Religion and War

[The Atheist]

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!

They'll take you away...

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.

It wasn't there to bite on - it's an opinion that's had 40 years of scepticism to deal with.

I disagree with you entirely. There is no middle ground - it's either kill or do not kill.

Nobody said it would be easy to give up wars and the desire to fight in them, but I don't believe there's a way to legitimise war either. The example of WWII should disspell that forever, because one man's just reason may in fact be a very bad reason.

To avoid politics and stick to history, I'll use the example of Vietnam. The USA felt its reasons for that war were quite legitimate - they were asked to join! Yet, there is no doubt that millions of lives would have not been lost or damaged had they stayed home. All that war did was delay the inevitable victory of the Northern armies and create immense suffering in the region.

There are no "good" reasons for wars. Martin Luther King jnr changed a nation while Mohandas Ghandi reclaimed one - both with a distinctly peaceful approach. It isn't as if we have no examples of pacifism winning.

[Leland Gaunt]

They'll take you away...

?

It wasn't there to bite on - it's an opinion that's had 40 years of scepticism to deal with.

I disagree with you entirely. There is no middle ground - it's either kill or do not kill.

Nobody said it would be easy to give up wars and the desire to fight in them, but I don't believe there's a way to legitimise war either. The example of WWII should disspell that forever, because one man's just reason may in fact be a very bad reason.

To avoid politics and stick to history, I'll use the example of Vietnam. The USA felt its reasons for that war were quite legitimate - they were asked to join! Yet, there is no doubt that millions of lives would have not been lost or damaged had they stayed home. All that war did was delay the inevitable victory of the Northern armies and create immense suffering in the region.

There are no "good" reasons for wars. Martin Luther King jnr changed a nation while Mohandas Ghandi reclaimed one - both with a distinctly peaceful approach. It isn't as if we have no examples of pacifism winning.

I bit your opinion.

There's the first problem, it cannot be left up to one man. It really should be more of an international decision. For example, x country is committing genocide, there is no sign of x country ever stopping. Genocide, is completely unacceptable, and I'm fairly certain that most people in most countries will agree with this. In such a case, I think it is perfectly acceptable, for an intervention to be made. Not by a single country, but a joint effort.

Vietnam, is another example for poor reasoning to go to war, ideological opposition. If the majority of people within a country decide communism is the way to go, then good deal. That is none of my affair. If they so choose, and choose they did, then no one should stop them. If they start massacring hundreds of thousands of people, then it is a problem.
MLK did indeed change a nation. Yet there are still racists and segregationists, on both sides of the fence. Point is, you can't convince everybody, but you can convince the majority and you have to be able to react to the violent minority that will always exist.

By the way, thank you to everyone who has responded. I'm only really beginning to flesh out who I am, and everyone here has made me have to think my position through.
I eagerly wait for a rebuttal.

[Virgil]

To avoid politics and stick to history, I'll use the example of Vietnam. The USA felt its reasons for that war were quite legitimate - they were asked to join! Yet, there is no doubt that millions of lives would have not been lost or damaged had they stayed home. All that war did was delay the inevitable victory of the Northern armies and create immense suffering in the region.

There was war going on there even before the US joined in. Millions (not sure if it's millions, but whatever) of lives were being lost beforehand and would have been lost even if the US had not joined in. You have a really simplified view of the conflict between the north and the south Vietnamese. And don't forget the three million lives lost in the region once the US pulled out. I believe the dominoe theory was correct and war would have spread across all those nations in the region. The US involvment in the region stymied the communist expansion and submission of half a dozen nations there.

There are no "good" reasons for wars. Martin Luther King jnr changed a nation while Mohandas Ghandi reclaimed one - both with a distinctly peaceful approach. It isn't as if we have no examples of pacifism winning.

