Religion as an excuse for war?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by fadfad

... Religion as an excuse for war... Would be, I say, irrelevant?Is there any war that wasn't fondamentally religious?

WWII?

[manephelien]

That can be argued. The Nazi party line fulfills many requirements of a cult, and they certainly detested the Jews, for no reason other than them being Jewish. Of course, they also attacked plenty of other groups, such as homosexuals and the handicapped. The Nazi party line was something like "Küche, Kirche und Vaterland" i. e. kitchen, church and fatherland.

However, I don't believe religion was ever really used as a reason for the Allies to engage in the war.

[A.Khalil]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

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

Religion itself creates a sense of fraternity, a strong sense of US vs. others. Even without institutions, or even state affiliation, a Christian would feel outrage if a fellow Christian was hurt, but would not care or would not be so aroused if a Hindu was hurt. It is human nature to identify with those who share our characteristics, be they physical, cultural, or personal. Thus, even without institutionalized religions we would still be having the same wars and for the same reasons. Only the words, the vocabulary, the rhetoric, would be different. Besides, you all are forgetting that wars and conflict predate the organized religions we are talking about here. They began with primitive man in the jungles and forests. Religions as we know them are a max of 4,000 or 5,000 years old in distant roots, and only about 2,000 years in advanced formation. Most are even younger than that.

[A.Khalil]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

One could also site the push of the Moors...they spread all the way to Spain, and killed everything in sight.

just a thought

v/r

Q

Last time I visited these places from the gates of China to Spain I found native peoples everywhere. They all had distinct racial features, cultures, and there were many different religions followed by hundreds of millions within this area. Pray tell, where did these people come from?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by A.Khalil

Religion itself creates a sense of fraternity, a strong sense of US vs. others. Even without institutions, or even state affiliation, a Christian would feel outrage if a fellow Christian was hurt, but would not care or would not be so aroused if a Hindu was hurt. It is human nature to identify with those who share our characteristics, be they physical, cultural, or personal. Thus, even without institutionalized religions we would still be having the same wars and for the same reasons. Only the words, the vocabulary, the rhetoric, would be different. Besides, you all are forgetting that wars and conflict predate the organized religions we are talking about here. They began with primitive man in the jungles and forests. Religions as we know them are a max of 4,000 or 5,000 years old in distant roots, and only about 2,000 years in advanced formation. Most are even younger than that.

What a predjudicial and erroneous thought. I have a medic son that would prove your thesis to be in error. He doesn't care who gets hurt. He doesn't like it at all. In fact he hates it with all his being.

Oh, and he is a Christian...

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Quahom1
One could also site the push of the Moors...they spread all the way to Spain, and killed everything in sight.

just a thought

v/r

Q

Originally Posted by A.Khalil

Last time I visited these places from the gates of China to Spain I found native peoples everywhere. They all had distinct racial features, cultures, and there were many different religions followed by hundreds of millions within this area. Pray tell, where did these people come from?

...from out of sight.

[A.Khalil]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

...from out of sight.

I guess someone needs glasses, and it is not I.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by A.Khalil

I guess someone needs glasses, and it is not I.

Of course not Khalil. My stupidity always gets the best of me...I'm such a dunce conservative American.

Une mille pardons.

[A.Khalil]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

What a predjudicial and erroneous thought. I have a medic son that would prove your thesis to be in error. He doesn't care who gets hurt. He doesn't like it at all. In fact he hates it with all his being.

Oh, and he is a Christian...

You do understand that the use of a Christian and a Hindu was just as an example, right?

As for the issue itself, experience shows that you are wrong. I am in the Medical field myself and I know that you are wrong, and I see it happen all the time, here in the US and abroad. Yes, one would treat all patients and the injured because of professional training (and because of liability laws I might stress), but not necessarily with the same urgency or using the same level of care. Just as in an emergency one would tend to treat children first, then women then men, one would tend to treat and care for a priest before a layman, or a person that one knows is of the same faith before a person of another faith. Ask your medic son that if he arrives at a scene of an accident and he sees 2 people fallen on the ground, one is wearing a priest's garment and the other has a long beard and wearing a turban, which one would he treat first?

We all have lies that we cocoon ourselves in and feel comfortable with, but they are still lies. The claim of altruism is one of them.

[Prober]

Originally Posted by A.Khalil

You do understand that the use of a Christian and a Hindu was just as an example, right?

The beautiful thing - to a real Christian, there is no difference!

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by A.Khalil

You do understand that the use of a Christian and a Hindu was just as an example, right?

