How to defend against the argument 'religion is the cause of wars'

[Garyjohn2]

And while it might be reasonable to say that individual miscreants do not represent a religion’s paradigm, we have to ask what sort of disconnect is going on when denominations clash or persecute as groups. If the war is clearly between religions, it is not an aberration of a random individual; something more serious is going on, and it is not sufficient to claim that it is people, not their religion.

Nice post. However, I have to disagree with this statement of yours, particularly the last sentence I quoted. It is people, not the religion, that is the basis of wars over religion. Some wars are fought over ethnicity or race. Some are started because two groups belong to different clan backgrounds (many African conflicts). When you consider that there are also wars fought over religion, I think it points to some disconnect within people that makes them fight over their differences. I think that is IS sufficient to claim that is is people, not clanship that is the source of the disconnect. It is people, not race that causes war. It is withing people, not religion, where this deeper disconnect resides.

That’s what I think!

 

[Ranklyfrank]

@ Garyjohn:

Yes, I’m beginning to see this a bit differently, especially since someone above correctly applied an idea from RA Heinlein regarding this. But then I have to ask “What connection does religion have to people’s behavior?” Is it like a picture on a box labeled “serving suggestion?” I’m asking because of the various pie charts that I’ve seen claim that the great majority of folks on this planet belong to a religion. So given all that atrocities and such on the planet, we can say that the about 12% of non-religious people in the world are not solely responsible for all the evil on the planet, not the ignorance, nor the destruction. And, though I am not an atheist, I find that not only do many have a clear and functional ethic, but more so than many allegedly religious folks.

So what are we to conclude? I have concluded that Goodness is independent of religion as such, and only appears to coincide. I also think that many good people wish an explanation for their own goodness and for the presence of evil. Religions provide a primitive model of how this might be. lacking anything better, and being a race that lives on stories, these religions seem to suffice, even for thoughtful, intelligent individuals.

Many acts of violence have ostensibly religious motivations, as did the recent assassination of a middle eastern President. He was circumventing Islamic law, it seemed and a body guard took exception. And when Christopher Columbus was on an economic mission and found, as he wrote, that the aborigines were remarkably developed in their christian-like ethics, he blamed that on the devil and cut of the hands of a whole tribe of them for being heathens. So that was economics, but the violence was centered on a religious difference as an excuse, so again, what is the good of religion if a creed can be used to excuse murder, mayhem, torture, etc? And please, as is often the case here, don’t see this as leveled solely at Christianity or one of its denominations; this is world wide and through history.

So if the religious story is so blatantly ineffectual in so many cases, what’s the point? Where is the disconnect? For my part, I remember conspiracies of disbelief in the Catholic grammar and high schools I went to simply on the grounds of the irrationality of many things in the Bible. And the only remedy suggested was some form of “You must believe or go to hell.” I propose that as a motivation that has little or no reality in the exigencies of getting through the day for the vast majority of people. Maybe as an intellectual assertion with certain presumptions as premises, but that is not how things necessarily work in the field. And if they don’t work for religious people, what secular values can be claimed to be derivative of allegedly religious ones?

 

[Contarini]

I think this article by William Cavanaugh does an excellent job of addressing the OP’s question. Of course, it makes some claims that many Christians will find controversial! Essentially Cavanaugh’s point is that “religion” is a rather incoherent concept in the first place, and that those aspects of “religion” that cause wars can be found in so-called “secular” ideologies such as nationalism. So we should talk about the kinds of violent, distorted, idolatrous passions that cause wars, and reject those attitudes whether they are found in “religious” or “secular” contexts.

Edwin

 

[GaryTaylor]

There are so many great posts and points here, that I don’t even know where to start.

A couple theological ideas that we cannot ignore? First and foremost is that the History of mankind is the war of good and evil.

How religion and man is manipulated in the process becomes the secondary issue. Obviously there are very good and civil people in all faiths. This also doesn’t make all faiths non-violent. And people of no-faith violent, just mislead. Let alone nations without a religious backing. Show me “one” thats not turned out to be straight fron the lake of fire? Who’s the example the USA? This country was civilized by Christianity. When a religion becomes a social/political government and its basis breeds a lack of compassion, we have a problem. If you want to study the social and political history of modern nations, just study hell.

So, what I am saying is that there are so many levels of this debate that to debate on a forum will take an extremely long time.

