Not even 'the troubles' in Northern Ireland, not even the sporadic wars between India and Pakistan, and not even the Crusades. Look deep enough and there are always economic reasons for any war you can imagine.

Because to claim that religion had nothing to do with sending thousands of armed men to capture the Holy land, or that there isn't a deep hatred built up over centuries between the Hindus and Muslim, based mostly on the religion each follow, is a bit absurd.

and I'm not denying religion-based animosity; that has and always will exist. When leaders raise armies to send against adherents of another religion, however, I always see reasons that have little to do with religion itself. The Crusades, for example, had more to do with reopening trade routes with Asia than with recapturing the Holy Land - that and keeping a restive population in Europe occupied with tasks other than forming powerful states with the power to challenge papal authority. In the case of India and Pakistan, the reasons cited always relate to territorial boundaries and water rights - not religious differences.

I'll continue with this discussion if you can refrain from gratuitous insults. Fuck that shit.

Which is always a hazard on the internet. Sorry. I did modified it with "a bit"
Still disagree with you though. The leaders, even religious leaders always have other motives. But that armies are raised and wars are fought using religion as a reason I don't think is disputable.
Clashes in the major cities of India and Pakistan during the Partition were not over "water rights".

and that's why a closer look is always needed. Religion is used as a tool to keep people stirred up, but an underlying reason can always be found. As for water rights, it's true that none of the clashes between India and Pakistan were directly related to the Indus Waters Treaty, but there's been considerable sabre-rattling over water rights over the years. Thank Dog that treaty has held; otherwise, things could get inflamed to the point that one or the other considers dropping The Big One.

Everybody imagines their deity supports their war, and that's why a closer look is needed. Religion is cited merely as a justification, but the roots, I've found, are always economic.

Care to expound upon your 'observation?'

A history teacher hypothesized that pretty much all of history's events could be attributed to economic reasons. There may be subordinate reasons that get played up and help make the decision (we want what these other people have, and besides, they're heathens so we're just doing God's will), or lies are manufactured before, during, or after to obscure the real reason, but it all comes down to money. I remember his linking this to the Trojan War, which was really about shipping lanes in the Adriatic Sea as opposed to getting back a hot babe (Helen, whose face launched a 1000 ships).

I tend to subscribe to that hypothesis.

TlalocW

religion often plays a large role in getting others on board, arousing the passions, enforcing commitment, etc.

the king may want the war for wealth, but that doesn't motivate the peasant to risk his life. that's where religion comes in, as a tool leaders can (ab)-use to serve their non-religious agenda.

then there's also atrocities that may happen in the context of war. wwii was motivated primarily by nationalism and economic resentment rather than religion, but you can't have an attempted genocide against an entire religion without thinking religion was a factor.

then again, hitler's rise to power was fueled in part by religious considerations, as anti-semitism played a key role. one could argue that he wouldn't have become dictator (and therefore wwii might not have happened, at least not in europe) had it not been for religion. i'm not sure i'd go that far; i think hitler would simply have used some other form of manipulation had anti-semitism not proven as popular and effective as it did. then again, i suppose we'll never know....

Hitler's Final Solution???

but I don't believe it was because of their religion. It had more to do with the economic threat he imagined that they represented. Plus, the Holocaust was only one aspect of WWII. All other facets of that conflict had everything to do with territorial conquest - back to economics.

had nothing to do with religion either?
No body is saying that religion is the ONLY factor in these. But you seem to be saying it was not a factor at all, or a very minor one. That does not ring true with the historical facts.

Sure, all that propaganda worked in turning people against 'them Joos 'whut kilt are Christ', but I maintain that religious hatred was not the prime motivator. It was about confiscating property and wealth - not about dietary habits, which day of the week was holy, or cutting the wee turtlenecks from the penises of newborn babies.

where he blames the Jews (Saul/Paul is named a lot) for ruining the true story of Christ who Hitler did not believe to be a Jew?

