Religion causes Violence is a Fallacious Statement
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
No, you need a lesson in history. The majority of all wars in history had little or nothing to with religion at all.(Q) said:
The major causes of war are:
- Independence
- Land
- Economic gain
- Civil Disturbances
There's really only The European Wars of Religion, the Crusades, and the Reconquista religious war. World War I and II two of the biggest wars were not religious wars.
It is pretty difficult to fight in the name of "Jesus" or "Buddha" but easy to fight in the name of "Mohommad" or "God" (old testament).
Here are some wars that had nothing or very very very little to do with
religion:
World War I
World War II
Greek Civil War, 1946-1949
Malaysian Emergency, 1948-1960
Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1948-Present
Korean War, 1950-1953
Cuban Revolution, 1953-1959
Vietnam War, 1957-1975
Guatemalan Civil War, 1960-1996
Bay of Pigs Invasion, 1961
Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962
Angolan Civil War, 1974-2002
Afghani-Soviet War, 1979-1989
Iran Hostage Crisis, 1979
Iran-Iraq war, 1980-1988
Falklands war, 1982
Invasion of Grenada, 1983
1954-1962 Algerian War of Independence
1775-1783 American Revolutionary War
1961-1989 Angolan War of Independence
1971 Bangladesh War of Independence
1810-1818 Chilean War of Independence
1568-1648 Dutch War of Independence
1918-1920 Estonian War of Independence
1857-1858 First War Of Indian Independence
1821-1827 Greek War of Independence
1919-1921 Irish War of Independence
1948 Israeli War of Independence
1810-1821 Mexican War of Independence
1896-1913 Philippine Revolution and Philippine-American War
1877 Romanian War of Independence
1296-1357 Wars of Scottish Independence
1810s-1820s South American Wars of Independence
1919-1923 Turkish War of Independence
1296-1357 Wars of Scottish Independence
1568-1648 Dutch War of Independence
1775-1783 American Revolutionary War
1810-1821 Mexican War of Independence
1810-1818 Chilean War of Independence
1810s-1820s South American Wars of Independence
1821-1827 Greek War of Independence
1857-1858 First War Of Indian Independence
1877 Romanian War of Independence
1896-1913 Philippine Revolution and Philippine-American War
1918-1920 Estonian War of Independence
1919-1921 Irish War of Independence
1919-1923 Turkish War of Independence
1948 Israeli War of Independence
1954-1962 Algerian War of Independence
1961-1989 Angolan War of Independence
1971 Bangladesh War of Independence
Algerian Civil War, 1991-2002
American Civil War, 1861-1865
Austrian Civil War, February 12 to February 16, 1934
Boshin War (Japan), 1868-1869
Chinese Civil War, 1928-1937, 1945-1949
Costa Rica Civil War, 1948
list of English civil wars
Wars of the Roses, c. 1455-1485
English Civil War, 1642-1651
Finnish Civil War, 1918
French Wars of Religion, 1562-1598
Genpei War (Japan), 1180-1185
Greek Civil War, 1946-1949
Hussite wars, 1419-1437
Indonesian Civil War, 1965-1966
Irish Civil War, 1922-1923
Irish Confederate Wars some parts of which were a civil war.
Israeli War of Independence, 1947(Until 14 May 1948)
Jementah Civil War, 1879
Klang War; also known as Selangor Civil War, 1867 - 1874
Korean Civil War, 1950-1953
Lebanese Civil War, 1975-1990
Liberian Civil War, 1990-1997
Mozambican Civil War, see Rome General Peace Accords, 1975-1992
Nigerian Civil War, 1967-1970
Norwegian Civil War era, 1130-1240
Onin War (Japan), 1467-1477
Pakistan Civil War, 1971
Paraguayan Civil War, 1947
Portuguese Civil War, 1828-1834
Rokosz of Zebrzydowski. 1606-1609 in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
Roman Republican civil wars, List of Roman Republic and Empire Civil Wars
Romania had a brief civil war in 1989, after the fall of Nicolae Ceauşescu, between Communists and those against the former regime.