Christ and the NT never promoted war to any degree. As a Catholic brother has correctly pointed out above. Had Christs purpose been War then his followers would have fought for Him and His life. This was not His message, and completely misses the mark. I can only suggest another read of the NT. I see no debate on this point. I only see a lack of education of facts and history

One could also debate eloquently, that true lack of faith and understanding of it, has led us to misguided men with guided missles. And that a nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom. And its safe to say we have traveled so far down this path I’m not sure the Jesuits are not coreect and its time to come up with “survival plan” for Christianity. We can easily, easily compare this period to the Dark Ages and St. Ignatius of Loyola.

Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. And knowing that riot is the voice of the oppressed its no wonder chaos has been the calling card as of late. Unfortunately uprising and demonstration often has no goal but to be heard. And this is the exact case of Egypt and Libya. When people are willing to die for freedom, we must seriously take a look at there cause. They are not being killed on the path to freedom for no good reason. And change never is handed easily over to the oppressed. But is a hard fought battle of attriction. Had the goals been clearly known from the on-set, they would have been in a much better position.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness which self-serving idealism breeds.

Atheism is exactly which created this vacuum to begin with. And England and civil europe are clearly understanding this a bit to late, as we are suffering here in the states also. The voice of God is upon us. Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemies - or else? The chain reaction of evil, hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars, must be broken, or else we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation. And we will be the next great civilization that just didn’t make it, the 6th to be exact. And just as we read about those in history, they shall read about us. And they will say the same thing, “What were they thinking”? Thank God, that a few of us have been around long enough to have seen this movie before. Or we would be a worse mess than we already are.

He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it. History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. We have been sleepwalking to the end of the night. 2011, and we have cruel dictatorships existing in N-Korea, Cuba, Iran, Lebennon etc. How long shall we remain silent till the entire world is enslaved? You may not see this in you life, but your children or theirs will.

We continue to give Homo-Sapien way to much credit over a few technical advances. The cold truth is once man reverts to a Barbaric state, he know longer knows the way back. Had he know that he wouldn’t be barbaric to begin with. Who is interested in power for powers sake? I have liitle concern for this. My interest lies in what is moral, what is right and what is good.

Christianity is the only correct path out of this mess. An we will need to put own petty differences aside in order to make any significant progress today. While we argue with ouselves evil is swallowing up countrys and souls. We must allow the Pope to speak for Christianity and stand by and support him. Once we overcome this insanity, “then” we can debate differences amongst ourselves. There no time for this anymore.

Thats what I think, and yes I quoted from Dr King, Merton and Fr Martin and anyone else who would have had on once of sense, or who would have took this class.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

Wars are often fought based on whatever divides the combatants. The dividing line could be religion, and it has been, but it is often secular ideology (e.g. Korea, Vietnam), territorial ambition linked to constructed racial identity (WWII), tribalism (Rawanda genocide), etc. Obviously the Crusades were based on religion, but you can’t forget territorial ambition disguised as religion. The crusaders were not very nice to the Orthodox Christians they met on the way. The conquests of Islam inside Arabia were clearly based on religion and subjugation-conversion of non-Muslims, but they also had the purpose of advancing the nascent Islamic commonwealth.

If we look at a country like Lebanon, religion is central to who you are: you are either Sunni, Shi’i, Christian or Druze. There are Catholics, Orthodox and Protestant Christians, but there seem to be no hostility between them. Christians are a minority in a growing Muslim population, so they tend to stick together. Same thing in Egypt, but even more so. In Northern Ireland it is similar. In Israel it is similar. In the US, not so much so. I am an American of Protestant extraction, though I am now Anglican. If I become Catholic, I would still be an American of Protestant extraction. I would not be changing sides.

Look at the Rawanda genocide: The Hutus and Tutsis each had Catholics, Anglicans and Protestants, so in that conflict, religion had no role, but of course tribalism did.

It is curious that when we hear of Christians being persecuted in Pakistan or Afghanistan, we almost never hear what their denomination is. In the context of fierce and unrelenting persecution, it matters little.

As the title suggest, how do you defend against this argument to the atheist?
Just curious how CAF will defend it.
Because in another forum (my local country forum), I’ve seen a lot of argument of the atheist, and one of the most common used argument is
‘Religion is the cause of wars. When two people from different religion disagreeing with each other, they start to force their beliefs on others, and eventually they fight, and then it leads to war’.