I'd always considered Hitler a 'nominal' Christian who used his religiosity for propaganda purposes. I'd always assumed he was more into mythical, occult shit that had nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian tradition.

He really defines his own sense of Christianity, but it explains a lot of his hatred toward Jews. But certainly the economic realities of Germany at the time made his rise to power possible--though one can't discount the overall hatred of the Jews in the country.

Hitler used centuries-old hatreds to his advantage - the same hatreds that many leaders whipped-up among the people and had used to their advantage numerous times. Every time a Czar encouraged a pogrom, it represented a territorial and economic gain for people the Czar considered more useful for his own purposes.

But in a reply somewhere you admit, and kind of do here, that religion is the method used to get people to support the wars in a lot of instances. Though it may indicate that religion is not THE reason for all the wars, but it is a good indication that without the religion, the war may not have had the support to move forward. Either way, not a check in the positive column of religion.

I might go so far as to say that religion may be *the* most effective tool for generating popular support for an endeavor that could possibly end with their own annihilation. It's easier to get people all fired-up to fight for Jesus than for Exxon Mobil.

While the heads of government in any conflict or war might have other reasons, and while they might be telling their people that it's "destiny" or fate, or that God told them to have a war, does that not MAKE it for religious reasons? History will always be obscured by whatever reasons the government itself tells its own people. It's pretty much a tone of propaganda that gets everyone excited by whatever is used as the main points.

We saw it with Bush in the leadup to the attack on Iraq. However, it was said with an air of duplicity, a trademark, I think, of the neo-cons, Rovian philosophy, and anyone who deals in any kind of modern warfare (the Carlyle Group, Blackwater, CIA, etc.)

makes it *because* of religion. It doesn't matter what those who actually fight those wars think or believe; what matters is the motivation of the people in positions of real power - and their motives are the true reasons for wars.

We can't even see into the minds of those alive now, nevermind the minds of those who lived thousands of years ago. It's even uncertain now the true histories of the world, because the victors write history, not the losers. We can't get into their heads that easily, and all the archaeological digs in the world aren't going to tell, either.

That's my best guess for how to determine why wars were started. For example, the era of conquistadors in the so-called 'new world.' Priests blessed the men, ships & weaponry before sending them off to convert the 'heathens,' but once there, was it their souls they sought? No, it was their gold. Sure, the conquistadors brought along missionaries, but that was not the ultimate goal; taking all their shit was topmost on their list. The religion was a nice touch, though, as it kept the native peoples distracted with thoughts of a reward in heaven - all while their earthly possessions were being confiscated to enrich the king of Spain's coffers.

Well, there's nothing in the Judeo-Christian tradition like that!

... which imposed ridiculously high reparations on Germany. I don't really see any path to power for Hitler outside of the chaotic Germany that resulted from this treaty.

The immediate cause, of course, was the invasion of Poland - from the German point of view this was to win Lebensraum for the German people.

Without Hitler coming to power, I doubt there would have been any such thing as the Final Solution, so, I really don't see this as a primary cause of WW II.

But IIRC, the Pacific Theatre also was fought because the Emperor had said his "god" or "fate" told him he would eventually be emperor of the world.

and economics are the primary motivation for Japan to declare war on the United States. No matter what the Emperor believed, it was started over acquisition of raw materials and countering competition from the US, Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, etc. This conflict was practically inevitable, and Japan felt emboldened to start a war at a time when the US was just getting involved in the war in Europe.

A lot wrong.

Firstly, because the USA is secular it is not likely that religion would instigate a US war.

Secondly, religion exacerbates those wars that it does not start. Look at the Christian/Muslim undertow in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Religions used the conflicts against Communist states (Godless Commies) to get funding and followers and was also used by intelligence services as recruiting grounds for spies and saboteurs. Religions were major supporters of the Nazi and Fascist regimes sometimes assisting them because of the violence those regimes supported against Jews and Communists. Similar parallels can probably be found in all the other conflicts you cite.