Frankly that's naive. Did pacifism prevent ancient Roman conquest across Europe or Persia across asia or Chinese expansion and conquest across half of asia or Islamic conquest across north africa and western asia or germanic-viking conquest across northern Europe or slavic conquest across Russia and eastern Europe or or the Spanish conquistadors in the Americas or Napolean or Hitler or the Japanese raping of mainland China? The list goes on and on. Think of all the millions if not billions of people dead throughout history from aggression. There is little evidence that pacifism works, and I'm a Christian who believes in Christ's words. The instances of pacifism working are far and few to be found. War is not motivated by religion or money or even land. Those are just excuses from which human nature selects reasons to display aggression. War is ingrained in human nature and unless human nature is altered somehow, war will be with us until eternity.

[mazHur]

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

.

In fact the quote deals with how War changed the outlook of a Great King due to religion ie after Ashoka adopted Buddhism. It also gives rise to the question that 'warring tendency' is much dependent on the 'religion' one adheres to.

Sometimes a quote is necessary to convey a 'sea in a nutshell' rather than
keep treading on the beaten track...

War, I think, is only necessary in self-defense.....coupled with the 'ideological war' of religion or no religion, whatever.
[/B]

.........

[The Atheist]

There's the first problem, it cannot be left up to one man. It really should be more of an international decision. For example, x country is committing genocide, there is no sign of x country ever stopping. Genocide, is completely unacceptable, and I'm fairly certain that most people in most countries will agree with this. In such a case, I think it is perfectly acceptable, for an intervention to be made. Not by a single country, but a joint effort.

Well, I can't deal with this without recourse to politics, so I'll just note that both the UN and League of Nations failed to make it happen.

The power is actually with the people, not policymakers, but they'll probably never get it.

There was war going on there even before the US joined in. Millions (not sure if it's millions, but whatever) of lives were being lost beforehand and would have been lost even if the US had not joined in.

I count millions of Cambodians in the mix.

That the conflict had been going on for many years is hardly an excuse for the US continuation of the conflict, and as we can all see in hindsight, it was an abject failure. 58,000 American families would not have been bereaved for starters.

You have a really simplified view of the conflict between the north and the south Vietnamese.

Not at all - I understand the history very well indeed, but I am dealing with just one part; the US involvement.

And don't forget the three million lives lost in the region once the US pulled out.

I don't - see above re: Cambodia.

I believe the dominoe theory was correct and war would have spread across all those nations in the region. The US involvment in the region stymied the communist expansion and submission of half a dozen nations there.

I will just beg to differ, but it's a beautiful theory which nobody can ever say for sure would have happened.

Frankly that's naive.

In what way? It is factual that Ghandi and MLK used pacifist techniques to achieve great victories, or are you disputing that?

Did pacifism prevent ancient Roman conquest ....

Show me where organised pacifism featured in any of those conflicts and you may have a point. I also did not say that pacifism has always worked.

Please try responding to what was said rather than what you wish had been said.

There is little evidence that pacifism works, and I'm a Christian who believes in Christ's words.

You must find that one hell of a conundrum, but in terms of evidence that pacifism works, I have given you two excellent examples, so saying there's little evidence is just erroneous.

The instances of pacifism working are far and few to be found.

Aside from the two shining examples....

I again reiterate that organised pacifism has not actually featured in many conflicts, so the real naivety would be to claim that few examples have worked, because there have been incredibly few attempts.

If you can think of another conflict where large-scale pacifist behaviour was attempted, please let me know.

War is not motivated by religion or money or even land. Those are just excuses from which human nature selects reasons to display aggression. War is ingrained in human nature and unless human nature is altered somehow, war will be with us until eternity.

That's a defeatist attitude if ever I've seen one.

I seriously wonder why you bothered posting all of that. You offer no evidence, yet ignore that which has been presented and then follow it up with a series of non sequiturs.

[billl]

Obviously non-violence can be very effective in certain circumstances. MLK and Ghandi used nonviolent tactics to transform their societies. Even today, the difficult but brave tactic is showing some effectiveness in Burma, although the outcome is still unsure, to say the least, and I don't mean to suggest that a happy ending is clearly in sight.