They did not specify which war but I don’t think they are ignorant of the Crusades (Christianity vs Muslims), the current on going Israeli-Palestinian war (my country is pro-Palestinian, after all it’s a Muslim country), and even my local country issue where due to the local issue of the word ‘Allah’, eleven churches, a Catholic school, a Sikh temple, two mosques and two Muslim prayer rooms so far have been hit by arson and vandalism attacks, as well as throwing a pig head into a muslim mosque.

These have really convinced the atheist that religion is the source of war and they believed religions should be removed for world peace.

How do you defend against this claim?

 

[1234]

I would state that while religion is quite often the pretext of wars, land use and resources are the actual causes of wars.

Some have argued that in my country (USA) the early settlers killed and drove off the indigenous peoples in order to spread Christianity in the New World… The abundance of resources had nothing to do with it… Of course if you buy that, I’ve got an island in Hudson Bay I’d like to sell you…

You might want to point out the war history of virtually every “atheist” state as well… The USSR and China are good examples.

Then suggest that land and resources should be abolished for world peace.

God bless

Poor defense. I would counter that I said that religion is not the sole source for war, just one of the main sources. And it is. In many religions, including Islam, the Thirty Years’ War in Germany viciously fought by the Protestants versus the Catholics, and all the Crusades.

The Catholic church has tolerated great crimes, including slavery, in order to propagate the religion.

Notorious was Pope Nicholar V’s issuance of the papal bull Dum Diversas, which gave Alfonso V of Portugal the right to reduce any “Saracens, pagans and any other unbelievers” to *hereditary *slavery. In 1455 Nicholas reaffirmed and extended this approval of slavery in his subsequent bull Romanus Pontifex .

In 1488 Pope Innocent VIII accepted the gift of 100 slaves from Ferdinand II of Aragon and gave them to his cardinals and the Roman nobility. Also, in 1639 Pope Urban VIII bought slaves for himself from the Knights of Malta. I don’t know if any of these slaves were set free.

 

[KathleenGee]

Out of context:

First, the secular US Constitution firmly had slavery written into its decree.

Insider knowledge of Church’s relationship to slavery, its history, its condition…

www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm

Outsider (non-Catholic) Christian source, scholarly work, many times the Portuguese and Spanish would not follow Church directives…so you have to again look at the context.

www.Christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/julyweb-only/7-14-53.0.html?start=3

The early explorers and missionaries discovered slavery was practiced by North West Indians using other Indians as slaves; same with the slavery in Mexico…many times slaves used for human sacrifice.

Again, we have to study our sources accurately or we enable more of the Spin Zone.

 

[Garyjohn2]

@ Garyjohn:

Hi Ranklyfrank,

Your post seems to be reaching to the very nature of religion in society. It is complex and needs to be unpacked. You might do better (and get more responses) by putting it in a new thread. It’s worth exploring, so I encourage you to do so!

 

[seeker57]

The OPs remarks about ongoing strife in Malaysia are ample example of the effect of religion on social structure.

Wars have certainly been fought because of religion. It isn’t that religion, in and of itself, is wrong, but how those who practice it are interpreting it.

I live in the Southwestern U.S., where the Spanish invaded and forced Catholicism on the native peoples.

The priests took especial glee at building their churches on top of native ceremonial sites. The priests obviously thought they were right and the natives were wrong regarding religion.

The natives eventually rose up and slaughtered the priests. It was not a large war, but, in their case, an important one that is still remembered here.

The base issue is the belief that what someone believes is correct, what others believe is wrong and you must show them their error.

This is where war starts.

Of course, there are many causes of war, not just religion.

Seeker

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Hi Ranklyfrank,

Your post seems to be reaching to the very nature of religion in society. It is complex and needs to be unpacked. You might do better (and get more responses) by putting it in a new thread. It’s worth exploring, so I encourage you to do so!

Thanks, Grayjohn. It is in a sense in all the posts I make in any thread. I spelled it out in such a compact form because you asked. For me it is not a matter of debate or questioning. But it is sometimes drawn out due to an inquiry such as yours. I prefer to do it that way because the there is at least a degree of receptivity. Though I don’t keep to it strictly, I appreciated my Mentor’s stance. When he was initially asked to speak about his experience he agreed within himself to speak if asked, and otherwise be silent and appear ordinary. Well, he was never anything but extraordinary, but as he discovered that people of every religion were coming to him for answers to their conundrums he kept that attitude. I often heard him say before he met with people “May the meditations of my heart and the words of my mouth be acceptable unto You, oh God.” It is a wise prayer to make.