Thirdly, although wars are instigated for many reasons some are irrevocably linked to faith. The Pakistan/Indian wars over Kashmir are entirely religious due to the enforced movement of people from their homes based solely on their religion. The Zionist wars in Israel and Palestine are religious wars. The Tokagawa Shogunate instituted a war of faith because of the attempted power plays of the Jesuits.

Fourthly, You WHAT?

but religion is just an excuse. The true reasons are always economic. Politicians use religion to whip up the populace to a frenzy, but the leaders have territory and resources on their mind - not religion.

we can claim all religions are nothing more than power grabs by an elite, using the people's beliefs in nonexistence deities to get what they want and keep people in line.
I don't think God or any god told anybody to kill. But the belief in them sure got people to do some awful things.

The partition of India was solely upon religious lines. It was not economics, nor was it language (the Indian State still has many recognised languages some of which are Pashtun based) and it was not racial. The leaders of the Pakistanis did not want Muslims participating as a minority in what still is the worlds largest secular democracy. Similarly the only reason for the establishment of the Zionist state of Israel was to provide a safe haven for those of a particular religion and the location was based solely upon a book of dubious religious legends. Both of these lead to modern, religion based conflicts.

On the same theme I am not as well founded in modern African wars but the little I do see is that fringe Christians us weasel words about secular freedoms whilst attempting to enforce their own, bloody versions of Christianity. The Tutsi/Hutu conflict in Rwanda was largely based on a religious divide between two tribal, Christian entities

It's important to keep in mind that the very first war after the partition was fought over control of Kashmir - and that had more to do with killing people and running out others in order to take their shit than with religious differences. Power and possessions - not religion.

I really hate to open the can of worms that goes along with any discussion of Zionism, so I'll only refer to the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which was written by a representative of the government of Great Britain in an attempt to tip the balance of power in favor of the allied powers. In fact, Balfour admits in the Palestine Papers that his advocacy for Zionist aspirations was primarily a tool for propaganda that would curry favor with both Russia and the United States. When it comes down to the nut-cutting, it was the British Empire's self-interest - economics - that provided the impetus for establishing a Jewish homeland. After World War II, when large-scale Jewish immigration ran up against British interests and armed conflict broke out between the British army and the Haganah, was religion the cause? No. Before this large-scale immigration to Palestine began, was there open conflict between Jews and Arabs? No. After Haganah convinced Great Britain that maybe it wasn't so worthwhile to keep fighting and they withdrew, and *then* conflict began between the Arabs and Jews, resulting in tens of thousands of Palestinians getting run off their property. Was that religious-based? Don't think so.

As for the Tutsi/Hutu conflict in Rwanda, it's my understanding that the primary reason for the conflict that culminated in genocide was over power - not religion - and it began many years earlier, from 1959-62, when the Hutu toppled the Tutsi monarchy that had ruled for centuries. With Uganda backing Tutsi refugees and France & their remnants of colonies in Africa backing the Tutsi, another conflict - this one much bloodier - was inevitable. Do you think France gave a flying fuck about religious differences between the Hutu and Tutsi? Again, it boils down to power and economics. Religion may have been used to inflame passions among the people, but those pulling the strings were after power and control.

Next example?

Kashmir was partitioned by agreement on religious lines not racial or economic and certainly not historical or geographic; the politics came after the religion. The people were killed because they were in the section of Kashmir not considered appropriate for those of their faith. This was, and is, a religious based war.

No you don't hate to open the can of worms, arguments are fun! Again what was the identifying feature of the peoples identified by the Balfour Declaration? It was their faith. What is more the people of that faith who encouraged Balfour and assisted in the writing of that declaration. Additionally the Christians of Europe wanted rid of people of a faith they despised, which is why it had so much resonance politically.