But are there any examples of non-violent opposition (alone) halting a military invasion? Can we imagine that the Poles, using such a tactic, would have had success against Hitler?

I think it is fine to point at aggressors like Hitler (even all aggressors) and suggest they would have been better to choose non-violence. But would England at that time have been able to hold out against the Germans without violent resistance, and without support in such from the U.S. (and the Soviets)?

Of course, international news, satellite TV, and the internet might open up new possibilities, and might have given a field full of unarmed Poles a chance against an armored assault... But there is still the problem of "Who controls the media?", as well as 'tribal-type' thinking that might be all too ready to suspect propaganda and conspiracy, etc.

Anyhow, there seems to be some apples and oranges going on in this discussion, and I wonder if some people are misunderstanding what others are favoring or opposing. I'm not trying to argue that organized non-violent resistance can't work, but I think it is a bit drastic to say that it would be/would have been an effective method in each and every matter of self-defense.


EDIT: Wow, I'm sorry, I just realized this has really gone off-topic at this point. I was just trying to address nonviolent resistance to War (i.e. military invasion), and didn't realize the thread has Religion in the title...

[The Atheist]

I'm not trying to argue that organized non-violent resistance can't work, but I think it is a bit drastic to say that it would be/would have been an effective method in each and every matter of self-defense.

I'm certainly not saying it would work in all cases - and the two cases I used as examples didn't involve an invader.

On the other hand, who's to say that passive tactics wouldn't work in the longer term?

You're also right that it's a long way off-topic - amazing how many threads I'm in do that...

I'll leave it there!

[mazHur]

Obviously non-violence can be very effective in certain circumstances. MLK and Ghandi used nonviolent tactics to transform their societies. Even today, the difficult but brave tactic is showing some effectiveness in Burma, although the outcome is still unsure, to say the least, and I don't mean to suggest that a happy ending is clearly in sight.

But are there any examples of non-violent opposition (alone) halting a military invasion? Can we imagine that the Poles, using such a tactic, would have had success against Hitler?

I think it is fine to point at aggressors like Hitler (even all aggressors) and suggest they would have been better to choose non-violence. But would England at that time have been able to hold out against the Germans without violent resistance, and without support in such from the U.S. (and the Soviets)?

Of course, international news, satellite TV, and the internet might open up new possibilities, and might have given a field full of unarmed Poles a chance against an armored assault... But there is still the problem of "Who controls the media?", as well as 'tribal-type' thinking that might be all too ready to suspect propaganda and conspiracy, etc.

Anyhow, there seems to be some apples and oranges going on in this discussion, and I wonder if some people are misunderstanding what others are favoring or opposing. I'm not trying to argue that organized non-violent resistance can't work, but I think it is a bit drastic to say that it would be/would have been an effective method in each and every matter of self-defense.

Gandhi was a clever man. He had his fingers on the nerve of time. He could perceive that the British colonial control was losing its grip on India and the nationalist forces were behind him. Gandhi used non-violence and rejection of all imported stuff in protest. Weak as British colonial grip had become on India there was little left for them not to relent. From this it's clear that non-violence mainly works depending on the circumstances of a place and its people. Analogously, otherwise it is 'spare the rod, spoil the child' phenomenon.

[JBI]

There was war going on there even before the US joined in. Millions (not sure if it's millions, but whatever) of lives were being lost beforehand and would have been lost even if the US had not joined in. You have a really simplified view of the conflict between the north and the south Vietnamese. And don't forget the three million lives lost in the region once the US pulled out. I believe the dominoe theory was correct and war would have spread across all those nations in the region. The US involvment in the region stymied the communist expansion and submission of half a dozen nations there.


