Religion as an excuse for war? - Page 6

Condor · 01-25-2005, 12:40 AM

Religion works as a binding agent, we all have different opinions but in religion we usually find a common denominator. Since the beginning of time religion has played an integral part in war & peace. Using religion to muster support for a cause. Even thou the cause may not be religious in nature.

Examples of this can be found in many periods of our history.
The Crusades, The Inquisition, etc.

Some governments have tried to place own rule as the religion itself.
Communism is one example of this.

I do not think religion is used as an excuse for war but is definately a tool used in the preparation to war.

DominiqueDemonio · 03-10-2005, 01:57 AM

Religion in itself has always been a political institution from the very moment it became organized.

Group faith isn't corrupt, however, personalist leaders, with their own political agendas, all to often mistake their holy positions as military generals or population swayers.

Most religions preach intolerance (indirectly or otherwise) which therefore breeds ignorance. Thats what manifests the powers of the few who lead the many. Preying off ignorance you can used acclaimed religious motives, or misinterpretations as I would more accurately like to phrase it, to inspire violence against one of a different faith.

These leaders take holy documents, such as the Quaran and the Holy Bible, to concoct hidden messages to inspire violence. This seems natural to these religions in particular, as if you look at their roots, the whole foundations are based off of hate crimes and violence. (i.e. the brutal execution of the Christ, and the original Pilgrimage to Mecca). However one must also look at the original clauses of their faiths. They both taught benevolence to man kind. Christians and Muslims are generally so frivolous as to attack people of their same faith in different denominations.

But as far as war is concerned, that is a much broader issue. War isn't just amongst nations, it is fought every day on the basis of prejudice. A tiny war is fought constantly amongst the ignorant who hate eachother without a reason why, and only malignant relgious leaders and thousands of years of preached intolerance are to blame.

Only two religions I have ever encountered, hopefully with the use of this amazing web site I will encounter more, were completely based on finding self peace and happiness , while allowing followers to learn from everything else and be tolerant. They had their roots in equality and practicality, and evolve today to meet ever new levels of integrity and righteousness. Although I am not a devout follower I have dabbed into both, Taoism, and Buddhism.

I think a lot of war is also based off of focusing on earlier or later times. Again Christian and Muslims believe sincerely their "pious" actions will be rewarded in heaven. Buddhists on the other hand concentrate on now, and living this life as fully as possible.
Please, if you see anything that I have said wrong, write back! I am most interested in everyones comments and I think you guys are great.

I, Brian · 03-10-2005, 10:18 AM

Hi Condor and DominiqueDemonio, and welcome to CR.

DominiqueDemonio · 03-10-2005, 10:07 PM

Thanks Brian. I really love this website, I would live here if I didnt have school and work. If you would like to, tell me what you think about my opinions, I love any constructive criticism.

I, Brian · 03-10-2005, 10:16 PM

Opinions are fine, and you seem to be answering in a considered manner. Seems a good attitude for a site like this.

Thomas · 03-11-2005, 12:01 PM

Hi Dominique -

A considered post - but can I add a question?

This question revolves on - do the sacred texts of any religions preach war as a principle? The answer is, as you say, no.

In my view, war is no part of the doctrine of any faith, but again, any faith can bend the teachings to suit - which is what man does - and this is the politicising of religion that you speak of.

So do we dispense with religion? I think not.

Enshrined in the doctrines of all the great traditions are the means and the methods to attain the highest ideal of human possibility - an ideal that finds its only full and complete expression within the doctrines of these traditions, and likewise it is religion alone thatt presents man with the total fullness of his possibility.

Without them, we are reduced to a secular humanism, we are prey to a science that insists we are born for nothing, and meant for nothing, in a meaningless clockwork universe.

It is possible for religions to exist peacefully, and even co-operatively. The oldest Christian monastery in the world exists because the Moslems guaranteed its safety when asked to do so by the pope.

If you look at the history of Japan, you will find the Buddhist monastic orders founded some of the most militant and aggressive organistations - the Buddhist warrior-monk is legendary in Japanese history - and at times they terrorised not only the population but the throne itself.

An emperor once said "There are three things we cannot control - the weather, the rice harvest, and the monks of Mount Hiei."

Christianity, beyond any other faith, is a religion that preaches love as a foundational and non-negotiable principle.

War in recent history continues unabated, regardless of the decline of religious influence, and contrary to common opnion actually surpasses anything that's gone before in scale and brutality - man simply finds other reasons to justify his own ends - pure politics, economics, whatever - and the modern problem of terrorism is entirely political, religion is nothing but a cover assumed by both sides in the affair.

Thomas

Bandit · 03-11-2005, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DominiqueDemonio

Thanks Brian. I really love this website, I would live here if I didnt have school and work. If you would like to, tell me what you think about my opinions, I love any constructive criticism.

it used to be called comparative insanity or insane religion.

It is like an addiction. I like CR a lot too and welcome.

sangam · 03-18-2005, 01:30 PM

We are by nature designed to identify ourselves with groups. It gives a distinct evolutionary advantage to the human species. The corollary to this is the exclusion of everything that is not a part of the group.

Another basic property of the human psyche is to be able to justify to oneself and convince oneself of the righteousness, superiority and at times inevitability of our positions (i.e. beliefs, adherence, etc,) and actions. This is a self protective mechanism to enable us to have an overall positive regard for ourselves.

God realisation is supposed to lead to a state where the person can appreciate 'vasundhara kutumbakam'-that the whole world is one family.