Following this the occupation of Palestine, the terrorism that followed, the establishment of the State of Israel were all done to fulfill a religious dogma, not a political necessity and not an economic compulsion. Please remember that the original Balfour declaration did not envisage an entirely Jewish state but a multi-ethnic one. The stated aims of the Zionists was precisely an entirely Jewish state and that has resulted in the displacement of large numbers of people not of that faith. Again, the conflict was based on religious dogma.

Tutsi and Hutu, you're probably right regarding France and Uganda; except that, as always, the rational used by the people who performed the genocide could be pushed into it were both religious and tribal. Additionally the tensions that were exploited by the politicians were religious and the religions exploited by those puppeteers were those that the puppeteers favoured in their own states.

Your turn, or shall we agree to disagree?

Yes, I know Kashmir was partitioned along religious lines, but I consider that secondary to the respective leaders' desire to make territorial gains.

As for the Balfour Declaration, I find the timeframe in which it was drafted to be especially pertinent. Zionism had been discussed prior to this, but in previous centuries, European kings and czars weren't too concerned. After all, they knew Jews in their respective realms could never gain any measure of real power. It was relatively easy to manipulate the people to start a pogrom, kill or run off everyone in the Jewish ghettoes, and take their property. I find it hard to believe that Lord Balfour's primary concern was the well-being of Jews in Europe; it was to get the US and Russia on-board with fighting the Triple Alliance. Up to the time of entry of the US and Russia, the war was a virtual stalemate which could have dragged on indefinitely. I attribute drafting the Balfour Declaration to realpolitik and not altruism.

Nothing with which to disagree on Hutu & Tutsi warfare. I freely admit that religion was used as a tool to create hatred among the respective peoples, but I hardly agree that it was the primary reason for years of warfare culminating in genocide. Remember, the Tutsi had held power for centuries - power that had more to do with full bellies than satisfied souls. I attribute the conflict to a struggle for power over all else.

To a degree I think it may have drawn inspiration from the misguided attempt of the US to set up a state for free slaves in Liberia and I think it was a similarly wrong headed. Given Balfour's background as a philosopher and a member of the, comparatively, liberal minded Church of England this 1917 declaration was probably intended as a humanitarian solution to the "Jewish Problem" (as it was then perceived). Certainly it was far more humane than the pogroms and genocides that both preceded and followed 1917.

Anti-semitism was rife even in the states that tolerated Jewish inhabitants and resulted in considerable loses in property and production. That said the driving force behind those persecutions was the centuries of anti-Jewish propaganda, issued primarily by religious sources. Given that background allowing Jewish settlers to move en masse to the "empty" lands of Palestine, now outside Turkish control, must have seemed like "a good idea at the time".

Of course this is all begging the original question about religions causing wars but I can be flexible enough to say that from the 19th century, and in what is now the 1st World, religion has be abused by more cynical players to enhance wars - often with the compliance of religious leaders. If you like, I am saying we are both right but we apply different emphasis.

I've got an overdeveloped sense of cynicism where religion is concerned.

Countries declare war.
People go to war.

Countries declare war for all sorts of reasons. There are complex socio-economic factors, alliances, political requirements and conveniences, a whole host of other possible motivations that can combine.

People go to war because they are forced to, or because they believe it is the right thing to do. It is that latter group wherein religious motivation plays a massive role. Just ask an Iraq veteran or an Air Force cadet.

But only ONE of the causes. There are deep rooted issues whenever there is war.

I do think some of the wars you mentioned that religion was indeed a major factor in those wars, though.

Religion is at the foubdation of a lot of things. The Black Plague, for example: because of the fear of witches, cats were essentially executed, and as a result, fleas with the bubonic plague spread. Cause and effect. The Crusades was/were a religious war. The Inquistion was definitely about religion. The entire Israel/Palestine/Middle East conflict has a large religious component. More, and more, and more to list.

As for WWII, it's disingenuous to say that religion wasn't a war about religion. Jews being executed is NOT about religion? Many of the wars in Great Britain have been largely about religion, and the monarch's right to divorce, and the "bloodline" being issued from "God" and not the people. The past, however shows that bloodline still continues to be a factor in the UK, but the monarch doesn't run the government in a significant way anymore.