Frankly that's naive. Did pacifism prevent ancient Roman conquest across Europe or Persia across asia or Chinese expansion and conquest across half of asia or Islamic conquest across north africa and western asia or germanic-viking conquest across northern Europe or slavic conquest across Russia and eastern Europe or or the Spanish conquistadors in the Americas or Napolean or Hitler or the Japanese raping of mainland China? The list goes on and on. Think of all the millions if not billions of people dead throughout history from aggression. There is little evidence that pacifism works, and I'm a Christian who believes in Christ's words. The instances of pacifism working are far and few to be found. War is not motivated by religion or money or even land. Those are just excuses from which human nature selects reasons to display aggression. War is ingrained in human nature and unless human nature is altered somehow, war will be with us until eternity.

Which half of Asia did China conquer? I think you mean Mongolian.

Anyway, I agree with you, but war and aggression are becoming more and more dated. The new trend is soft-imperialism. Notice how Germany, for instance, tries to promote themselves as following Goethe's legacy, China Confucius' (even though 40 years ago they would beat you in the street for carrying a copy), Canada an "arctic vision" and Japan now a popular culture imperialism.

Culture and redefinition is the new in, as nobody wants war anymore - it's been proven to be a dated concept, since solidified nation borders are the preferred route over constant clashing or aggression. In truth, the US is one of the few countries that seems to promote a violent aggression over a soft one.

Take for instance Taiwan - the old "Free China" now has, in a way, beat the big old Red China through culture - Chinese people listen to music from Taiwan, watch TV dramas from Taiwan, and do it all on Taiwanese made electronics. Culturally, they have become molded to a semi-Taiwanese mentality, so that the issue of cross-straight relations is now reduced to "let's just not discuss it, and continue to get rich off of our trade surplus with them.



In this scheme, Religion, as it ties in, is actually a very interesting thing, since it is ultimately an oral, rather than written tradition (until recently).

Christianity is the one thing that really seems to transcend geographic borders in the world, and, from my reckoning, if we take Vatican 2 into account, is one of the most humbling, beneficial doctrines to spread, even with the chaotic European disasters that it encompassed - it essentially kept Europe together over an 800 year period, and kept culture alive.

Now, religion now plays a rather minor role in most places that have undergone a modernization process of some kind (that is, a transformation that has divorced the contemporary society from the past, so that the past ultimately becomes a museum).

As a form of soft-imperialism, the fact that some churches are completely divorced from national boundaries makes them go beyond that category. The connection between religion and War really now is very limited - it's more a question of nationalist-religious intolerance and war, which is a different animal all together, apart from religion.

[mazHur]

by JBI
The connection between religion and War really now is very limited - it's more a question of nationalist-religious intolerance and war, which is a different animal all together, apart from religion.

Add to it linguistic and sectarian (ethnic) aspirations and you get to the heart of matter.
Very nice comment, JBI.

[Leland Gaunt]

Culture and redefinition is the new in, as nobody wants war anymore - it's been proven to be a dated concept, since solidified nation borders are the preferred route over constant clashing or aggression.

What study was that? What poll? Where are the statistics? Who proved that?That is an extremely reductionist view on what war is and can be.

Take for instance Taiwan - the old "Free China" now has, in a way, beat the big old Red China through culture - Chinese people listen to music from Taiwan, watch TV dramas from Taiwan, and do it all on Taiwanese made electronics.

Insignificant, my bet, is that China could really care less. You know, them becoming a economic and political powerhouse.

Christianity is the one thing that really seems to transcend geographic borders in the world

Really, the one thing?

one of the most humbling, beneficial doctrines to spread, even with the chaotic European disasters that it encompassed - it essentially kept Europe together over an 800 year period, and kept culture alive.

Care to elaborate?

Now, religion now plays a rather minor role in most places that have undergone a modernization process of some kind (that is, a transformation that has divorced the contemporary society from the past, so that the past ultimately becomes a museum).