 

[Garyjohn2]

the Thirty Years’ War in Germany viciously fought by the Protestants versus the Catholics.

This war was actually fought for political reasons. The German princes wanted more independence from the political authority of the church, so they broke away and riled up the “troops” against Catholicism in general. It was first and foremost a war over power, not religion.

You could also make similar arguments for the crusades, that they were motivated by one or more of the following:

1. Xenophobia
2. A desire to unite Europe against a common enemy and stop in-fighting
3. Grasp for more power and lands
4. Retaliation for past Islamic invasions
5. Religion

It’s really hard to say Religion is the cause for a war. I bet there are examples…but I really think they are much more rare than people think.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

This war was actually fought for political reasons. The German princes wanted more independence from the political authority of the church, so they broke away and riled up the “troops” against Catholicism in general. It was first and foremost a war over power, not religion…

It seems to me that this is a very good point, the more I think about it. Whatever the conflict, it usually has to do with who has the power, that being a outcome of the survival imperative modified by human factors including technology, or who has more of bigger rocks to throw. Take that as you will.

But God is very often invoked as a justifier, as “God is on our side!” Even Dubbya said God told him to do it. I guess God thought that Eisenhower was wrong about the military/industrial complex. And coaches of football teams do it. Yes folks, God takes sides between His children and smites the ones who are not like us or don’t want what our greed mongers want. It is always amazing to me how much God is like us, and how He can be on the other side at the same time! Is that one of the “Omni-” attributes?

 

[1234]

This war was actually fought for political reasons. The German princes wanted more independence from the political authority of the church, so they broke away and riled up the “troops” against Catholicism in general. It was first and foremost a war over power, not religion.

You could also make similar arguments for the crusades, that they were motivated by one or more of the following:

1. Xenophobia
2. A desire to unite Europe against a common enemy and stop in-fighting
3. Grasp for more power and lands
4. Retaliation for past Islamic invasions
5. Religion

It’s really hard to say Religion is the cause for a war. I bet there are examples…but I really think they are much more rare than people think.

Yes, religion is a good excuse. I hope that it’s becoming a rarer excuse. Religion and the secular power is an unholy alliance.

 

[sedonaman]

As the title suggest, how do you defend against this argument to the atheist?
…

Most deaths due to wars were caused by those pursuing godless atheistic causes. See this website hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM , which doesn’t break them out between religious and secular, so you have to do some reading. Because not all wars are equal, you have to normalize the information somehow, and the easiest way is to count the deaths.

While the data include religious wars, I challenge anyone to use the information to justify a sweeping statement that “religion is the cause of war,” as though it were the exclusive cause.

 

[Contarini]

This war was actually fought for political reasons. The German princes wanted more independence from the political authority of the church, so they broke away and riled up the “troops” against Catholicism in general. It was first and foremost a war over power, not religion.

I think this is a false dichotomy. There is nothing that prevents political and religious motives from working together inextricably–indeed this has been the pattern for most of human history. Diarmaid MacCulloch, in his big book on the Reformation era, describes what appears to be a strong pattern on both sides of apocalyptic, almost messianic thinking in the years leading up to the war. I think it is rash to dismiss religious causes and claim that secular ones were paramount. One can certainly point to the later stages of the war, in which the French entered on the Protestant side, as predominantly secular. And Wallenstein appears to have been largely free from religious zeal in his motivations (though I could be wrong). But it seems to me that religion played a huge role in the motivations of the German Protestant princes, of the Bavarians and other members of the “Catholic League,” and probably of Gustavus Adolphus and the Hapsburgs as well.

You could also make similar arguments for the crusades, that they were motivated by one or more of the following:

1. Xenophobia
2. A desire to unite Europe against a common enemy and stop in-fighting
3. Grasp for more power and lands
4. Retaliation for past Islamic invasions
5. Religion

Yes, although “xenophobia” and religion were so inextricably mixed that I’m not sure one can meaningfully speak of them distinctly. (In other words, the Muslims were scary aliens precisely because of their religion, and conversely it had become increasingly difficult for Eastern and Western Christians to recognize their common faith because their cultures had grown so far apart.)

Recent historiography of the Crusades appears to indicate that most Crusaders were not motivated by greed–or at least that if they were they were very stupid, since a great many of them abandoned great wealth to go on Crusade, and very few of them got much out of the adventure.

It’s really hard to say Religion is the cause for a war. I bet there are examples…but I really think they are much more rare than people think.

