Buying through this banner helps support the forum!
Page 1 of 14 12345611 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 199

Thread: Religion and War

  1. #1
    Registered User Leland Gaunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Columbus, NE
    Posts
    146

    Religion and War

    This subject came up in another thread, very wisely () closed down for becoming offtopic. I think it is worth at least a little more discussion. Try to keep examples rooted deeply in the past, we don't want this getting closed down. I will start it off by responding to a post made in the other thread:
    Wars not caused by religion? Small mattre of WW2, and the Nazi agression against Judaism? The continuing battles in England between Catholic and Protestant? The wars between England and Wales, or Scotland? The Troubles in Ireland? The continuing punch -up between Islam and The Rest? Priests preaching young men in to the trenches of WW1? Holy Wars all over the place? Crusades? The Israelite Wars? I'm not convinced, I'm afraid.
    The Nazis did not invade other countries to kill Jews, that was just their little bonus. Well, with Ireland I'd say that being invaded was the main cause of discontent. Though religion may have helped prolong the hard feelings. Crusades, just a nice way to get some money, namely through the spice trade. Priests were there during WWI, yes. Sorry, for any I didn't respond to, I just want to keep this thread open, and therefore not involved in current politics.

    I think that there are nearly always, other motives that are the main reason for going to war. Ambition, greed, resource competition etc...
    A world without religion is not a world without war, just a world with honest war.
    Nothing, nothing is certain, except the insignificance of everything I can comprehend and the grandeur of something incomprehensible but most important" -Andrei Bolkonsky
    "But, I didn't do anything"- Professor Lawrence Gopnik
    "Cat in the wall, eh? Okay, now you're talking my language. I know this game." -Charlie Kelly

  2. #2
    Dance Magic Dance OrphanPip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur but from Canada
    Posts
    4,163
    Blog Entries
    25
    Well I think religion makes a very useful way to organize large groups of people against others, I don't think it causes war of itself. Persecution of minorities on the other hand isn't difficult to link with religious institutions.

    Even Machiavelli noticed centuries ago that the Papal States used religion simply as a political tool, and acted no different from any other states. What causes war is opportunity, desire, necessity, and most of all thinking you can win. If states want to survive they have to act aggressively against current and potential enemies, it's just a fact of geopolitical reality. For some leaders, religion has facilitated some rather large scale slaughter.

  3. #3
    Orwellian The Atheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The George Orwell sub-forum
    Posts
    4,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Leland Gaunt View Post
    The Nazis did not invade other countries to kill Jews, that was just their little bonus.
    Correct.

    Although there is the little matter of the dirty alliance between the Vatican and Hitler. The RCC was far more worried about Communistic atheism than Fascism. The post-war allegations of RCC assistance to Nazis on the run are somewhat compelling as well.

    Still, can't blame them for everything!



    Quote Originally Posted by Leland Gaunt View Post
    Well, with Ireland I'd say that being invaded was the main cause of discontent.]
    Very highly complicated situation, but I agree that the cause of the war was political more than religious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leland Gaunt View Post
    Though religion may have helped prolong the hard feelings. Crusades, just a nice way to get some money, namely through the spice trade.
    I don't agree with this, though; the Crusades were started purely through religious fervour in the desire to reclaim of Jerusalem for christianity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leland Gaunt View Post
    I think that there are nearly always, other motives that are the main reason for going to war. Ambition, greed, resource competition etc...
    A world without religion is not a world without war, just a world with honest war.
    "Honest war"! I like that.



    I think the by far more interesting study is how religions preach peace on one hand, while supporting the war apparatus on the other.

    Bertrand Russell was vilified during WWI as a conscientious objecting atheist, while religion completely ignored their god-bloke Jesus' instruction to turn the other cheek, encouraging millions of young men to walk gladly to their deaths.
    Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."

    Anon

  4. #4
    Haribol Acharya blazeofglory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Kathmandu
    Posts
    4,959
    I am simply happy that the discussion continues with a new thread. Of course we value differences. While opposing religious values I do not mean and did not have the motive in point of fact to hurt the sentiments of those who are deeply religious and they reserve the right to be religious as long as they are not fundamentalists. I am against the fundamentalist attitude towards religions. I am not an extremist and exactly atheist too, but I love questioning. I never follow a diehard or adamant idea, but I am always open to ideas. I read both books of religion and science find that both in part are imperfect. With that said I do not mean these two, polar opposites must be married. But I always love to be liberal, though at moments I sound rather harsh on others' opinions on this forum deep down I value all those who post here.