Russian Civil War, 1917-1921
Rwandan Civil War, 1994
Salvadoran Civil War (El Salvador), 1979-1991
Scottish Civil War; 1644-1652
Sengoku Period (Japan), 1467-1615
Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939
Taiping Civil War (China), 1851-1864
The Anarchy, 1135-1153 (refers to the disorder during the reign of King Stephen of England)
The Brothers' Civil War, 1067-1072 (The war between King Alfonso of Léon and King Sancho of Castille)
Three Kingdoms Period 220-280 (This is something of an international conflict, but the Emperors of all three kingdoms claimed legitimate succession from the Han dynasty, thus making it a civil war)
Vietnamese Civil War, 1930-1975
Warring States Period (China), 475 BCE-221 BCE (this is not universally considered a civil war, but rather an international conflict. However each of the combatant states nominally acknowledged the authority of the Zhou kings of China, thus bringing them into one kingdom. This ended in 256 BCE, however this was a mere 35 years before the end of conflict)
War of Reform (Mexico) 1857-1861
Wars of the Three Kingdoms (England, Ireland, Scotland) 1639-1651 involved a number of civil wars)
Yugoslav Wars, 1991-2001
Zulu Civil War, 1817-1819
Warring States Period (China), 475 BCE-221 BCE (this is not universally considered a civil war, but rather an international conflict. However each of the combatant states nominally acknowledged the authority of the Zhou kings of China, thus bringing them into one kingdom. This ended in 256 BCE, however this was a mere 35 years before the end of conflict)
The Civil War of Carthage, 309 BCE-308 BCE
The Mercenary War, 241 BCE-237 BCE
Roman Republican civil wars, List of Roman Republic and Empire Civil Wars
Three Kingdoms period, 184-280 The Han dynasty disintigrates into a period of warlordism after the Yellow Turban Rebellion and then, from 220-280, an extended conflict between three competing successor states.
The Brothers' Civil War, 1067-1072 (The war between King Alfonso of Léon and King Sancho of Castille)
Civil war era in Norway, 1130-1240
The Anarchy, 1135-1153 (refers to the disorder during the reign of King Stephen of England)
Genpei War (Japan), 1180-1185
Great Feudal War in Russia, 1425-1453
English Wars of the Roses, c. 1455-1485
Onin War (Japan), 1467-1477
Sengoku Period (Japan), 1467-1615
French Wars of Religion, 1562-1598
Rokosz of Zebrzydowski. 1606-1609 in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
Wars of the Three Kingdoms (England, Ireland, Scotland) 1639-1651 involved a number of civil wars:
Irish Confederate Wars some parts of which were a civil war.
Scottish Civil War; 1644-1652
English Civil War, 1642-1651
First English Civil War 1642–1646
Second English Civil War 1648–1649
Third English Civil War 1650–1651
War of Reform (Mexico) 1857-1861
Zulu Civil War, 1817-1819
Taiping Civil War (China), 1851-1864
American Civil War, 1861-1865
Klang War; also known as Selangor Civil War, 1867 - 1874
Boshin War (Japan), 1868-1869
Jementah Civil War, 1879
Russian Civil War, 1917-1921
Finnish Civil War, 1918
Irish Civil War, 1922-1923
Chinese Civil War, 1928-1937, 1945-1949
Vietnamese Civil War, 1930-1975
Austrian Civil War, February 12 to February 16, 1934
Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939
Greek Civil War, 1946-1949
Paraguayan Civil War, 1947
Israeli War of Independence, 1947(Until 14 May 1948)
Costa Rica Civil War, 1948
Korean Civil War, 1950-1953
Indonesian Civil War, 1965-1966
Nigerian Civil War, 1967-1970
Pakistan Civil War ,1971
Lebanese Civil War, 1975-1990
Mozambican Civil War, see Rome General Peace Accords, 1975-1992
Sandinista Civil War, 1979-1989
Salvadoran Civil War (El Salvador), 1979-1991
Yugoslav Wars, 1991-2001
Afghan Civil War, 1992-2001
First and Second Congo Wars (1996-1997, 1998-2002)
Lets take a look at the top 10 wars that ranking from the most deaths to the least:
62,000,000 - World War II (1939–1945), (see World War II casualties)
36,000,000 - An Lushan Rebellion (756–763)
30,000,000–60,000,000 - Mongol Conquests (13th century)
25,000,000 - Manchu conquest of Ming China (1616–1644)