If you don't mind, I'd like to talk about this some more. But it takes us off topic, so I'd really appreciate it if we could continue this through PM. If you would be willing to, send me a PM so we can get this ball rolling. Or maybe start a new thread.

Apologies, for not addressing some of the points you made, they were touching upon current politics just a wee bit too much.

[OrphanPip]

This is really a topic that professional political scientist can't even agree on. There are some, from the Neorealist school, who think war is an inevitable tool to be used for a state's own benefit. They think states act in their own interest, and will take advantage of perceived chances at increasing their power/security when they arise. The other major school, Neoliberalism, would probably agree more with the sentiment JBI expressed, they think trade and democracy have essentially put an end to war as a useful tool. Marxist have bought into the idea of cultural imperialism too.

There's also the major issue of the nuclear bomb, which has made large scale war between major powers a very risky business, and to date no state has tried to risk it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoreal...l_relations%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolibe...onal_relations

[JBI]

To Leland

Just read the works of Jesus Christ - for their time, they were beyond revolutionary. If you look across the world at the time period, I cannot find any other author, in any tradition that I have seen who has had the impact of creating a doctrine of human kindness toward fellow man - the gospels are filled with promotion of charity, and good will. Likewise, the whole catholic culture is built around a mythology of good deeds.

Atheist, as I am, or believer, one cannot deny the good Christianity has done in the world, in terms of keeping Europe together - throughout the dark ages, the Catholic church was responsible for keeping all the traditions and inheritances of the classical world in one hand, and also maintaining a civil coherence on the continent as a whole. The identity that shaped Europe is inseparable from a Christian tradition.


As for my mark about the "one" thing, that is a figure of speech, take it easy.

As for the last point, if you want, start a new thread, or just get any book on Modernization theory, as others have articulated it far better than I have. The whole field of political science in truth, seems rooted in a discussion of Modernization theory.

[Virgil]

That the conflict had been going on for many years is hardly an excuse for the US continuation of the conflict, and as we can all see in hindsight, it was an abject failure. 58,000 American families would not have been bereaved for starters.

If Vietnam was one element of the overall Cold War, then no it was not a failure. Ultimately we won the war over communism, and frankly after Vietnam, there was no successful Communist expansion with the possible exception of Angola. And that is no coincidence. We outlasted them. We burned them out. And if you add the 34,000 we lost from the Korean War to the 58,000, that amounts to less than a quarter of the men we lost in WWII. No good man should have to die, but freedom isn't free but Soviet expansion had to be stopped.

Not at all - I understand the history very well indeed, but I am dealing with just one part; the US involvement.

Well, that sounds like you just pick up the pop culture view of the Vietnam War. Dealing with one part is pulling the war out of context. That's simplifying to the point of fallacy.

I will just beg to differ, but it's a beautiful theory which nobody can ever say for sure would have happened.

True, one can never know the alternative. But communism never again significantly expanded after the Vietnam.

In what way? It is factual that Ghandi and MLK used pacifist techniques to achieve great victories, or are you disputing that?

Well, first of all MLK civil rights accomplishments were not an international war, so i don't even see what that has to do with the discussion. It was an intra-national issue. Second, you're pulling the pacificism out of context. Sure MLK was a pacifist who pushed civil rights laws in a non-violent manner. But in parallel there were lots of riots and violent outburts that went on for close to a century. All that contributed to the ultimate decisions to extend civil rights to african-americans. To simply say that MLK was solely responsible for changing the civil rights laws in the US is to again simplify to the point of fallacy. It's again a pop culture look at the issue. I can't speak with confidence to Ghandi's accomplishments, but again that has an element of an intra-national issue (though admittedly complicated because of colonialism) and he too was not working in an isolated vacuum. I believe there were lots of violent events in parallel with his non-violent approach. I don't see how one strips away the overall context.

Show me where organised pacifism featured in any of those conflicts and you may have a point. I also did not say that pacifism has always worked.