Yes, but I think that’s a bit of a straw man. You seem to be working on the assumption that if there are multiple causes, then religion somehow automatically takes a back seat. I think that’s an implicitly secularist assumption (as if other motives are always the “real” ones), and if anything I’d put it the other way round. “Religion” is generally the name we give to people’s broad, deep, organizing convictions about the nature of reality. Rather than speaking of religion as a pretext or a cover for other motives, it might be better to speak of religion as the organizing principle for these other motives and as an important factor in causing people to be motivated by some motives more than others.

 

[KathleenGee]

The Spanish who came to Mexico were in great awe and admiration of the Aztecan Empire. The history of Indian Mexico is also one of human sacrifice.

I have read quite a bit on the history of Mexico from its Indian origins, the different tribes, peoples, cultures and customs, to the Aztecan culture. Montezuma had a dream of ships with a cross. The missionary priests accompanied the explorers to bring Christ to the people and stood for the rights of the Indian people.

The Cathedral in Mexico City that houses the image of Mary of Guadalupe was built over the Aztecan ruins where thousands of Indian slaves and those kidnapped from surrounding Indian tribes were used as human sacrifice to appease their moon god and thus, allow the sun to rise again the following day. The victim was laid on an altar and his heart quickly ripped out. When the Spanish finally got into the inner chamber of human sacrifice, they noted how all the walls and floors were covered with human blood.

There was one conquistador and his band who were attending an event. There was an escalation of tensions, and followed by a misfortunate fight and loss of Aztecan lives. This then led to the war between the Spanish and the Aztecs. The Spanish were expelled from the city and the war lasted two years, with the help of other tribes. In the final days of battle, the Spaniards noted Indian parents taking up the steps their 2 year old children to be offered as sacrifice for the war to turn into their favor, and the Spanish soldiers were deeply upset for these innocent souls. The final and worst stage of battle was committed not by the Spaniards but by the Indians who lost their teens to human sacrifice.

When the Spaniards won the war, great bolts of lightening entered into the human sacrifice temple. They were finished fighting. But it was the Indians whose teens were slaughtered in human sacrifice, who continued fighting and went into over kill.

Indians converting to Catholicism were small, and the Spaniard colonizers were unkind to the people. It was Bishop Zumarraga who prayed to God for help in bringing the Spanish and Indians into good relations, asking roses for a sign help would come. It came through the appearance of Mary of Guadalupe, whose image contained a number of symbols in pictographs, the communication of the Indian people.

Mary of Guadalupe’s image was used by the Pope in the same period of time when the Turks were battling Europe. Mary’s image and the rosary led to the victory of Lepanto, and thus saved Europe from Islam.

I don’t know the history of SW USA, especially in Arizona and New Mexico, but I do know that many missionaries from Spain included themselves with the explorers and worked very hard to bring Christ to the people and to educate them. Mexico had a far greater history in education and development of the Indian people, the center of learning for the New World, not America.

I think the claims by some, La Raza, to get back the Southwest through illegal immigration seems to address some of the grievances held by what some church men did. Knowing how adversarial different religions can be towards one another, I believe that there were many missionaries nevertheless, who gave their lives totally for the Indian people of SW USA.

 

[KathleenGee]

I would assume the trauma of witnessing human sacrifice on such a scale had tremendous effect on the Spanish missionaries throughout the region that would last generations.

The story of Mary of Guadalupe and her effect, and the civilization of the Aztecan people had a great impact on me, and was the reason I studied Mexico and its history of peoples with great interest.

 

[Redbaron998]

I would say its an argument from historical ignorance, consider the following:

Very few wars were fought over religious beleifs in ancient times, they were almost always for land, resources, or power. But since I am sure you dont wanna get to deep in history at one time lets look at some major american wars:

French and Indian: Not religious
American Revolution: Not religious
War of 1812: Not religious
Spanish American war: Not religious
Mexican American war: Not religious
Civil war: Not religious
WW1: Not religious
WW2: Not religious
Korea: Not religous
Vietnam: Not religious
Desert storm: Not religious
Modern Iraq and Afganistan war: Not religious

Point of fact several of these you could make a good case for secular atheism helping start them, particulalarly WW2.

In the history of the world almost never has war been waged only for religious puposes, and almost always people on any side seek to use religion as an excuse, but its not really a factor to the war.

 

[Garyjohn2]

Hi Contarini, nice post. I have some thoughts on some of your statements though.

