involvement of religion in wars and in violence is to make religion totally personal, de-institutionalize religion. Without an institution there would be no power of number in religion to engage in any way in wars and in violence.

Susma Rio Sep

[brucegdc]

It would be nice to take religion, skin color, gender, ancestry, and everything else soley into the personal realm. Unfortunately, all of them are reasons people have used in the past and continue to use to justify heinous acts. War is a matter of power -one group attempting to assert control over the property of another. People will use anything to justify that that they can think up. If we remove everything already used, it'll be something like eyelash color.

The hope is that there is a core of people who are truly "spiritual" who abhor the use of violence in this way, and will eventually persuade everyone else.

[mikie8]

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/eiag/Policydefence.pdf

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

interestingly enough... Sun Tzu wrote on this very topic in his book Art of War.

War, at that time, was the final stage of diplomacy.. when everything else had failed to convince the other side to mollify their position or stance.

moreover, Sun Tzu's work is widely held to be the classic on tactical and strategic warfare, with many modern nations adopting principles that have been expressed in those pages for thousands of years.

Sun Tzu considered warfare for religous purposes to be counter to the good of the country and would, inevitably, undermine the aggressor and lead to defeat and humiliation (lots of face saving in Asia, you know).

He considered warfare for political purposes only slightly less distasteful. in fact, the only valid reasons that he had for going to war were if a country invaded you, you militate to defend yourselves and if a weaker country is invaded by a stronger one, you should go to war to help the weaker country.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste all,

interestingly enough... Sun Tzu wrote on this very topic in his book Art of War.

War, at that time, was the final stage of diplomacy.. when everything else had failed to convince the other side to mollify their position or stance.

moreover, Sun Tzu's work is widely held to be the classic on tactical and strategic warfare, with many modern nations adopting principles that have been expressed in those pages for thousands of years.

Sun Tzu considered warfare for religous purposes to be counter to the good of the country and would, inevitably, undermine the aggressor and lead to defeat and humiliation (lots of face saving in Asia, you know).

He considered warfare for political purposes only slightly less distasteful. in fact, the only valid reasons that he had for going to war were if a country invaded you, you militate to defend yourselves and if a weaker country is invaded by a stronger one, you should go to war to help the weaker country.

Amazing, that Sun Tzu, who never heard of Christ and his message of peace among mankind, should have such very edifying doctrines about religion and war and the reasons for being engaged in war.

It is really saddening that strong nations eventually go to war on weaker nations, and they have all kinds of reasons for doing so, even such a purpose as to bring men to salvation.

I am always thinking of ways and means to prevent war. Education seems to be the best way. Education can make people stop spitting except into their handkerchief or into the bathroom sink or toilet bowl.

But has it in fact? Generally yes in a society ascribing to the unhygienic and unaesthetic aspects of spitting anywhere.

So, we must institute courses in our school and make them compulsory on the irrationality and insanity of war, and how not to get into wars.

Easier said than done.

Another solution to achieve the abolition of war is to make war physically impossible. Is that possible? Meaning no more physical injury intentionally inflicted to make another person or people submti to yourself?

The seemingly insuromountable obstacles are no reason not to seek and find ways and means to end all wars and violence.

Susma Rio Sep

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

Amazing, that Sun Tzu, who never heard of Christ and his message of peace among mankind, should have such very edifying doctrines about religion and war and the reasons for being engaged in war.


Susma Rio Sep

Namaste Susma,

Sun Tzu was a Taoist, and most probably a Wizard at that. his teachings are based on accurate observations of human nature and harmony.

Remember, Sun Tzu was running around in China during the Warring States period, 447-225 BCE, where the Golden Empire was collapsing and social order was desintigrating. Lao Tzu and Confucious were also running around during this time frame... and a bunch of other guys that most of the readers have never heard of, like Lu Bei, Li Er, T'shan Huang and others.

[qiatsu]

So, a man who really wants to pursue and find out the truth of cooperation must inevitably bring to an end the self-centered activity. When you and I are not self-centered, we love each other; then you and I are interested in action, and not in the result, not In the idea but in doing the action; you and I have love for each other. When my self-centered activity clashes with your self-centered activity, then we project an idea towards which we both quarrel; superficially we are cooperating, but we are at each other's throats all the time. So, to be nothing is not the conscious state, and when you and I love each other, we cooperate, not to do something about which we have an idea, but in whatever there is to be done. If you and I loved each other, do you think the dirty, filthy villages would exist? We would act; we would not theorize and would not talk about brotherhood. Obviously, there is no warmth or sustenance in our hearts, and we talk about everything; we have methods, systems, parties, governments, and legislations. We do not know that words cannot capture that state of love. The word love is not love. The word love is only the symbol, and it can never be the real. So, don't be mesmerized by that word love.