Well, just like I can't prove the dominoe theory since I can't alter actual events, neither can you say that pacifism would have successfully altered any of those events. Yes, there were lots of pacifist in this events. Many of the Indian cultures over taken by the conquistodores were relatively non-violent. Check out how the Viklings singled out monestaries because of their lack of will to fight. Or what about the Jews under the nazis. But to claim the roman Empire or seventh century Islamic jihad, or napoleon or Japanese conquest of China would have been halted from pacifism is - what can I say - laughable.

You must find that one hell of a conundrum, but in terms of evidence that pacifism works, I have given you two excellent examples, so saying there's little evidence is just erroneous.

Flawed examples as I've pointed out. The only real example I can think of where pacifism stopped a waring army is Pope Leo stopping Atilla the Hun at the gates of Rome, where Atilla was actually moved by the Pope's humility.

I again reiterate that organised pacifism has not actually featured in many conflicts, so the real naivety would be to claim that few examples have worked, because there have been incredibly few attempts.

Well, I'm sorry, but reality has tons of examples of brutal killers, way more than your two shining examples. Here's something I was just reading about Che Guavera:

Rigoberto Hernandez was 17 when Che’s soldiers dragged him from his cell in La Cabana, jerked his head back to gag him and started dragging him to the stake. Little “Rigo” pleaded his innocence to the very bloody end. But his pleas were garbled and difficult to understand. His struggles while being gagged and bound to the stake were also awkward. The boy had been a janitor in a Havana high school and was mentally retarded. His single mother had pleaded his case with hysterical sobs. She had begged, beseeched and finally proven to his “prosecutors” that it was a case of mistaken identity. Her only son, a boy in such a condition, couldn’t possibly have been “a CIA agent planting bombs.”

“Fuego!” and the firing squad volley riddled Rigo’s little bent body as he moaned and struggled awkwardly against his bounds, blindfold and gag. Remember the gallant Che Guevara’s instructions to his revolutionary courts: “Judicial evidence is an archaic bourgeois detail.” And remember that Harvard Law School’s invitation to Fidel Castro to speak on campus, and rollicking ovation he received, happened in the very midst of this appalling and lawless bloodbath.

http://1z3em8xyw.site.aplus.net/User...field=&usrID=&

I assume you think that pacifism would have worked there.

If you can think of another conflict where large-scale pacifist behaviour was attempted, please let me know.

I'll say it again and in bold:
The instances of pacifism working are far and few to be found.

That's a defeatist attitude if ever I've seen one.

Human nature doesn't change. That's reality. I don't suck in to utopias.

I seriously wonder why you bothered posting all of that. You offer no evidence, yet ignore that which has been presented and then follow it up with a series of non sequiturs.

No evidence? I listed at least a half a dozen historical events. Here I'll list them again:

Did pacifism prevent ancient Roman conquest across Europe or Persia across asia or Chinese expansion and conquest across half of asia or Islamic conquest across north africa and western asia or germanic-viking conquest across northern Europe or slavic conquest across Russia and eastern Europe or or the Spanish conquistadors in the Americas or Napolean or Hitler or the Japanese raping of mainland China? The list goes on and on.

Should I continue and mention English, French, Belgium, Portugese, German, Italian colonialism? Or the Vedic empires or Alexander the Great or the Babylonian conquests, the Aztec empire, the list goes on and on across time and geography. Human nature is human nature. There has never been a 25 year period where there wasn't a major war somewhere on the planet. Even the Pax Romana is a fallacy. There was plenty of warfare during the 200 years.

[JuniperWoolf]

I'll say it again and in bold:
The instances of pacifism working are far and few to be found.

His whole point was that the instances of pacifism having been attempted are few. There are two grand examples of it having been attempted and greatly succeeding. Can you give any examples of it having been attempted on a grand scale and failing? If not then there's no proof that pacifism is doomed to failure. You see, because if it hasn't even been tried, then how do you know that it won't work?

We outlasted them. We burned them out.

Who's "we?"