Religion as an excuse for war?

[mikie8]

@ thomas areyou saying that churchs and religions have no power ?

sorry to disagree but althogh religions may not start the war they are an integral part of it .
Anyone here church of england ? as they invest more in weapons production than anyone else in the country even more than the government . imho religion is control of the masses and if not hte reason war starts its the reason they are not stopped .

 

[iBrian]

As perhaps may have been pointed out earlier, religion is often used as a political tool. Those who argue that religion itself is the sole cause of war have perhaps completely underestimated the close historical connection between politics and religion, that infused so much of human history - certainly the Western roots.

 

[bruceg]

In other words, humans have been using religion as an excuse for their bad behavior.

Getting rid of religion merely gets rid of one excuse.

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

In other words, humans have been using religion as an excuse for their bad behavior.

Getting rid of religion merely gets rid of one excuse.

It seems inescapable, the conclusion that whatever role religion plays in wars and violence among mankind, if religion is not with mankind, mankind would be deprived of one cause or catalyst or justification or prop or whatever religion plays in wars and in religion.

That is good for mankind, yes.

The solution to involvement of religion in wars and in violence is to make religion totally personal, de-institutionalize religion. Without an institution there would be no power of number in religion to engage in any way in wars and in violence.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[bruceg]

It would be nice to take religion, skin color, gender, ancestry, and everything else soley into the personal realm. Unfortunately, all of them are reasons people have used in the past and continue to use to justify heinous acts. War is a matter of power -one group attempting to assert control over the property of another. People will use anything to justify that that they can think up. If we remove everything already used, it'll be something like eyelash color.

The hope is that there is a core of people who are truly "spiritual" who abhor the use of violence in this way, and will eventually persuade everyone else.

 

[mikie8]

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/eiag/Policydefence.pdf

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

interestingly enough... Sun Tzu wrote on this very topic in his book Art of War.

War, at that time, was the final stage of diplomacy.. when everything else had failed to convince the other side to mollify their position or stance.

moreover, Sun Tzu's work is widely held to be the classic on tactical and strategic warfare, with many modern nations adopting principles that have been expressed in those pages for thousands of years.

Sun Tzu considered warfare for religous purposes to be counter to the good of the country and would, inevitably, undermine the aggressor and lead to defeat and humiliation (lots of face saving in Asia, you know).

He considered warfare for political purposes only slightly less distasteful. in fact, the only valid reasons that he had for going to war were if a country invaded you, you militate to defend yourselves and if a weaker country is invaded by a stronger one, you should go to war to help the weaker country.

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

Sun Tzu, the good

Namaste all,

interestingly enough... Sun Tzu wrote on this very topic in his book Art of War.

War, at that time, was the final stage of diplomacy.. when everything else had failed to convince the other side to mollify their position or stance.

moreover, Sun Tzu's work is widely held to be the classic on tactical and strategic warfare, with many modern nations adopting principles that have been expressed in those pages for thousands of years.

Sun Tzu considered warfare for religous purposes to be counter to the good of the country and would, inevitably, undermine the aggressor and lead to defeat and humiliation (lots of face saving in Asia, you know).

He considered warfare for political purposes only slightly less distasteful. in fact, the only valid reasons that he had for going to war were if a country invaded you, you militate to defend yourselves and if a weaker country is invaded by a stronger one, you should go to war to help the weaker country.

Amazing, that Sun Tzu, who never heard of Christ and his message of peace among mankind, should have such very edifying doctrines about religion and war and the reasons for being engaged in war.

It is really saddening that strong nations eventually go to war on weaker nations, and they have all kinds of reasons for doing so, even such a purpose as to bring men to salvation.

I am always thinking of ways and means to prevent war. Education seems to be the best way. Education can make people stop spitting except into their handkerchief or into the bathroom sink or toilet bowl.

But has it in fact? Generally yes in a society ascribing to the unhygienic and unaesthetic aspects of spitting anywhere.

So, we must institute courses in our school and make them compulsory on the irrationality and insanity of war, and how not to get into wars.

Easier said than done.

Another solution to achieve the abolition of war is to make war physically impossible. Is that possible? Meaning no more physical injury intentionally inflicted to make another person or people submti to yourself?

The seemingly insuromountable obstacles are no reason not to seek and find ways and means to end all wars and violence.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[Vajradhara]

Amazing, that Sun Tzu, who never heard of Christ and his message of peace among mankind, should have such very edifying doctrines about religion and war and the reasons for being engaged in war.


Susma Rio Sep

Namaste Susma,

Sun Tzu was a Taoist, and most probably a Wizard at that. his teachings are based on accurate observations of human nature and harmony.

