Tuesday, 06 July 2010
-
Religion Does Not Cause War, Contrary to Popular Belief
"Religion Causes War."So often is this sentiment heard in the best sellers from Richard Dawkins to Sam Harris that it has almost become a proverb. It is said so often that people believe it without question.
But, in fact, religion does not cause war. If you are an atheist, I ask for your intellectual honesty in evaluating this question. You have every right to believe what you will, but we should all be honest and not sling mud where it is not warranted. Laying war at the feet of religion is just not honest, warranted, fair or accurate.
War is people (usually men) fighting, usually for a bit of territory or desired resource. One party wants something another party has. The leader of the first party will use whatever he can to galvanize his entire party, usually connecting to any group identity he can think of, which includes but is not limited to ideology, nationality, ethnicity, class and yes, religion.
War is two groups (of any definition, but of which the group designation is incidental) fighting over something one has and the other wants. Blaming only religion is as incorrect as blaming only ethnic groups, ideologues, persons identifying with a certain country or class struggle.
The two most destructive wars in history, World Wars I and II both had nothing to do with religion. WWI was the unfortunate culmination of dangerous levels of Nationalism. In WWII Hitler used nationality and ethnicity to galvanize his group to take what he wanted that others had: the whole of Europe. The millions who died under Communism were under a specifically atheistic ideology that explicitly proscribed religion and decried it as a delusion.
All wars in American history from the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, and the World Wars all had absolutely nothing at all to do with religion.
Ah, but the major one cited by atheists is the Crusades. Once again though, one group (this time, yes the Christians) galvanized under that group because they wanted something someone else, the Muslims, had. It is important to keep mind two things though 1) that the Christians had been in possession of the land until the Muslims seized in the 700s AD and thought they were just taking it back and 2) that it was not just Christians versus Muslims. Neither Christian nor Muslim leadership was united. It was different bands of Christians versus different Muslim cities and leaders. Several times during the fighting actually, Muslims would ally with Christians against their own Muslim enemies and vice versa. It was not straight Christianity vs. Islam. But regardless, the point is that it was one group wanting something another group had. Yes religion was the galvanizing factor in this case, but it could have easily been something else, like Europeans versus Arabs, and in the actually fighting those identities broke down as people allied with whomever would be most helpful in achieving their ends. Clearly, religion was not the only thing motivating those who fought.
Eliminating religion would do nothing to eliminate war. There are so many other group identities which may be/are equally, if not more so, abused that the elimination of one, if even possible, would have no effect on the amount of fighting in this world whatsoever.
This whole thing is not to say that group identities are bad, just that they, like anything existing, may be abused. I would not advocate an attempt to dissolve all group ties simply because they are not inherently bad in the least and I do not believe it possible to destroy them at all. They are true, not made up or purely subjective. They are natural, are usually very good and are part of the human condition. We desire to associate, as Aristotle and so many others have acknowledged, we are social creatures. "Man is a political animal." Forming groups and identities is just what we do. And those communities become true expressions of self, a group self that has just as much potential for affirming true ideas as philosophy or science.
Some may say that Europe, particularly France have effectively done away with public religious sentiment, but does not France identity as secular just as strongly as another country identifies as religious? Secularism too is an identity that has just as much potential to encourage war as religion or any other identity. Communism is an all too perfect example of that.
In conclusion, there is a distorted story of history floating around in which religion causes everything. This is actually far from the truth. So in closing, here is just a brief list of examples of wars not caused by religion.
1. World War I
2. World War II
3. The Cold War
4. The American Civil War
5. The American Revolution
6. The Hundred Years War in Europe between England and France from 1337 to 1453. It was over a claim to the French throne
7. The Napoleonic Wars
8. The Rwandan Genocide (ethnic)
9. The Peloponnesian Wars between Athens and Sparta in Ancient Greece (over territory and power)
10. Every Roman battle ever, such as the Punic Wars against Carthage
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: StephanieP
- Name: StephanieP
- About Me: Stephanie is a fledgling Catholic theorist with a magnifying glass at the intersection of faith and culture, and theology and technology. She holds a degree in Religious Studies from the University of Virginia and is pursuing an MA in Theology at the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College. Though a penniless writer, Stephanie is eternally grateful for her starving artist husband.
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 102 Views: 0 59684 Comments: 0 1789 View all posts by StephanieP
Comments (68)
"The millions who died under Communism were under a specifically
atheistic ideology that explicitly proscribed religion and decried it as
a delusion."
Yeah, those who say religion causes war like to forget about that one. Selective Historical Blindness Syndrome (SHBS). I don't know if it's curable.
And what has France received, by the way? A nation on the brink of depression (far closer than the US), an actual "welfare state" (not the one that extremist conservatives like to claim exists in the US, but a real live one) where people riot when their government checks are cut back, and population demographics that lead to an actual civilized, modern nation that will have negative population growth in the near future. I guess that is the ideal secular utopia.