As for the issue itself, experience shows that you are wrong. I am in the Medical field myself and I know that you are wrong, and I see it happen all the time, here in the US and abroad. Yes, one would treat all patients and the injured because of professional training (and because of liability laws I might stress), but not necessarily with the same urgency or using the same level of care. Just as in an emergency one would tend to treat children first, then women then men, one would tend to treat and care for a priest before a layman, or a person that one knows is of the same faith before a person of another faith. Ask your medic son that if he arrives at a scene of an accident and he sees 2 people fallen on the ground, one is wearing a priest's garment and the other has a long beard and wearing a turban, which one would he treat first?

We all have lies that we cocoon ourselves in and feel comfortable with, but they are still lies. The claim of altruism is one of them.

there a big difference between your medical experiences and mine or my son's...it is the god of money, vs. people.

When people are hurt, we hurt. We don't worry about who is going to pay for it all. We just fix them.

We would treat the one hurt the worst, first. Besides, the priest I wouldn't worry about, God has his soul, so I'd go after treating the other one first, just to make sure he had a chance in this life to re-consider things...

you walked right into that one my friend.

lol. Thanks. You proved my point.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Prober

The beautiful thing - to a real Christian, there is no difference!

so, the medic son is a true Christian? Woa. High praise indeed. Thank you.

[arthra]

By the way...I wanted to welcome Kahlil to the forum and apprecite the fine question he has posed!

Kahlil wrote:

one would tend to treat and care for a priest before a layman, or a person that one knows is of the same faith before a person of another faith. Ask your medic son that if he arrives at a scene of an accident and he sees 2 people fallen on the ground, one is wearing a priest's garment and the other has a long beard and wearing a turban, which one would he treat first?

My comment:

My son is a Paramedic and I'm pretty sure he's trained to treat the person with the most severe injury first regardless of rank in society...but what you pose is really scarry to me that someone would treat a cleric first...that is really weird to me...

- Art

[Faithfulservant]

Yes setting up triage is generally how paramedics treat people same goes for emergency rooms..

[jiii]

Originally Posted by A.Khalil

Religion itself creates a sense of fraternity, a strong sense of US vs. others. Even without institutions, or even state affiliation, a Christian would feel outrage if a fellow Christian was hurt, but would not care or would not be so aroused if a Hindu was hurt. It is human nature to identify with those who share our characteristics, be they physical, cultural, or personal. Thus, even without institutionalized religions we would still be having the same wars and for the same reasons. Only the words, the vocabulary, the rhetoric, would be different. Besides, you all are forgetting that wars and conflict predate the organized religions we are talking about here. They began with primitive man in the jungles and forests. Religions as we know them are a max of 4,000 or 5,000 years old in distant roots, and only about 2,000 years in advanced formation. Most are even younger than that.

Well, A.Khalil certainly does have some valid points, which shouldn't be completely ignored as a result of some less valid ones. Religion, historically, does tend to create a sense of fraternity, and this does sometimes find expression in an "us vs. them" mentality. This may not always be the case, and in fact, it may not be the case with the majority of religious peoples, but it is undoubtedly a reality of how mankind sometimes uses religion.

I also think that A.Khalil is correct to point out that violent conflict, organized or not, most certainly predates organized religion. I have heard many times that "more wars are fought over religion than anything else." While this may superficially appear to be true, I would say that there is a bit of bias seeping through in such a sentiment. Many wars which are blamed upon religion are usually much more based upon economics and/or politics. Religion, being so often idealized, simply becomes a convenient flagship for warring parties. It can be used to cleverly smooth out the blatantly foolish or selfish reasons for conflict for which the ordinary person wouldn't be inclined to fight and kill. For instance, an army which can rally behind the ideal of 'fighting for God' will probably perform more passionately on the battlefield than an army who is told before battle: "Let's go out there and save our economy!" Granted, economy is important...very important...but not many people are willing to die for it. Arguably, many people are more willing to die for a deity of some kind, or soem religious ideal. Now, whether or not this behavior displays a disingenuous understanding of the true essence of religion is really beside the point. The strategy works, and it works well...has for thousands of years.

Thus, I would largely agree that religion, being something which so many people are passionate about, was unfortunately a shoe-in so far as becoming the force at the forefront of so many conflicts...not because religion, itself, is inherently a violence-inducing practice, but because mankind's passion for its ideals oftentimes become entangled with his passion for attaining security or stability with worldy things. You know the saying: When the wrong man uses the right tool, it works in the wrong way. Such is the case with religion, historically and up to the modern day. When an angry, frustrated, and strung-out group of people are out looking for a fight, their use of religion mysteriously tends to breed behavior that is peculiarly irreligious. Much of the time, the use of violence is a foregone conclusion. Religion is just taken along for the ride.