    I am sheer thrilled at the prospect at delving into the subjects or opinions that enthrall me and the rest of other posters here on the forum

    “Those who seek to satisfy the mind of man by hampering it with ceremonies and music and affecting charity and devotion have lost their original nature””

    “If water derives lucidity from stillness, how much more the faculties of the mind! The mind of the sage, being in repose, becomes the mirror of the universe, the speculum of all creation.

  5. #5
    dafydd dafydd manton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Sheffield, South Yorks, England. Tha knows.
    Posts
    4,831
    Blog Entries
    7
    Oh, I just love the concept of an "honest war"! An honest atomic bomb, an honest rocket, an honest bullet, honest napalm, an honest 1000-bomber raid, an honest grenade, an honest bayonet. Good old honest warships. I'd love to hear a sensible description of that one! "Oh, don't worry about the total destruction of our city - it was honest!!" Really!
    Dafydd Manton, A Legend In His Own Lunchtime!! www.dafydd-manton.co.uk

    My Work Has Been Spread Over Many Fields!

  6. #6
    Registered User Leland Gaunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Columbus, NE
    Posts
    146
    Still, can't blame them for everything!
    Not for lack of trying.
    I don't agree with this, though; the Crusades were started purely through religious fervour in the desire to reclaim of Jerusalem for christianity.
    They may have been started for religous reasons, but I think they continued primarily for economic reasons. Trade dramatically increased after the Crusades began. As is the case in Ireland though, I do believe that the religous aspect of the Crusades has an impact even today, but who wants to talk about that?
    I think the by far more interesting study is how religions preach peace on one hand, while supporting the war apparatus on the other
    But, but, but, it is holy war.
    Bertrand Russell was vilified during WWI as a conscientious objecting atheist, while religion completely ignored their god-bloke Jesus' instruction to turn the other cheek, encouraging millions of young men to walk gladly to their deaths.
    Maybe if he had the brains to be a conscientous objecting theist, he would have merely been ostracized.

    I expect it has a lot to do with nationalism, you know it beings God's country, so defending that country's interests is tantamount to defending God's interest.

    Your right that is an interesting subject, I don't see why it can't be discussed here. A theist point of view might help a bit, though.

    Edit: Gotta catch up with some fast posters
    Oh, I just love the concept of an "honest war"! An honest atomic bomb, an honest rocket, an honest bullet, honest napalm, an honest 1000-bomber raid, an honest grenade, an honest bayonet. Good old honest warships. I'd love to hear a sensible description of that one! "Oh, don't worry about the total destruction of our city - it was honest!!" Really!
    I'm not sure what your getting at here, right now and in the past there have only been dishonest bayonets, is that somehow better? Its about the motive behind the destruction, which I think would be more honest without religion.
    I'm not advocating war, by the way.
    Last edited by Leland Gaunt; 08-09-2010 at 01:13 PM.
    Nothing, nothing is certain, except the insignificance of everything I can comprehend and the grandeur of something incomprehensible but most important" -Andrei Bolkonsky
    "But, I didn't do anything"- Professor Lawrence Gopnik
    "Cat in the wall, eh? Okay, now you're talking my language. I know this game." -Charlie Kelly

  7. #7
    Card-carrying Medievalist Lokasenna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    In a lurid pink building...
    Posts
    2,769
    Blog Entries
    5
    And to that, I offer up for examination St Thomas Aquinas' conditions for justified (or 'honest', if you prefer) warfare:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A644672

    If nothing else, this suggests the Church has been concerned, for at least 800 years, with the legitimation of war.
    "I should only believe in a God that would know how to dance. And when I saw my devil, I found him serious, thorough, profound, solemn: he was the spirit of gravity- through him all things fall. Not by wrath, but by laughter, do we slay. Come, let us slay the spirit of gravity!" - Nietzsche

  8. #8
    Registered User Leland Gaunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Columbus, NE
    Posts
    146
    And to that, I offer up for examination St Thomas Aquinas' conditions for justified (or 'honest', if you prefer) warfare:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A644672

    If nothing else, this suggests the Church has been concerned, for at least 800 years, with the legitimation of war.
    The words justified and honest have two entirely different meanings.