Remember, Sun Tzu was running around in China during the Warring States period, 447-225 BCE, where the Golden Empire was collapsing and social order was desintigrating. Lao Tzu and Confucious were also running around during this time frame... and a bunch of other guys that most of the readers have never heard of, like Lu Bei, Li Er, T'shan Huang and others.

 

[qiatsu]

Roots of War

So, a man who really wants to pursue and find out the truth of cooperation must inevitably bring to an end the self-centered activity. When you and I are not self-centered, we love each other; then you and I are interested in action, and not in the result, not In the idea but in doing the action; you and I have love for each other. When my self-centered activity clashes with your self-centered activity, then we project an idea towards which we both quarrel; superficially we are cooperating, but we are at each other's throats all the time. So, to be nothing is not the conscious state, and when you and I love each other, we cooperate, not to do something about which we have an idea, but in whatever there is to be done. If you and I loved each other, do you think the dirty, filthy villages would exist? We would act; we would not theorize and would not talk about brotherhood. Obviously, there is no warmth or sustenance in our hearts, and we talk about everything; we have methods, systems, parties, governments, and legislations. We do not know that words cannot capture that state of love. The word love is not love. The word love is only the symbol, and it can never be the real. So, don't be mesmerized by that word love.

 

[qiatsu]

On Education

The older people say that you, the coming generation, must create a different world, but they don't mean it at all. On the contrary, with great thought and care they set about 'educating' you to conform to the old pattern, with some modification. Though they may talk very differently, teachers and parents, supported by the government and society in general, see to it that you are trained to conform to tradition, to accept ambition and envy as the natural way of life. They are not at all concerned with a new way of life, and that is why the educator himself is not being rightly educated. The older generation has brought about this world of war, this world of antagonism and division between man and man; and the newer generation is following sedulously in its footsteps. "But we want to be rightly educated, sir. What shall we do?" First of all, see very clearly one simple fact: that neither the government, nor your present teachers, nor your parents, care to educate you rightly; if they did, the world would be entirely different, and there would be no wars. So if you want to be rightly educated, you have to set about it yourself; and when you are grown up, you will then see to it that your own children are rightly educated. "But how can we rightly educate ourselves? We need someone to teach us." You have teachers to instruct you in mathematics, in literature, and so on; but education is something deeper and wider than the mere gathering of information. Education is the cultivation of the mind so that action is not self-centered; it is learning throughout life to break down the walls which the mind builds in order to be secure, and from which arises fear with all its complexities. To be rightly educated, you have to study hard and not be lazy. Be good at games, not to beat another, but to amuse yourself. Eat the right food, and keep physically fit. Let the mind be alert and capable of dealing with the problems of life, not as a Hindu, a Communist, or a Christian, but as a human being. To be rightly educated, you have to understand yourself; you have to keep on learning about yourself. When you stop learning, life becomes ugly and sorrowful. Without goodness and love, you are not rightly educated.

 

[iBrian]

Good posts, qiatsu - thank you for sharing your thoughts.

 

[Quahom1]

I find it ironic that when a man (or group of individuals) feel "insecure" in their own belief system, that he/they feel the need to resort to "convincing" others to comply/come along with their way of thinking. When the "others" decline, war always appears to be inevitable.

I am also intrigued by the observation that it is usually the "reluctant warriors/the people who wish the peace of solitude", who ultimately defeat the "insecure". These people are usually "secure" in their own beliefs. And remain civilized (that is to say they look after folks first, before looking after selves).

But - it is far easier for a civilized man to behave as a barbarian, than it is for a barbarian to behave as a civilized man. And unlike the dead barbarian, the civilized man will suffer the rest of his life with the guilt of knowing that he gave into his baser instincts.

I'll stop here, before I run off in 50,000 directions on this issue of war, and religion.

Peace.

 

[Quahom1]

I find it ironic that when a man (or group of individuals) feel "insecure" in their own belief system, that he/they feel the need to resort to "convincing" others to comply/come along with their way of thinking. When the "others" decline, war always appears to be inevitable.

I am also intrigued by the observation that it is usually the "reluctant warriors/the people who wish the peace of solitude", who ultimately defeat the "insecure". These people are usually "secure" in their own beliefs. And remain civilized (that is to say they look after folks first, before looking after selves).

But - it is far easier for a civilized man to behave as a barbarian, than it is for a barbarian to behave as a civilized man. And unlike the dead barbarian, the civilized man will suffer the rest of his life with the guilt of knowing that he gave into his baser instincts.

I'll stop here, before I run off in 50,000 directions on this issue of war, and religion.

Peace.

 

[Quahom1]

Why do many countries use religion as an excuse for war?

