Quote:
Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut
Gotta say, I'm Agnostic leaning on Shinto but.. the guy has a point. The Crusades is just about the only point anyone can bring up.
|
Much obliged.
I also have a name which you're welcome to use but I'll let you off that one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xujhan
It depends somewhat on how you define the cause of a war. On a political level, I agree with you. History pretty definitely shows that kings and emperors who go to war for religious reasons are relatively few compared to those who do so out of sheer greed. Wars aren't fought by monarchs and politicians though; the fighting is done by masses of average people. To you and me and most people throughout history, the lines on the map don't mean much. They have no reason to; whether or not my country's border encompasses a particular hill or valley has very little effect on my ability to put food on the table. The accusation is not so much that religion inspires the leaders who ignite war - though it does sometimes do that - but that religion is a tool used by those people to gather willing armies. It's hardly the only one, I grant you, but it definitely is one. Anything that calls people to have unquestioning and unearned devotion to or trust in any figure, whether it's a literal god or a monarch/leader or the country itself, is incredibly dangerous.
|
In a statement which may seem ironic given my position on the religion spectrum, I feel you are overstating the effectiveness of religion, at least as a rallying call in time of war. A monarch's ability to raise armies relied very little on religion and much more on the feudal system and a monarch's ability to pay those who fight for him (e.g. mercenaries) or promise rewards to them for loyal service (e.g. titles and land). To take your analogy, being a loyal Christian/Jew/Muslim etc. will not affect your ability to put food on your table, but the favour of your lord and master in such times would and his position owed more to the sword than divinity in such times. Religion could be used as a rallying call and on that I would agree, but its effectiveness is nonetheless debatable - the Crusades were rife for infighting between factions both in the Christian and Muslim camps, again primarily because of self-interest and opportunities to seize power or the initiative. Those are the real culprits in determining the causes of war, and while there are a number of contributing factors were I to draw up a list of the most prevalent ones religion would be a fair way from the top. That isn't because of any apologist tendencies on my part, it's simply because as an actual root cause of or motivating factor towards conflict religion has a fairly limited role, with some very notable exceptions (Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine and so on) which nonetheless have their foundations in more than one cause. My objection was to the claim that more blood has been spilled as a result of religion than anything else, and I still find that claim to be much unwarranted.