    Edit: Sorry Blaze, forgot to respond to you.
    I too love discussing things, I would also enjoy any insights you may have.
    Last edited by Leland Gaunt; 08-09-2010 at 07:11 AM.
    Nothing, nothing is certain, except the insignificance of everything I can comprehend and the grandeur of something incomprehensible but most important" -Andrei Bolkonsky
    "But, I didn't do anything"- Professor Lawrence Gopnik
    "Cat in the wall, eh? Okay, now you're talking my language. I know this game." -Charlie Kelly

  9. #9
    Orwellian The Atheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The George Orwell sub-forum
    Posts
    4,638
    Quote Originally Posted by dafydd manton View Post
    Oh, I just love the concept of an "honest war"! An honest atomic bomb, an honest rocket, an honest bullet, honest napalm, an honest 1000-bomber raid, an honest grenade, an honest bayonet. Good old honest warships. I'd love to hear a sensible description of that one! "Oh, don't worry about the total destruction of our city - it was honest!!" Really!
    You and me both, on this one.

    Don't you love it how people from precisely opposite starting gates have identical conclusions?

    Quote Originally Posted by Leland Gaunt View Post
    Maybe if he had the brains to be a conscientous objecting theist, he would have merely been ostracized.
    Maybe, but my point was more cynical than why Russell ostracised.

    I've already mentioned turning the other cheek, and believe me this is an argument I've had with theists more than once!

    The concepts of peace, forgiveness and non-retaliation are central tenets to christianity. Martin Luther King jnr was one of the very few theists who actually understood that.

    It just amuses me that someone who is clearly a minion of Satan and bound for hell - Russell - had far better (in my opinion) morals than people who apparently receive theirs from a god.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leland Gaunt View Post
    I expect it has a lot to do with nationalism, you know it beings God's country, so defending that country's interests is tantamount to defending God's interest.
    I'd say more self-preservation than nationalism in regard to the churches' stance. Religions rarely stand up against being conquered.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lokasenna View Post
    And to that, I offer up for examination St Thomas Aquinas' conditions for justified (or 'honest', if you prefer) warfare:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A644672

    If nothing else, this suggests the Church has been concerned, for at least 800 years, with the legitimation of war.
    Dear old Tommy! Thanks for that - let's have a look at these oft-quoted rules from the dark ages of superstition and irrationality. I love this bloke!

    The war must be started and controlled by the authority of state or ruler.

    There must be a just cause.

    The war must be for good, or against evil. Law and order must always be restored.

    This is why Hitler was a catholic - he could 100%, cast-iron guarantee he was fighting a just war.

    He was unquestionably head of state when started WWII. Tick.

    He had a multitude of just causes! Liebensraum, Wiemar, spreading Communism/Bolshevism, the British, the French.... The Maginot Line was built before the Siegfried. Tick, tick, tick!

    And a final tick on point 3. The war for good against evil - Germany had virtually no dominions against the 3/4 of the globe owned and run by the Frech and the Imerial Brits. Add into that the restrictions placed on Germany by its previous conquerors and the several hundred years of hatred and attempted invasion by the French, and there can have been few wars as just.

    Hitler was a big fan of law & order, too.

    Even looking at the extra couple of needs added in by the RCC, as contained in the article, Hitler must have been comfortable with starting a war.

    The war must be a last resort.

    No doubt about that one.

    The war must be fought proportionally.

    (This ambiguous statement is taken to mean: do not use more force than necessary or kill more civilians than necessary.)

    Right from the start, Adolf was organised along those lines; he didn't attack civilians to any great degree - other than Jews, but since they did kill Jesus, it's probably ok. The great sweep through the low countries spared many civilians, Paris was not destroyed by bombers and I must note that Germany's immense air forces were used to bomb military targets until Churchill decided to bomb Berlin.

    Deutschland uber Alles!

    (Anyone who doesn't realise there is a lot of tongue in cheek while writing all that should read it again, but the point stands that one man's just war is another man's atrocity.)

    Does anyone else find irony in a man trying to reinterpret the words of a god to negate the god's words?
    Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."

    Anon

  10. #10
    mazHur mazHur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    at the edge of the Arabian Sea
    Posts
    4,416
    Blog Entries
    1

    The edicts of king ashoka

    THE EDICTS OF KING ASHOKA


    Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, honors both ascetics and the householders of all religions, and he honors them with gifts and honors of various kinds.[22] But Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, does not value gifts and honors as much as he values this -- that there should be growth in the essentials of all religions.[23] Growth in essentials can be done in different ways, but all of them have as their root restraint in speech, that is, not praising one's own religion, or condemning the religion of others without good cause. And if there is cause for criticism, it should be done in a mild way. But it is better to honor other religions for this reason. By so doing, one's own religion benefits, and so do other religions, while doing otherwise harms one's own religion and the religions of others. Whoever praises his own religion, due to excessive devotion, and condemns others with the thought "Let me glorify my own religion," only harms his own religion. Therefore contact (between religions) is good.[24] One should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others. Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, desires that all should be well-learned in the good doctrines of other religions.