It is far too easy in today's society to say "Im doing it in the name of religion."

So using religion as an excuse means it is okay to perpertrate some of the most heinous atrocities on the planet?

What do you think?

Being that religion is a manmade institution, a dogmafacation (wonder if I could submit that one to Webster for consideration), of a wonderous but elusive concept of communicating (walking) with God, and subject to human corruption at every point, it is no wonder that the "Carpenter" called Jesus hated it so. In fact He was very poignant on His thoughts of religion. The only form of religion He approved of was "The taking care of orphans and widows". I believe that His thoughts were if we were so busy religiously dealing with that situation, we would be totally focused on love for others, and not fixated on the pseudo political/religous power base we humans seem to thrive on (which of course has abosolutely zero percent nutritional value for our "immortal souls"). Kind of like junk candy, or wormwood...sweet to the tongue, but sours the stomach.

my two cents worth...

peace

 

[Anzac]

qiatsu has it spot on for me - that is exactly the crisis, we all fight for institutions whereas we shouldn't be fighting for anything in the first place (well, in the sense of people killing people).

As for war and religion - this to me is a seemingly strong argument that God can never want you to kill another human being no matter what has become of a situation. With God on both sides surely there should be no conflict in the first place? Why people fight - religion, land and money. Religion is used as an excuse for land as the current everlasting middle eastern crisis proves. Thousands die, are displaced and live lives full of hate for who owns which bit of land. People are infinitely more valuable than any land could ever be so why die for earth?

In truth the only religion that can logically exist is that which has no masters as that way there is no one to limit your free will yet you do not impede on anothers. Religion (anyone seen "The Man Who Would Be King"? as that to me sums up the whole ideology of religious origins) is there to control and to limit and to expand so everyone falls under the same blanket. The concept of a religious war whether it be a Jihad or a Crusade, to me it is exactly the opposite of what religion supposedly stands for and marks. People need to face up to the fact that we are not placed here for money, wealth, land, power and dominance, but to exist. As qiatsu rightly said, if we carry on down this path we'll still be in the same hole we've been in for generations. Except now we can murder each other from the comfort of our homes in a future "Armchair Armageddon". Why does no one sit down and say "Is it really worth wasting so much of our kin for blocks of stone and grass". No matter the symbolism, surely no God would wish for each and every one of his followers to die for it. If God is the creator then willing the destruction of everything beneath their path is an oxymoron for everything they idealise.

 

[JJM]

qiatsu has it spot on for me - that is exactly the crisis, we all fight for institutions whereas we shouldn't be fighting for anything in the first place (well, in the sense of people killing people).

As for war and religion - this to me is a seemingly strong argument that God can never want you to kill another human being no matter what has become of a situation. With God on both sides surely there should be no conflict in the first place? Why people fight - religion, land and money. Religion is used as an excuse for land as the current everlasting middle eastern crisis proves. Thousands die, are displaced and live lives full of hate for who owns which bit of land. People are infinitely more valuable than any land could ever be so why die for earth?

In truth the only religion that can logically exist is that which has no masters as that way there is no one to limit your free will yet you do not impede on anothers. Religion (anyone seen "The Man Who Would Be King"? as that to me sums up the whole ideology of religious origins) is there to control and to limit and to expand so everyone falls under the same blanket. The concept of a religious war whether it be a Jihad or a Crusade, to me it is exactly the opposite of what religion supposedly stands for and marks. People need to face up to the fact that we are not placed here for money, wealth, land, power and dominance, but to exist. As qiatsu rightly said, if we carry on down this path we'll still be in the same hole we've been in for generations. Except now we can murder each other from the comfort of our homes in a future "Armchair Armageddon". Why does no one sit down and say "Is it really worth wasting so much of our kin for blocks of stone and grass". No matter the symbolism, surely no God would wish for each and every one of his followers to die for it. If God is the creator then willing the destruction of everything beneath their path is an oxymoron for everything they idealise.

I agree with the majority of what you have written. I have one discrepancy while I don't think Gods wants anyone to kill someone for peaty reasons I think that there is one expectable time for the killing of another human being and that is to protect an innocent human being from what he might do. Thus the one time I think wars over religion should be fought is wars over religious oppression. That is the time when it makes sense to me. Another time if you are aloud to worship freely then there is no point in war. I think that there is 4 excitable reasons for joining a war: 1. a stronger Country protects a smaller one, 2.to free a people that are oppressed by an unjust ruler, 3. if a Country A is holding or have wronged a citizen from Country B and 4. To stop a reasonable threat From County A to country B. just my thoughts.