While there have been non-relgious in the USA, t's been a fact that the beliefs of the Native Americans have been stomped on all across the country in the past, but even now, there are disputes over burial sites being developed by builders instead of being allowed to remain untouched.

Many wars within the US by Europeans were fought over territory more than anything else. But the fact is, many of the Europeans came to the "new country" for religious freedom mostly. So yes--religion WAS a factor in many ways, but it is NOT the only reason for war.

Well, there was the Philippine–American War, a/k/a the Philippine War of Independence or Philippine Insurrection (1899–1902).

Here's how President William McKinley decided to annex the Philippines, in his own words:

I have been criticized a good deal about the Philippines, but don’t deserve it. The truth is I didn’t want the Philippines, and when they came to us, as a gift from the gods, I did not know what to do with them...

I walked the floor of the White House night after night until midnight; and I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed to Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night.

And one night late it came to me this way—I don’t know how it was, but it came: (1) That we could not give them back to Spain—that would be cowardly and dishonorable; (2) that we could not turn them over to France and Germany—our commercial rivals in the Orient—that would be bad business and discreditable; (3) that we could not leave them to themselves—they were unfit for self-government—and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain’s was; and (4) that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God’s grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow-men for whom Christ also died.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5575/

That "Christianize them" bit is interesting. Thanks to 350 years of Spanish occupation, the majority of Filipinos were (and are) Catholic. Maybe he was talking about the MILFs...that is, the Mindanao Islamic Liberation Front. Sorry, couldn't resist that one.

The Philippine landgrab inspired Mark Twain to slightly re-write "The Battle Hymn of the Republic:"

...We have legalized the strumpet and are guarding her retreat;*
Greed is seeking out commercial souls before his judgement seat;
O, be swift, ye clods, to answer him! be jubilant my feet!
Our god is marching on!

In a sordid slime harmonious Greed was born in yonder ditch,
With a longing in his bosom -- and for others' goods an itch.
As Christ died to make men holy, let men die to make us rich --
Our god is marching on.

* NOTE: In Manila the Government has placed a certain industry under the protection of our flag. (M.T.)

Twain's note refers to U.S. troops guarding the Manila brothels. You can read the whole poem here:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainwp.htm

...I still subscribe much more to the imperialist interpretation which combines nationalism and economics more than any strict cultural interpretation.

You should read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_The_Person_Sitting_In_Darkness - if you are interested in this topic and Twain.

Also, if you're looking for an academic take on this topic at large there is always: http://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-American-Diplomacy-Anniversary-Edition/dp/0393334740/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334305162&sr=8-1

Religion is responsible for Thomas Kinkade.

And Krispy Kreme.

...I learned on 9/11?"

Yeah, you bet. Religion plays an important part of our wars.

For example:
Korea
Vietnam
--We not only feared "communism," but "Godless communism." Why the adjective?

A dozen against Latin American nations
--Again, "Marxists" and "Godless communism"

Iraq
Afghanistan
--Aren't we really fighting those Muslims? (Or "Muslins" if you prefer)

WWII
--"Mein Kampf" tells us that Hilter was a believer in God. Was it "our God" vs. "his God?"

And don't' forget, Pres. Truman "thanked God" for the atomic bomb (1'10&quot

.... but they sure do keep them going...

Vietnam/Korea from communism.

First Iraq war was a 'police action'.

WW2 was not about religion, etc.

Sure - some people may mention religion (kind of expected being that so many hold religious beliefs of some type) but the build up and reasons sold to us for wars of late have been terrorism and communism.

I would say resources and fear have driven wars and not religion (philosophy if anything....).

But rallying around a group identity is necessary for a war to happen, and often the rallying is around an identity based on nationality, ethnicity or religion, or all three.

Along with a few other people...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/121822933

So who's dead wrong?