    Those who are content with their own religion should be told this: Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, does not value gifts and honors as much as he values that there should be growth in the essentials of all religions. And to this end many are working -- Dhamma Mahamatras, Mahamatras in charge of the women's quarters, officers in charge of outlying areas, and other such officers. And the fruit of this is that one's own religion grows and the Dhamma is illuminated also.
    13

    Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, conquered the Kalingas eight years after his coronation.[25] One hundred and fifty thousand were deported, one hundred thousand were killed and many more died (from other causes). After the Kalingas had been conquered, Beloved-of-the-Gods came to feel a strong inclination towards the Dhamma, a love for the Dhamma and for instruction in Dhamma. Now Beloved-of-the-Gods feels deep remorse for having conquered the Kalingas.

    Indeed, Beloved-of-the-Gods is deeply pained by the killing, dying and deportation that take place when an unconquered country is conquered. But Beloved-of-the-Gods is pained even more by this -- that Brahmans, ascetics, and householders of different religions who live in those countries, and who are respectful to superiors, to mother and father, to elders, and who behave properly and have strong loyalty towards friends, acquaintances, companions, relatives, servants and employees -- that they are injured, killed or separated from their loved ones. Even those who are not affected (by all this) suffer when they see friends, acquaintances, companions and relatives affected. These misfortunes befall all (as a result of war), and this pains Beloved-of-the-Gods.

    There is no country, except among the Greeks, where these two groups, Brahmans and ascetics, are not found, and there is no country where people are not devoted to one or another religion.[26] Therefore the killing, death or deportation of a hundredth, or even a thousandth part of those who died during the conquest of Kalinga now pains Beloved-of-the-Gods. Now Beloved-of-the-Gods thinks that even those who do wrong should be forgiven where forgiveness is possible.
    ===============-
    When asked how World War III would be fought, Einstein replied that he didn't know. But he knew how World War IV would be fought: With sticks and stones.
    -(:===============

  11. #11
    Orwellian The Atheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The George Orwell sub-forum
    Posts
    4,638
    Quote Originally Posted by mazHur View Post
    THE EDICTS OF KING ASHOKA
    The point of a discussion board is to give opinion, and I'm not confident that I can assume someone's opinion because they quote something. I'm not a theist, yet quote the christian bible as well as the islamic quran.

    You've quoted a passage from Buddhist literature, yet I understand you're a Muslim.

    Can you tell us what it was you meant by it?

    The quote itself deals with tolerance and acceptance of other religions, which is only marginally associated with the OP.
    Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."

    Anon

  12. #12
    Registered User Leland Gaunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Columbus, NE
    Posts
    146
    You and me both, on this one.
    I still don't get what either of you are trying to say.
    Maybe, but my point was more cynical than why Russell ostracised.

    I've already mentioned turning the other cheek, and believe me this is an argument I've had with theists more than once!

    The concepts of peace, forgiveness and non-retaliation are central tenets to christianity. Martin Luther King jnr was one of the very few theists who actually understood that.

    It just amuses me that someone who is clearly a minion of Satan and bound for hell - Russell - had far better (in my opinion) morals than people who apparently receive theirs from a god.
    Hmmmmm, well I was just joking around about Bertrand Russel.
    I think we might be delving a little off-topic here. I'd rather not get into a whole ordeal about how the Bible is allegory, and is open to a fair deal of personal interpretation and cherry picking. Just know that I agree with you, and that religious folk can suffer from a good deal of cognitive dissonance.
    I'd say more self-preservation than nationalism in regard to the churches' stance. Religions rarely stand up against being conquered.
    I understand what your saying, but I thought we were talking about the country as opposed to the church. For example, in regards to WWI which you mentioned earlier, the government may have gone to war for political reasons but the people could use religion to justify participation. It was their Christian duty, or somesuch.
    Dear old Tommy! Thanks for that - let's have a look at these oft-quoted rules from the dark ages of superstition and irrationality. I love this bloke!

    The war must be started and controlled by the authority of state or ruler.

    There must be a just cause.

    The war must be for good, or against evil. Law and order must always be restored.

    This is why Hitler was a catholic - he could 100%, cast-iron guarantee he was fighting a just war.

    He was unquestionably head of state when started WWII. Tick.

    He had a multitude of just causes! Liebensraum, Wiemar, spreading Communism/Bolshevism, the British, the French.... The Maginot Line was built before the Siegfried. Tick, tick, tick!