Yes, although “xenophobia” and religion were so inextricably mixed that I’m not sure one can meaningfully speak of them distinctly. (In other words, the Muslims were scary aliens precisely because of their religion, and conversely it had become increasingly difficult for Eastern and Western Christians to recognize their common faith because their cultures had grown so far apart.)

I think xenophobia and religious differences can be separated a bit when talking about the crusades. The muslims weren’t scary aliens precisely because of their religion. It was also because they dressed funny, talked funny, ate strange things, rode strange animals, used strange technology, lived in a distant land, and had a different religion. Not that religion takes a back seat in all of this, but it is sharing a seat with many other things. In terms of the East vs West (the crusade that ended up sacking Constantinople for example), this was motivated more by wealth than a difference in culture or faith. The religious leaders of the time condemned the attack on other Christians, but the city was wealthy, and the leaders of that crusade were in deeply in debt to Milan, for ferrying them around.

Recent historiography of the Crusades appears to indicate that most Crusaders were not motivated by greed–or at least that if they were they were very stupid, since a great many of them abandoned great wealth to go on Crusade, and very few of them got much out of the adventure.

I think you are correct in saying that many crusaders abandoned wealth to go fight in the wars. However, I have to ask: is it the crusaders that started the crusades? The kings that actually lead the crusaders did stand to gain something on the quest to “retake” the holy land. Not all of them succeeded, but some of them did. The gaining of lands (the founding of the kingdom of Jerusalem), the sacking of Constantinople, and the protection of pilgrims from raiders and bandits are all examples of where wealth could be gained. The foot soldiers stood to gain little. But the higher orders of knights, kings and princes who directed and conducted these particular wars, I believe, were motivated by greed as much as anything else.

Yes, but I think that’s a bit of a straw man. You seem to be working on the assumption that if there are multiple causes, then religion somehow automatically takes a back seat. I think that’s an implicitly secularist assumption (as if other motives are always the “real” ones), and if anything I’d put it the other way round. “Religion” is generally the name we give to people’s broad, deep, organizing convictions about the nature of reality. Rather than speaking of religion as a pretext or a cover for other motives, it might be better to speak of religion as the organizing principle for these other motives and as an important factor in causing people to be motivated by some motives more than others.

I see what you mean. I think religion is an important organizing and motivating factor of human culture in general. Is it the cause of a war? I find it hard to find a good example. Is it a contributing cause to a war? This can be more accurate…but you might have to say “the malpractice of religion is a contributing cause of a war” in terms of the crusades or other wars discussed here. (whether this religious cause is taking a front seat, back seat, or a particular percentage of motivation for war would be hard to determine). However, the main thing I am getting out of this so far is: Religion is a organizing principle for humanity, and therefore allows war to occur on a greater scale or with more fervor that would otherwise have been. I think this makes sense (however impossible it is to determine what “would otherwise have been”). At the same time, religion as an organizing principle, able to sway mass groups of people’s hearts, minds, and behaviors, can be used for a good cause as much as a violent one…and it has been. It mainly falls into the hands of leaders, decision makers, and individual “foot soldiers” to either follow their religion, or twist it for a different purpose.

(I’m speaking mainly about Christianity. I don’t know about other religions out there that have more gray areas concerning war and violence in the name of religion).

At the risk of making a post too long (sorry!) I wanted to comment also on “just wars.” A war can be caused by ethics…for example a simplified version of WW2, where Nazi Germany is doing something bad and has to be stopped. This, in my mind, can be considered a war caused by religion, although it might be a stretch. Even if the president didn’t say didn’t say “in the name of GOD I declare war!” I believe that ethics stem from religion, so someone could say that religion is the cause of some wars if they wanted to make that leap. Still, this would not be part of a “war is caused by religion” argument that the OP might be having to encounter and defend…the kind of terrible, mass-wasting religious war that makes religion the scourge of humanity that some atheists try to portray it as.

 

[sedonaman]

…A war can be caused by ethics…for example a simplified version of WW2, where Nazi Germany is doing something bad and has to be stopped. This, in my mind, can be considered a war caused by religion, although it might be a stretch. …

This is a stretch, indeed. Using the same reasoning, one could conclude that getting out of bed in the morning is caused by religion: I have to get out of bed to meet my obligations. Meeting my obligations is an ethical imperative, and since ethics is motivated by religion, my getting out of bed was caused by religion. QED.