Marker In The Sand
Is Religion Really to blame for centuries of war? Or would we be fighting each other anyway?
I recently came upon an article titled "Theism Versus Atheism" on Relijournal. At first glance it seemed to be another just summary of theist vs. atheism arguments. But the author had some interesting points about crusades and the religion-causes-war debate.
Argument: Religion is bad since it causes wars
The author points out how humans are tribal by nature. If we weren’t categorized by religion, we’d be categorized in different ways. Either way, mankind would probably still fight amongst each other.
The crusades, Jihad, the Gaza strip, the thirty years war… At a glance there seems to be a hell of a lot of evidence to support the idea that religion makes people pick up stick and beat each other to death. Or does it?
There are many ways people classify people. Race, Religion, Nationality, Wealth, Class, the list is endless, and each one is a valid way of categorizing people.
He goes on to say:
…the whole point of expansion is to acquire more resources for your tribe/clan/country. Humans are, by our nature, tribal animals. And so therefore we attack other tribes to ensure the survival of our own.
It’s easy to blame religion for crusades and other wars. If religion is removed from the planet, we’d still fight each other over differences in nationality or social status (to name two). Religion might sometimes be scapegoated this way.
Don’t get me wrong, I do believe religion to be a catalyst in matters such as war. It is also to blame for certain acts of terrorism. Unfortunately religious belief is something humans are often very devout about.
But if we didn’t have religious belief, would we have something else that we would be just as passionate about?
It is a complicated topic and whose surface has not even been scratched by this article.
Does religion kill people, or do people kill people?
Over to you, kind reader. What’s your take on the subject?
Special thanks to Pearl Jam who inspired the title for this post.
It’s a valid point. However, I think that in some cases religion is a central or an essential part of the warring and violence. In other cases, religion might strengthen or solidify the divisions. So when it comes to people fighting over their differences, religious differences certainly do not seem to help. Faith, for example, in an eternal and blissful afterlife in reward for slaying infidels is a dangerous proposition.
Written by James on July 11th, 2008I feel that religion is a special case of the “go team” mentality. Everyone wants their team to win, but if it doesn’t, they just accept defeat in one way or another. They don’t continue to plough resources and lives into the cause because an Almighty Team Principal in the Sky decrees their cause to be Right and Just. That’s where religion scores over other motivators of mayhem - it’s not just what *we* want, brothers, it’s what *He* wants.
Written by Andy Kimber on July 14th, 2008I think religion functions in many ways in wars (which would I think continue apace even without religion – neither schoolyard fights nor lobsters dismembering each other have much to do with doctrinal differences most likely – belligerence is not dependent upon religion).
But yes, we have religion as catalyst, religion as scapegoat, we also, I think rather insidiously, religion as justification and religion as appeasement. When we look to scripture or practice to justify our violence – be it to prop institutions like slavery or Apartheid or to underwrite a practice of killing adulterous women or gay men – we are using religion to fuel a fire that is already underway. We ignore what in scripture we don’t have a problem with, but we take our highlighters out and get busy when it comes to things we’re hot and bothered about.
We also use religion to close down calls for peace and justice. A war like the current one on terror is not ostensibly about the righteousness of Christianity, yet it is supported and perpetuated by appealing to not just the cultural differences arising from religious differences – but also by suggesting that what the US is doing is somehow liberating the oppressed. That by killing thousands upon thousands we are being merciful and compassionate neighbors, implying that this is yet another war Jesus is smiling on and that one can be a good Christian and still bomb children.
Predictably I have more to say, but should probably address some of it over on the linked page, since it speaks more directly to some of what he presented there. Thanks for giving us yet another thought-provoking topic to chew on!
Written by fluorophore on July 14th, 2008@fluorophore - I agree that religion can be both a motive and catalyst. But I think the most dangerous is using religion to JUSTIFY a war.
Maybe religion is more dangerous than nationality because it is a personal choice.
@Andy - It’s a scary point you bring up. Two sides are both fighting in the name of God, who is nowhere to be found.
@ James - Yes, it’s truly frightening how many religions reward killing in the name of God. Though this kind of terrorism probably gives a bad name to other, more peaceful and rational religions.
Written by Ted Goas on July 14th, 2008Very interesting post.
In my opinion and in social science terms, religion is the ideology that supports war.
There’s always some material reason for war, religion just provides “reasons” to justify what people are doing, giving a moral basis strong enough to override most people’s natural unwillingness to kill people or put themselves at risk of being killed.
Even the Crusades themselves were about struggles for lots of things in the real world - land, wealth, power.
Written by heather on August 19th, 2008I can point to at least four ways religion factors in:
1. When belligerents in a tribe want to go and smite the other folks across the valley for one reason or another, they have to run this by the priests, who hold a lot of cards in the tribal discussions. Since priests like more people in the tribe and since smiting other tribes can increase his crowd, they look for theological backing. No good priest that starts with an agenda fails to find substantiation in his miserable holy book or related religious texts. The bias is therefore — go get the (word banned in polite discussion).
2. Organized religions hold very regular meetings. These meetings are an opportunity to drive the war cry home or to say organize a demonstration if the priests so desire. You just need to look at the mobs that come pouring out of Friday prayers in countries like Pakistan, all full of incited hatred and given permission to riot.
3. Holy texts are full of examples of genocide and mayhem. They justify war.
4. Religious indoctrination of vulnerable children includes not only religion, but the long laundry list of tribal hatred and animosity against “those” folks. This is how disputes rage for generations instead of getting settled.
5. Ok, I did say four, but I just thought of another reason. In harsh living environments where land and water resources are scarce (does the Middle East pop into your mind?) there is a dog eat dog mentality. Tribal loyalties and religion are first and foremost. Raw survival places a high value on vindictiveness and deceit. You do not see generational strife in places with abundant food and water, for example Polynesia. Why fight over coconuts when they are free for the taking? Spear all the fish you can eat in the lagoon. Kick back, relax.
Religion Poisons Everything —
On facebook, End Hereditary Religion:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=10129512247
Written by Richard Collins on August 21st, 2008what is more intellectually dishonest than asserting an answer to a question about how we ‘would’ behave in an universe entirely like this one? if there were no religion, i for one would be nine feet tall, green, and have a pony.
Written by misanthropope on August 28th, 2008