Nice to see something thoughtful on this topic. Mostly I've just seen vituperation lately.
Nice write-up.
...There are so many other group identities which may be/are equally, if not more so, abused that the elimination of one, if even possible, would have no effect on the amount of fighting in this world whatsoever.
There have been conflicts where religion has played a strong role initiating and worsening. It's difficult to imagine Jihad without Islam or the French religious wars without Protestantism and Catholicism.
@Megan - I love your Revelife 'recs. I've seconded most of these reccomendations.
I think one thing that people like Dawkins and Harris should consider is whether or not a particular religion teaches their adherents to go to war. If either of them honestly evaluated the tenets of Christianity, for example, they would realize that Christians are not ever encouraged to war against people. They aren't encouraged to conquer land, use violence, etc. What was their great commission? To make disciples of all nations, despite the persecution being dished out to them, not conquer countries with force to make converts. Did not Jesus teach his disciples to love their enemies? Christianity is the antithesis to war, so to say Christianity causes war is missing the point entirely.
Now, have Christians started wars? One might have to wonder if some of them were truly Christian (Hitler somewhat masqueraded as one, though he truly hated Christianity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_views), but yes some Christians have started wars. George Bush Jr. appears to be a devoted Christian and he started a war. Did the values of Christianity start the war? No. But Christians can and most likely have used religious sentiments to motivates their troops (I've heard that the Crusaders motivated their troops in such a way).
So the question to ask Dawkins and Harris is whether religion causes war or religious people occasionally do (keep in mind, many atheist people have caused brutal slaughters, such as Pol Pot, Mao Zedong and Stalin, but this doesn't mean atheism in and of itself motivated these slaughters).
Well, I don't think it's ever been claimed (certainly from no respectable source on any point of the ideological spectrum) that Religion is the sole cause of war. Nor can it be fairly said that Religion inevitably leads to war.
I think that the sentiment that "Religion causes war" is supposed to expressed is that Religion CAN lead to war (just like any number of other things), and that it is an unnecessary (dispensable) source of conflict. That, of course, is where each side of the argument tends to bristle at the other: Wars have been fought under religious banners, but the faithful would categorize their faith as anything but dispensable; Atrocities likewise have been committed under atheistic or secular banners, but we would categorize atheism as the logical consequence of the study of our surroundings. Because of the apparent necessity of the belief system to each side, the argument becomes intractable in a forum such as this.
I'd suggest that even group identities (aka tribalism) are not really the root of the problem of war. We have to understand that real cause of war if we want to address it effectively. And the root cause of war is group leaders who are comfortable with the idea of killing and destruction on a large scale as an expedient solution to a problem, regardless of whatever group identity they appeal to as a rallying cry or justification.
If we want peace, our leaders have to change drastically. And if we want better leaders, we have to change drastically as well, because we are the peoples that leaders come from.
i don't believe that religion causes war, but it certainly makes it easier to get into. it provides yet another way to define an enemy, one that usually has nothing to do with the TRUE reason of the war.
"Clearly, religion was not the only thing motivating those who fought."
it seems you cannot distinguish between kings and peasants. do you think the average Crusader understood the politics and economics behind their war? absolutely not. the Muslims deserved to die because they were Muslims, nothing more or less. are you saying that kind of mentality is completely free of responsibility for the deaths caused by it?
who cares about whether a religious war was the biggest in history? if even one person has died because of their religion (or lack of one), that's enough for me.
StephanieP, I really tried to find a way to rain on your parade but I couldn't come up with one. Good points.
@Nous_Apeiron@xanga - Bingo!
No, religion is not the cause of most wars--but it's often intertwined. It's up to us to figure out that distinction. So, I agree with your overall point.
That said, Hitler actually did cite God in his motives:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
Now, the fact that he cited religion is by NO means implying that religion started WWII. However, to some non-believers, if they hear a historical villain proclaiming such things, of course it's going to build a connection to the religion itself. It's up to individuals and groups to educate themselves to really understand history instead of skimming over it and pointing fingers when they shouldn't.
Overall, good post. Kudos.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - You're right that often times peasants just thought "Muslim: die!"
But the main point of my post is that any manner of things can inspire that in people. Same with my examples of non-religious wars. The Hutus are thinking: "Tootsie: die." The Romans are thinking: "Carthage: die." The point is that ethnicity, nationality etc, are enough to get people to fight without thinking, which means that @Nous_Apeiron@xanga - is really right on the money. The problem comes when leaders think its okay to manipulate their people into merciless killing. Nationality, religion etc are not inherentlybad because they can be used to manipulate people. Anything can be used for evil ends. Even political ideologies such as Communism (or dare I say it...Democratic Liberalism (as in the representative democracy type)) can be enough to convince the masses to go to war.