20,000,000–50,000,000 - Taiping Rebellion (1851–1864)
17,000,000 - Timur Lenk's conquests (1370–1405)
15,000,000–66,000,000 - World War I (1914–1918) (see World War I casualties) note that the larger number includes Spanish flu deaths
10,000,000-25,000,000 - Second Sino-Japanese War (1931–1945)
5,000,000–9,000,000 - Russian Civil War (1917–1921)
3,800,000 - Second Congo War (1998–2004)
WOOOOOOOOOW, NONE OF THOSE ARE RELIGIOUS WARS
62,000,000 - World War II (1939–1945), (see World War II casualties)
36,000,000 - An Lushan Rebellion (756–763)
30,000,000–60,000,000 - Mongol Conquests (13th century)
25,000,000 - Manchu conquest of Ming China (1616–1644)
20,000,000–50,000,000 - Taiping Rebellion (1851–1864)
17,000,000 - Timur Lenk's conquests (1370–1405)
15,000,000–66,000,000 - World War I (1914–1918) (see World War I casualties) note that the larger number includes Spanish flu deaths
10,000,000-25,000,000 - Second Sino-Japanese War (1931–1945)
5,000,000–9,000,000 - Russian Civil War (1917–1921)
3,800,000 - Second Congo War (1998–2004)
WOOOOOOOOOW, NONE OF THOSE ARE RELIGIOUS WARS
(Q) said:
So in otherwords despite the evidence that religion is not intrinsic to war, the absence of religion will somehow lessen the duration or frequency of such events?
Are you sure that it is not your personal value system and not the peace of the world that is threatened by religion?
this thread is in regard to whether religion causes violence, that is self evident.VitalOne said:
it matter not what other things cause wars, religion is one of the main causes.
so it is definitely true that religion causes violence, and thus not a fallacious statement but one of truth.
something you may wish to read, http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/cot/t0w26religiouswar.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war.
Religious motivations are not always on the surface. For example, the war in Iraq is not neccessarily a religious crusade... at least not in a literal sense.
But such a war, on the part of the Americans, fits with the ideologies of the religious right. Which is why it is natural to expect an evangelical president and his sizeable Christian right (who got him into power), supporting such a war. Whereas (generally speaking) liberal/secular parts of the country and the rest of the world did not share the enthusiam of the religious right.
Lets not also forget that the whole tension created between these two regions was elevated when a gang of Muslims crashed planes into the towers, no doubt yelling "Allah Akbar!".
But such a war, on the part of the Americans, fits with the ideologies of the religious right. Which is why it is natural to expect an evangelical president and his sizeable Christian right (who got him into power), supporting such a war. Whereas (generally speaking) liberal/secular parts of the country and the rest of the world did not share the enthusiam of the religious right.
Lets not also forget that the whole tension created between these two regions was elevated when a gang of Muslims crashed planes into the towers, no doubt yelling "Allah Akbar!".
geeser said:
Its not clear how the wiki link was supposed to illuminate your conclusions
(so a priest blesses a battleship - did they also innvolve the same order of person in their discussions of whether to go to war or not?)
And the author of the hyper history link is - well - a bit hyper
anyway
while I am sure you think they warrant further discussion I can definitely say that they don't definitely establish as true that religion causes war, much less that religion is the main cause of war
KennyJC
never mind the issue of oil in the ME -huh?
never mind the issue of oil in the ME -huh?
not so surprising if you bomb the hell out of a place that is established in religious culture - if they were yelling "down with the capitalists" what would it signify?
lightgigantic said:
I'm sure that obviously had a lot to do with it, but that still doesn't explain the reasons why the religious right supported it more than liberals/secularists did. I doubt your typical fundamentalist American Christian was thinking of the oil.