_______________________________________________________
I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
Socrates

 

[Anzac]

I have one discrepancy while I don't think Gods wants anyone to kill someone for peaty reasons I think that there is one expectable time for the killing of another human being and that is to protect an innocent human being from what he might do.

I personally don't agree with the idea of killing another human being in any context - it's self-defeating. When you mention it to everyone they agree with it - so why do wars happen? Because everyone talks about defence and stopping people killing by killing but it all turns into one vicious circle.

Look at the lastest war on Iraq - pre-empitve strike with no truly justified (personally I don't see why there would ever be one, but still) reason yet the war went ahead. The excuse of an evil dictator and weapons of mass destruction are really no excuses. There is no justification as the US and UK have huge arsenals of nuclear and biological weapons yet you don't see Italy or another country invading because they might use them. Then it turns out they don't have any. Then you come onto the dictator and justifying it as that. Which nation placed him there to "defend" against the threat of Iran. You guessed it - the US. So in "defending" their interests they have actually attacked.

This may seem a little convoluted and complicated but it is the framework of all conflicts in essence. Everyone wants to "defend" but by defending all the time you will inevitably attack because what is yours to "defend" varies from nation to nation and person to person. If people didn't feel the need to have this concept of "defending" from "them" there wouldn't be war. Look at the US's arsenal list. Nowhere is it listed as "weapons of mass destruction" but "strategic weapons of defensive capability". No reference to them being used offensively but that is what they are used for. Everyone inevitably is going to attack regardless of how much "defending" of rights you do.

 

[JJM]

I personally don't agree with the idea of killing another human being in any context - it's self-defeating. When you mention it to everyone they agree with it - so why do wars happen? Because everyone talks about defence and stopping people killing by killing but it all turns into one vicious circle.

Look at the lastest war on Iraq - pre-empitve strike with no truly justified (personally I don't see why there would ever be one, but still) reason yet the war went ahead. The excuse of an evil dictator and weapons of mass destruction are really no excuses. There is no justification as the US and UK have huge arsenals of nuclear and biological weapons yet you don't see Italy or another country invading because they might use them. Then it turns out they don't have any. Then you come onto the dictator and justifying it as that. Which nation placed him there to "defend" against the threat of Iran. You guessed it - the US. So in "defending" their interests they have actually attacked.

This may seem a little convoluted and complicated but it is the framework of all conflicts in essence. Everyone wants to "defend" but by defending all the time you will inevitably attack because what is yours to "defend" varies from nation to nation and person to person. If people didn't feel the need to have this concept of "defending" from "them" there wouldn't be war. Look at the US's arsenal list. Nowhere is it listed as "weapons of mass destruction" but "strategic weapons of defensive capability". No reference to them being used offensively but that is what they are used for. Everyone inevitably is going to attack regardless of how much "defending" of rights you do.

I agree with you on the "weapons of mass destruction" I never truly believe they where there. I also new that the US put Sadam in Power. In the quote you used I was referring to someone pulling a knife on you or a criminal who is still committing these crimes inside the jail or has a history of successful escapes. As for my first reason for expectable war Look at the gulf war would you not justify that. My second I guess would say would justify this current war but come on you have to admit that Sadam Hussein was one sick Mofo. And as you pointed out we (US) did put him there so should we not take him out. I don't however think that he should be executed unless he attempts to lead resistance forces from with in his jail cell. When I wrote it though I was thinking of more of a revolt situation. My third I'd be referring to Hostage situations and illegal seizure of property. And my for is more something along the lines of Afghanistan where Terrorist training camp could continues to be ran freely and thus being a threat all countries. I don't believe that this includes countries with nothing but the opportunity to cause harm but one with much more going against them.

 

[El Greko]

Gaza - birthplace of hero/martyr/terrorists

Didn't read all the post but I would like to include:


Terrorism all started out with conflicts between religion.

I believe that the first terrorist act - ie one that claims the life of the terrorist-freedom fighter was by Samson in of all places Gaza.

GAZA a name that is mentioned often in internationl news broadasts and yet an insignificant strip of land as it was in Biblical times thousands of years ago.

Samson was captured by the Philistines who lived there and his eyes put out and he was chained to pillars of their pagan temple.

Samson decided to pull down the temple upon himself and thereby kill thousands of PHilistines at the same time who were there having a party at his expense.

He used the stone temple as a weapon of mass destruction because with his eyes put out he felt he had no future (without vision a nation perishes) life would not be worth living so may as well take as many of the enemy as possible and die a hero to his people.

Sounds familiar?

Amazing that it was a Jewish warrier who taught by example the inhabitants of Gaza how to become hero martyr terrorists and
Gaza remains a breeding ground of hero martyr terrorists.