@TheSutraDude@xanga - hooray! but feel to rain on my parade anytime, as long as its honest
Man, this post makes me wish I had a better grasp on my general history and the causes and effects and those little details that I just don't GET the way you and other history-buffs do.
But wow! I love this post.
@unabridgedtales@xanga - Thanks for bringing that up and especially for putting it in context the way you did.
@StephanieP - I'll always be honest.
@Megan - I noticed when I was in Paris, there were a lot of homeless people, more so than I see in my hometown Tampa, nor cities I have observed, Miami, New York, Orlando..
@kk_grayfox@xanga - It's unfortunate that Christianity has been abused to a point where a culture was forced to convert or die. One example being the native Americans who were forced to convert when the Spanish landed in Tampa Bay 600 years ago.
Excellent!!!
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - "if even one person has died because of their religion (or lack of one), that's enough for me."
that's enough for you to do/believe what? it's obvious that the audience the poster has in mind a reader of Hitchensian or Dawkinsian tendendy to think that religion is essentially evil.
I agree it doesn't cause wars but it can be used for an excuse for violence. Power corrupts... and the sheep follow their Shepard.
This quote was attributed to both Julius Caesar and to Shakespeare in his play "Julius Caesar" but it has been found attributable to neither. It first appeared online in 2000 or 2001. I'd love to know who came up with it. I know I didn't come up with it so that narrows it down to one of you 6,853,019,413 people. Come on. Cough it up.
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. The saying goes you live by the sword you shall die by the sword...It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
@unabridgedtales@xanga - Excellent point!
Another I thought of about WW2 - It may not have been the reason for the war, but persection of the Jews was factor of and intertwined with the war. Jews going to concentration camps and being killed just because they were Jewish or of Jewish heritage.
Surely, religious reasons have been used as an excuse for war. Also, political divisions have been made based on religion. Of course, all kinds of reasons have been used as an excuse for war, so it could be argued that religion is no more to blame for war than anything else. If a religion advocates war (like Islam does in some circumstances), then it is reasonable to blame it for war.
@StephanieP -
"But the main point of my post is that any
manner of things can inspire that in people. Same with my examples of
non-religious wars. The Hutus are thinking: "Tootsie: die." The Romans
are thinking: "Carthage: die." The point is that ethnicity, nationality
etc, are enough to get people to fight without thinking"
i understand. but then the question becomes: does the potential for evil outweigh the potential for good? ethnicity and nationality are, for the most part, non-negotiable. i'm always going to be white and American, unless i dye my skin and make an effort to lose my citizenship here, so any stigmas arising from those are things i simply have to live with. but ideally (and especially in the 21st century) people choose their religious affiliations. and the history of Christianity being instrumental in bloodshed is probably in my top five reasons for why i stopped having faith.
in addition, to my knowledge, neither the Romans nor the Hutus have ever advertised themselves as being members of a one, true faith founded on pure love. when we (agnostics and atheists) argue that Christianity causes violence, it's also addressing the reality that obviously, Christians are either lying about their religion or failing epically in practicing it. either way, i'm not particularly interested in letting more and more people die while you guys try to get it right. like it or not, you're being held to a higher standard when you make such lofty claims of righteousness and absolutism.
@nyclegodesi24@xanga -
"that's enough for you to do/believe what?"
not ever get particularly upset if Christianity died off completely. for each person that has ever found comfort in that religion, how many more have suffered because of it? it's simply not worth it for me.
"it's obvious that the audience the poster has in mind a reader of
Hitchensian or Dawkinsian tendendy to think that religion is essentially
evil."
i don't think it's evil, but i definitely don't see it as good.
Great post. I totally agree with the sentiment that people tend to look at the outline of something and point fingers.
The same can be said for research today and the press / public.
Someone arbitrarily proved that drinking coffee could cause cancer?! gasp! And of course the next year they're claiming it's good for you.
We're starting to catch on, but we need to remember to look at any arguement with a careful eye, not to jump on the bandwagon and be a something basher.
One of the reasons I like this site so much actually is even when people disagree with you they are at least able to cite why they believe that way, and if they honestly want to sway you to their way of thinking they can point out research or some significant reason why they feel the way they do.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - One thing to be careful of is to not judge a book by it's cover. Just because some people twist religion to use for their own ends, or misquote it to use it for evil doesn't mean the religion itself is evil. You'll hardly find the majority of Christians suggesting the Crusades were either right or good.
Sure Bush used Christianity to help him sell the Iraqi war.. he also used the lie of Iraqi WMD, if he hadn't used every available means then he'd have riots on his hands.
Think of it this way. How many nations has patriotism brought together? How much suffering has it caused through war? Is it wrong to be a patriot? People treat religion different from other ideologies but really you can bend any to wrong uses.