Religion is obviously therefor a prime motive for them. Why are there no other opressed groups trying to hijack airliners? Why is this distinctly a Muslim practice?
lightgigantic said:
Religion is intrinsic to war and with the absense of religion, those wars will disappear altogether. And with rationale and reason, instead of fantasy and fairy tales leading the way in mankinds future, we'll see the end to all war.
Both.
geeser said:
I am establishing that religion is a symbol of authority, amongst numerous symbols of authority. and that it is on the basis of the manipulation of these symbols that whole communites become favourably inclined to war - in other words with or without, or even with numerous or only one presiding religion there will be war and civil violence - history illustrates this very clearly
KennyJC said:
You could also examine the nature of the financial underpinning of the religious right - and a lot of the controversy happened after 9/11, which was several years after the states began meddling in very direct ways (previously it was indirect) in ME affairs - in other words after the proverbial has hit the fan its too late to attribute an effect as a cause
Because they are not opressed
Because they are oppressed, or perhaps it is more correct to say "having their country (or a place that they associate as central to their identity) under the forcible martial control of a foreign country" - which tends to flare up any existing symbols of authority
(Q) said:
So you have to establish how the absence of a factor (ie religion) can cause the extinction of a phenomena (ie war) even though the factor does not share an apparent relationship with causing the phenomena
Until you do that you are writing fairytales about a future peace - a notion you tend to abhor
so from this we can gather, that you agree religion has been one of the cause's of war and violence, then please do tell me how by stating "religion causes violence" it is a erroneous, false, untrue, misleading, incorrect, fraudulent, deceptive, fallacious.lightgigantic said:
when quite clearly, it is not any of the above.
geeser
Actually I was saying that it is the symbols of authority that are the direct cause - just like if police want to arrest a murderer they arrest the actual cause of murder (the person) and not the apparent cause (the knife)
Actually I was saying that it is the symbols of authority that are the direct cause - just like if police want to arrest a murderer they arrest the actual cause of murder (the person) and not the apparent cause (the knife)
Last edited:
lightgigantic said:
Are you talking about the politicians? Or the average fundamentalist Christian on the street?
Are you saying that only Muslims are opressed?
The bombers of 7/7 were not opressed either. They grew up in relative privilege in a secular country, only committing their acts after becoming more religious. Which is a familiar story.
And why are Muslims in the UK opressed? I think you will say because their religion is not respected in a secular country. Which illustrates my point well. The fact that they want their religious beliefs to gain power, get sharia law implemented into the UK is conflict from religion in the first place. The fact that so many are willing to commit suicide and in doing so, taking with them as many as possible innocent civiliants, despite not even being involved in the conflict.
The number of UK Muslims who condone the events of 7/7 should tell you something.
The number of fundie Christians who supported the war in Iraq should tell you something also.
No secular 'ideology' is the driving force behind all of this.
I'm not sure how street peddling xtians influenced the state of affairs in the ME pre 1990
I am saying oppression leads to insurgence
Are you trying to establish that it would have happened if the western world hadn't meddled in affairs the ME
The fact that now you have a symbiotic relationship between fundamentalists who require foreign countries to invade them for an endless supply or martyrs and conservative governments who require fundamentalists to exert terrorism on them to increase their draconian acquisition of rights and laws says nothing about how the whole catch 22 developed in the first place.
What muslim country do they associate with? INdonesia?
Then you would have to establish that it was an equally visible issue pre1990's
You would have to ask them whether they feel innvolved in the conflict or not
And the lack of these numbers pre 1990's should also tell you something - namely that the guise of religion was not a catalyst for the altercation's development
Depends whether you interpret the word "cause" as "driving"
The gavel is the symbol of authority in a courtroom, as is the costume a policeman wears, or the uniform a General wears, so in religious circles, the cross, the crescent Moon, the bible, the qu'ran, the iman, the pope, the dia lama, the archbishop, etc... are the symbols of religious authority.lightgigantic said:
so if these symbols incite/cause people to do violence, are they not the direct cause of the violence, as the people are being used like the knife.( lambs to the slaughter, as they say)
therefore I must say again how is stating "religion causes violence" fallacious.