For the rest of us, though we can intellectualise and in moments of self-induced emotional highs be able to perceive a version of this state. Honest introspection would reveal otherwise.

For example, recall the intrusion of a Hindu zealot who criticised the description of Hinduism in CR. how we all felt an instant solidarity and closed ranks against him. Was it not a just a small scale version of the topic in discussion.

Differences between groups leading to physical violence are inevitable, as the history has shown ample of times.

Though it does depend to some extent on the characteristics (core beliefs, expectations from the members and others, etc) of the group in question. It is not an exclusive attribute but a mere manifestation of underlying mechanisms

Käthe · 03-17-2006, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Absolutely right! Some of the most fervent hardline fundamentalists are happy to quote Leviticus when it comes to homosexuality - but almost never do they consider themselves likewise condemned over issues such as stealing and adultery.

Even more so, how many mentions are made in Scripture of feeding the hungry, caring for the ill, clothing the naked, and so on? A compared to the (seven, I've heard) verses dealing with homosexual acts?

Off topic, Brian, I very much appreciate that you show such a lively interest in this, your creation - I've noticed already how often you ask questions that start up interesting discussions. I thank you for that.

Käthe · 03-17-2006, 05:45 PM

But...back to religion and war.

You have something I want (land, fruit or nut trees, herds of sheep or cattle, oil - whatever).

I have no reasonable expectation that you'll give them to me.

I'll just take them, and kill you in the process, because that's a permanent solution.

That's not a good thing, what I'm planning on doing.

The only way I can turn it into a good thing is if you're evil; then I can justify it to myself (and, with good PR, to the world).

Sooooooo, The Almighty One said I should do it. OK, not really. There's nothing specific about "take that land from those people". Slight problem there.

I know! The Almighty One said that sinners are an abomination. And I say those people are sinners (never mind that I am a sinner, too), and abominations cannot be allowed to thrive, so I'll be serving The Almighty One if I kill them off and take what I want.

Quahom1 · 03-20-2006, 06:37 PM

Were that it oh so simple, warring over socio/economics and tribal god images...

Unfortunately we aren't that lucky...

v/r

Q

Käthe · 03-22-2006, 04:41 AM

Quahom1,

For what other reasons do you think that the human animal goes to war?

Quahom1 · 03-23-2006, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Käthe

Quahom1,

For what other reasons do you think that the human animal goes to war?

First off, I do not consider Humans as animals. As much as I love animals, I do not concede that Humans are equal to or lower than (for that matter), than the other critters that roam this planet.

I opine that the two primary reasons for one to war with another is for conquest, or for defense. However, in between these are a miriad of other reasons that are very complex (and often cleverly conceived).

Like one opponent deliberately declaring and waging war on a superior opponent, knowing full well they will lose, however also having the innate certainty that their loss, will ultimately become their win. They choose an "enemy" who loathes vanquishing, and anticipates that the winner will rebuild their "land" and lives into a better condition than it was before they began the fighting...

Often times we fight because of misunderstanding, miscommunication, and "needs" unfulfilled. (sounds like a husband and wife, doesn't it)

Ironically, war is one of the most intimate relationships two can have in life...

Why? Both opponents consider the other to be very important to them...and want something very desperately from the other (regardless of what that is).

my thoughts

v/r

Q

Aidyl Nurhadi · 04-20-2006, 11:12 PM

Regarding Palestinian and Israeli conflict....the main issue being disputed is not influenced or driven simply by a conflict of religious ideologies. Religion do have something to do with it but it's definitely not the main factor or contributor to the tug-of-war. It's all to do with land...the conflict which is commonly described as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict speaks for itself. It's not a battle between Islam or Judaism, for over 1400 years with the exception of about 2 centuries of Christian rule, the Jews have lived peacefully and survived throughout the ages within Muslim lands. No real Muslim hate Jews and I'm sure not all Jews hate Muslims, there are quite a significant number of Israelites even who are protesting their government's policies. So what I'm trying to say here is that the battle being fought over there is between Zionist Jews and Palestinian Muslims and NOT between Islam and Judaism or Judaism and Christianity or Islam and Christianity.

Quahom1 · 04-21-2006, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aidyl Nurhadi

Regarding Palestinian and Israeli conflict....the main issue being disputed is not influenced or driven simply by a conflict of religious ideologies. Religion do have something to do with it but it's definitely not the main factor or contributor to the tug-of-war. It's all to do with land...the conflict which is commonly described as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict speaks for itself. It's not a battle between Islam or Judaism, for over 1400 years with the exception of about 2 centuries of Christian rule, the Jews have lived peacefully and survived throughout the ages within Muslim lands. No real Muslim hate Jews and I'm sure not all Jews hate Muslims, there are quite a significant number of Israelites even who are protesting their government's policies. So what I'm trying to say here is that the battle being fought over there is between Zionist Jews and Palestinian Muslims and NOT between Islam and Judaism or Judaism and Christianity or Islam and Christianity.

The battle is over land that a particular people occupy, and another people want.

The battle from outside the land is a hatred for a particular people that other people want destroyed.

Palestinians want the Israelis pushed into the sea. Iranians want the Israelis obliterated. The president of Iran has declared as much (for example). The Egyptians tried, the Syrians tried, and I believe Jordan tried. All since 1948. They all failed.

Israel's goal is to survive as a people and keep the land they have (that is good incentive to fight like hell).

You are right, it has nothing to do with religion, when it comes down to brass tacks. It is one people's claim over anothers' claim over a piece of land, and it is outsider's intention to get rid of a particular people, for whatever reasons.

v/r

Q