    And a final tick on point 3. The war for good against evil - Germany had virtually no dominions against the 3/4 of the globe owned and run by the Frech and the Imerial Brits. Add into that the restrictions placed on Germany by its previous conquerors and the several hundred years of hatred and attempted invasion by the French, and there can have been few wars as just.

    Hitler was a big fan of law & order, too.

    Even looking at the extra couple of needs added in by the RCC, as contained in the article, Hitler must have been comfortable with starting a war.

    The war must be a last resort.

    No doubt about that one.

    The war must be fought proportionally.

    (This ambiguous statement is taken to mean: do not use more force than necessary or kill more civilians than necessary.)

    Right from the start, Adolf was organised along those lines; he didn't attack civilians to any great degree - other than Jews, but since they did kill Jesus, it's probably ok. The great sweep through the low countries spared many civilians, Paris was not destroyed by bombers and I must note that Germany's immense air forces were used to bomb military targets until Churchill decided to bomb Berlin.
    That was a fun read.
    Nothing, nothing is certain, except the insignificance of everything I can comprehend and the grandeur of something incomprehensible but most important" -Andrei Bolkonsky
    "But, I didn't do anything"- Professor Lawrence Gopnik
    "Cat in the wall, eh? Okay, now you're talking my language. I know this game." -Charlie Kelly

  13. #13
    dafydd dafydd manton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Sheffield, South Yorks, England. Tha knows.
    Posts
    4,831
    Blog Entries
    7
    What I was getting at was this. You mentioned an "honest" war, but you haven't explained what you meant by that. The Atheist agreed, although we come from different directions. Can you actually justify a war? One in which YOUR family are killed or maimed? Or mine? I'd love to hear how, although I very much doubt I will!!
    Dafydd Manton, A Legend In His Own Lunchtime!! www.dafydd-manton.co.uk

    My Work Has Been Spread Over Many Fields!

  14. #14
    Orwellian The Atheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The George Orwell sub-forum
    Posts
    4,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Leland Gaunt View Post
    I still don't get what either of you are trying to say.
    daffyd's nailed it here:

    Quote Originally Posted by dafydd manton View Post
    What I was getting at was this. You mentioned an "honest" war, but you haven't explained what you meant by that. The Atheist agreed, although we come from different directions. Can you actually justify a war? One in which YOUR family are killed or maimed? Or mine? I'd love to hear how, although I very much doubt I will!!
    To which I'll add that the entire concept of war is flawed and as repugnant to me as it was to Bertie Russell; I share his feelings 100%. I stated time and again - when I was young enough to be sent to war - that I would be a conscientious objector myself.

    The only reason wars exist is because there are people dumb enough to take part in them. Without "grunts", war would be a boxing match between two old men - which would mean it would never happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leland Gaunt View Post
    That was a fun read.
    Goodo! It's just as much fun writing it.

    Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."

    Anon

  15. #15
    Registered User Leland Gaunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Columbus, NE
    Posts
    146
    What I was getting at was this. You mentioned an "honest" war, but you haven't explained what you meant by that. The Atheist agreed, although we come from different directions. Can you actually justify a war? One in which YOUR family are killed or maimed? Or mine? I'd love to hear how, although I very much doubt I will!!
    Okay, sorry for being vague. I'm saying that reasons for going to war, wouldn't be hidden behind things like, God's will. Or a fight against evil. It'd be we want oil! Although, if you are trying to say that war is NEVER justified, then I think that you are ignoring a lot of political and humanitarian realities. Thank you for that wonderful bit of rhetoric there, I have indeed had a family member die in a war. Does this add anything to this discussion? No. Did your last 3 sentences add anything? No.
    The only reason wars exist is because there are people dumb enough to take part in them. Without "grunts", war would be a boxing match between two old men - which would mean it would never happen.
    Ok, I will bite. But now that it has come into existence, it has created certain realities. Human nature is a tough thing to change, and it would be quite the undertaking to eliminate war. My thinking is that if we can start getting rid of dishonest/poor reasons like religion, to go to war over, then overall war would decrease and only be used in the most extreme situations.
    Last edited by Leland Gaunt; 08-09-2010 at 06:12 PM.
    Nothing, nothing is certain, except the insignificance of everything I can comprehend and the grandeur of something incomprehensible but most important" -Andrei Bolkonsky
    "But, I didn't do anything"- Professor Lawrence Gopnik
    "Cat in the wall, eh? Okay, now you're talking my language. I know this game." -Charlie Kelly

Page 1 of 14 12345611 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •