[Closed] Religious wars

Best Subhumans song

I'd argue WW2 had a big religious element since Hitler had a problem with Jewish people.

Best Subhumans song

This.

Northern Ireland?

Gulf War: Nope – resources/politics

large religious element. Remember what Blair said at the time? Something about a new crusade?

Israel/Palestine: Maybe, or maybe ethnic/territorial

Certainly - the whole basis is based on religion from the zeal of the zionists to the persecution of the palestinians that is still going on today.

The allies didn’t even know about the final solution until afterwards did they?

Yes they did - they knew about it early on. Its been written out of history but brave poeople made the allies aware. Read up on it.

I’d argue WW2 had a big religious element since Hitler had a problem with Jewish people.

Jews are an ethnic identity, as well as a religion. And that didn't start the war, it was about Lebensraum or 'more living space for German people' i.e. ethnic Germans. That's why I put it down as ethnic. Don't forget he also persecuted other ethnicities, communists, non-white or Aryan and even the disabled as part of his policies not the actual war, not just Jews.

Northern Ireland?

That's ethnic, I reckon. Ultimately it's Brits vs Irish.

The allies didn’t even know about the final solution until afterwards did they?

[pedantry]TBF, the Nazis didn't know about the Final Solution until 1942. I think it didn't take the allies much longer after that to realise what was going on. [/pedantry].

I think after the 30 Years War (which seems woefully under taught in the UK) ended up being perhaps the most brutal European conflict after the 1st and 2nd WW many many European powers (including the UK) took a long hard look at themselves and what they thought to be the justifications behind it. I think it's probably the last European war where religion was considered a major factor.

Like most folk do, you've missed out the Taiping Civil War. Started because a Chinese man decided he was  the brother of Christ, ends with perhaps as much as 50,000,000 dead Again, woefully under taught in the UK

Religion continues to kill folk...I imagine the Taliban are only beginning to get into their stride.

I'm no historian but Rangers v. Celtic seems to be a religious war with no end in sight.

That’s ethnic, I reckon. Ultimately it’s Brits vs Irish.

100% religious. Its not brits v Irish its catholics v protestants

100% religious. Its not brits v Irish its catholics v protestants

Only because the Catholics were Irish and the Protestants were British.

100% is a ridiculous thing to say. You do know the origins of the conflict don't you? Nothing is 100% anything in history.

I syuggest you read up on it.

there was politics that set the scene but the people fighting? Its all about religion

Religion is one of the most regressive things in this world - stop making shit up to excuse the harm it does

The Easter uprising was political but the NI conflict post war is 100% religious.

personally I think religion is the excuse, not the cause.

Only because the Catholics were Irish and the Protestants were British.

Really that in a lot of conflicts.
The divide between ethnicities, nationalities, ideologies, whatever seems to also follow religious divides. Which one 'caused' the war? Difficult to say, but religion is another really good way of dividing them and us and providing an excuse for us to fight them.

Religion starts all wars and it’ll start another one here.

It should all be banned.

According to the Encyclopedia of Wars, out of all 1,763 known/recorded historical conflicts, 123, or 6.98%, had religion as their primary cause.

For the whole entry, click here.

Most wars classed as religious probably have an underlying ethnic, political or economic basis.

Religion is the smokescreen politicians use to rally the masses behind the cause

I think after the 30 Years War (which seems woefully under taught in the UK) ended up being perhaps the most brutal European conflict after the 1st and 2nd WW

It is indeed woefully undertaught, may I recomend 'Europes Tragedy' By Peter H Wilson on the topic, you can't begin to understand modern European and specifically German history without having a basic knowledge of the 30 years war.

Where I will have to disagree is in the statment above, even at the time in Germany, the devastation WW2 was seen as terrible, but nowhere near as bad as that suffered during The 30 years war. One of the Nazi generals (I think it was Keitel) said as much at the signing of the German surrender.

The area now known as Germany lost appoximately 20% of its population, mainly to the Famine and disease the war brought in its wake. In some areas the number was nearer 60%.

Religion may not start that many wars, but it certainly acts as an intensifier and will take a conflict from a political struggle to a far more bloody and intractable ethnic and cultural one, Syria is a pretty clear example.

tjagain
Full Member
That’s ethnic, I reckon. Ultimately it’s Brits vs Irish.

100% religious. Its not brits v Irish its catholics v protestants

there tj not having a scooby again. 😆 It's british colonialism, pure and simple.

mjsmke
Free Member
I’d argue WW2 had a big religious element since Hitler had a problem with Jewish people.

Freeing the jews wasn't a motivating factor for the allies. It also wasn't really hitlers main motivation, was german nationalism and expansionism that were the main motivators.

When the thing the two sides have to differentiate them is religion and they fight its a religious war

seosamh77

As I alluded to - politics gave rise to the conditions - the implanting of the ulster protestants as colonial administrators, the partition of Ireland - along religious grounds etc but the reason the two sides fight is purely based on their religion

Its impossible to go over all the details as to why what when and where in a short post and even this is barely adequate

Anyhoo, I agree with the OP, religious is a tool in wars, it's rarely the main motivator.

Yes, @hatter, you are correct about Germany's casualties in the 30 years war. I was referring to the total amounts of deaths in the conflicts though. some 70 million for the totality of the 2nd WW. But yes I take your point that the impact was probably even more devastating

Ultimately it’s Brits Ulster Scots vs Irish.

FIFY

Most wars classed as religious probably have an underlying ethnic, political or economic basis.

Religion is part of ethnicity in the main, which then feeds into politics which feeds into economics. It's a contributing factor in many conflicts and often used to give legitimacy to dubious secular reasons for war. The concept of a "just war", "jihad" etc

tjagain
Full Member

As I alluded to – politics gave rise to the conditions – the implanting of the ulster protestants as colonial administrators, the partition of Ireland – along religious grounds etc but the reason the two sides fight is purely based on their religion

It isn't, the reason is one side wants a united ireland and the other wanted to protect their gerrymandered non-democratic sectarian state.

It was/is a fight for control of the territory.

People will always find an excuse to murder each other on a grand scale. Religion is just one excuse amongst many that makes it easier to justify. It’s all some form of tribalism at the end of the day. If you can make someone less human by othering them, makes it easier to explode them innit.

I was referring to the total amounts of deaths in the conflicts though

Fair point, the 30 Years War is reckoned to have cost 4.5 - 8 million lives, what makes it so intense is that those casualties were hugely concentrated in the relatively small area of what would become Germany at a time when, to put it into perspective, England and Wales were reckoned to have a total population of roughly 4.5 million (1650 estimate by historian Karl Julius Beloch.)

Its effect on that part of the world can't be overstated, only the Mongol conquests come close in terms of depopulation by invasion.

Religion is the smokescreen politicians use to rally the masses behind the cause

Religion is/was merely a form of control of the ignorant masses by the ruling elite. As societies become more educated religion loses its influence as we see in the West today.

The Crusades is the obvious religious war, but in reality it was a land/resource grab. Most wars will have the religious theme of good against evil.
As quoted above - religion is the smokescreen used to rally the masses.

Ethnicity/tribalism. Religion isn’t the cause, but is often a flag to rally round.

Stripped away, the basic tenets of most religions can be boiled down to “do no harm, do only good” - archaic versions of our rule number one -don’t be a dick.

Any aggressive religious teachings are a perverse rewriting of that basic message, so while they are supposedly in the name of the deity or principal figure in that religion, they remain chiefly an excuse or exploitation of the followers’ faith.

When the thing the two sides have to differentiate them is religion and they fight its a religious war

Except there are often multiple things, as in the case of NI. The reason there are protestants and Catholics there is because of colonial British politics. Did you ever wonder why there was always so much animosity between Protestants and Catholics in the British Isles? It's political.

Vietnam: Nope, political

Point of order:

Colonial>Political+Religious>Political>Colonial.

The first Colonial covers the first Indochina (Vietnam) War against France. The rest is everything after to 1975.

Except there are often multiple things, as in the case of NI. The reason there are protestants and Catholics there is because of colonial British politics. Did you ever wonder why there was always so much animosity between Protestants and Catholics in the British Isles? It’s political.

In the beginning yes, most wars need lots of resources..and an army..that only governments can afford and supply...so only religious governments can have a religious war, but this is very one dimensional.
For example in Northern Ireland the motivation for non uniformed kids on both sides of the divide was also already sectarian, religion and to a degree cultural difference fueled it at ground level.

Take that example and put it to any war and you will find cultural and economic difference, and..religion, anything that can create a divide between people will feed in.

Did you ever wonder why there was always so much animosity between Protestants and Catholics in the British Isles? It’s political.

Aside from it started off as a religious issue with people being expected to flip faiths on the whim of the monarch until it was solved by preventing them.

With regards to NI you are skipping over why the same colonial policies didnt work so well else where in Ireland. Which comes down to the fact that for Ulster they had a bunch of religious bigots available to be stuck on the plantations and so avoid any risk of them slowly mellowing into the native population as happened elsewhere.

I am not sure the defence of it is only an excuse really works to well. Since you then have the question of why is it such a useful excuse.
I assume you have the same skepticism when it comes to praising religion?

Slightly off tangent but I'm not sure religion needs to be the cause of a wars to be taken apart and criticised for being demonstrably oppressive both psychologically and physically, dictatorial and if it wasn't so dangerous utterly farcical.

I’d argue WW2 had a big religious element since Hitler had a problem with Jewish people.

I don't think Hitler's "problem with Jewish people" had much to do with religion.

demonstrably oppressive both psychologically and physically, dictatorial

Interesting. Who's doing the demonstrating, what are the terms of the demonstration(s), and do they yield observable, repeatable conclusions?

Slightly off tangent but I’m not sure religion needs to be the cause of a wars to be taken apart and criticised for being demonstrably oppressive both psychologically and physically, dictatorial and if it wasn’t so dangerous utterly farcical.

I'm just attempting to point out the fallacy of the point raised in the other thread.

Your point is certainly very one eyed though.

I am not sure the defence of it is only an excuse really works to well. Since you then have the question of why is it such a useful excuse.

A good question. Here's my view: Humans are tribal, and we've evolved to draw a line around ourselves and those close to us and create a locus of 'us'. Anyone falling outside that is 'them' and we view them badly. The more enlightened we are, the larger we draw that locus and fortunately many people place that around the whole human race. Many don't, however, and we can create many such loci with different criteria - race, religion, ethnic background, geographical origin and so on.

So when there is a difference in religion, you can use that to create an out-group. If there isn't, you can use something else. But in European history it was often a convenient way to manipulate the situation to your own ends. I doubt Henry VIII gave a shit about religious doctrine. He just didn't want the Pope telling him what to do. I doubt most of the country did either, however they certainly didn't want to be like those horrible French or Spanish or have some Italian geezer handing out rules. English reformation = Brexit.

War is the almost inevitable result of a lust for power and greed. Ethnicity, religion etc are tools used to justify and manipulate the populations needed to support and fight the ‘cause’.

If you want to promote, start and prosecute conflict you need to get your group to view the other as non-human, you need to depersonalise them so you can minimise any kind of empathy. Religion has been a prime tool in this.

I doubt Henry VIII gave a shit about religious doctrine. He just didn’t want the Pope telling him what to do.

Actually he seemed pretty serious about religion early on. The "defender of the faith" that the monarchs have was originally granted to Henry VIII by the pope. It then got reawarded to him by Parliament a few years later since he was missing it.
Clement VII would have been probably happy to grant him the divorce aside from the pesky detail he was effectively the prisoner of Charles V, who just happened to be Catherine of Aragorn nephew (quick edit there).

However his successors were a tad more serious about their specific variant of the christian faith. The English reformation was also somewhat more complex than brexit. It was imposed from the top down and changed on the monarchs whim in much the same way it did elsewhere in Europe until the Peace of Westphalia managed to mostly put a lid on things.

dissonance

With regards to NI you are skipping over why the same colonial policies didnt work so well else where in Ireland. Which comes down to the fact that for Ulster they had a bunch of religious bigots available to be stuck on the plantations and so avoid any risk of them slowly mellowing into the native population as happened elsewhere.

I'm going to suggest the british wouldn't have had the same interest in retaining the 6 counties if it didn't have most of the industry in ireland at the time..

Seems like a lot of hair splitting, really. Religion provides another opportunity to identify cultural differences. As does preferred football teams, skin colour, gender etc, etc.

I'm not a huge fan of Richard Dawkins the person, but i think there's something in this quote:

"My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a "they" as opposed to a "we" can be identified at all."
Richard Dawkins (A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love)

demonstrably oppressive both psychologically and physically, dictatorial

Interesting. Who’s doing the demonstrating, what are the terms of the demonstration(s), and do they yield observable, repeatable conclusions?

Saxonrider

Are you really attempting to say that religion is not oppressive and regressive and used to control populations?

the taliban banning womens education

Bans on condoms leading to millions of deaths from aids

Bans on abortion in many countries - look to the new laws in Texas

the role of convents and its oppression of women

The fact religeonus used as a cover for child abuse

Polygamy and forced marriage in Mormon

Repression of women in islam

I could give you lots more examples

Religeon is medival superstition used as an instrument to control people - its it only function

Religeon is a foul regressive force.

I also give you the religious objections to dignity in dying - thats utterly foul. what on earth gives the religious the right to think they can control my life and body?

@molgrips

You lost me at #1. The stated goals of Al Queada and IS are entirely religious. They tell us this at every opportunity. Local conflicts are strategic to them in achieving the longer term religious goals. IS don't hate the West because of Palestine or Iraq - the hate us because we are non believers and (to them) it's both allowed and a duty to kill us all to death to achieve their religious end goal.

I think it's very hard for an atheist to appreciate the power of religion. Suicide bombers really, truly believe they are going to nirvana. They are not running in to die thinking of Gaza. I really struggle to get my head round it but read / listen to what these people say. They are telling you they are engaged in a religious war to achieve a religious goal.

Are you really attempting to say that religion is not oppressive and regressive and used to control populations?

I think the blanket assertion that all religion is oppressive, regressive and controlling is the problem. I know a lot of religious people, I've been to a lot of religious services, I've never felt oppressed or any sense beyond a group of people finding comfort in a system that labels itself religious but on the ground, in their world, is caring and compassionate and does a lot of good locally.

I'm obviously aware that at a wider level, especially historically, a huge amount of evil has been done under cover of a religious label.

A blanket ban on religion is just as oppressive and regressive and controlling, but your views on this are well known and it is a black and white issue with no tolerance of grey for many.

The stated goals of Al Queada and IS are entirely religious.

The stated goals may be religious. The actual outcomes on the ground are power through possession of land and resources and repression of women and minorities. Whatever the label, whatever direction the persecution is aimed at, its the same quest for power and control as the Nazis, but with a different label.

More cash - you are an educated white man in a liberal(ish) democracy. Its hardly the same.

you re not having your bodily autonomy violated. You are not being refused education. You are not being told what you can and cannot wear.

And as for the suffering caused by the religious attacks on dignity in dying - utterly foul.

The vast majority of people I have met who identify themselves as religious have had the most rigid and distorted views on how they, and others, should live their lives.
This is recognised with the 'religious belief exemptions' for such basic human rights: abortions; blood transfusions; wearing a helmet on a motorbike, and even vaccination for a deadly virus.

I think the blanket assertion that all religion is oppressive, regressive and controlling is the problem. I know a lot of religious people, I’ve been to a lot of religious services, I’ve never felt oppressed

Yeah but it's the usual thing of the majority of people are sensible and follow their religion with a balanced view. Those who take up arms in the name of religion are not so balanced in their outlook and often don't come from the Chipping Norton Parish Church, but some god forsaken hell hole in some obscure corner of the world where people have less than nothing. No life and no prospect of a better life and not control over their life...just a life of misery to look forward too. these people are easy fodder for those who are out to groom and brainwash with the promise of 21 virgins in Paradise.

Religion is a tool...that is why it was invented in the first place. To control people in an uncivilised time before there were any structured civilisations, rule of law and institutions that organise, manage and run our societies.

And we forget that religion doesn't just cause misery in war time, but in peace times too. Look at the Catholic doctrine of banning contraceptives, especially condoms. How many millions of lives have been ruined, how many people have died and how many unwanted babies have been brought into the world and into a life of poverty, disease and famine as a direct result of this evil 'instruction from God'? How many witches burned at the stake....how many homosexuals thrown off tall buildings? how many apostates killed? How many fathers and brothers have murdered their own daughters and sisters in honour killings? The death toll that has been amassed over time in the name of religion has not been limited to those lives lost in religiously motivated wars.

I've read that the AK 47 is the most lethal weapon man has ever invented...the reality is the most lethal weapon ever devised by man is religion.

the taliban banning womens education

I also saw a cyclist running a red light.

you re not having your bodily autonomy violated. You are not being refused education. You are not being told what you can and cannot wear.

Your logical fallacy here is the idea that none of this would happen if it weren't for religion.

The stated goals of Al Queada and IS are entirely religious.

Yes but why? And why don't all religions people do this? Why don't all Muslims do this?

Similarly, how come so many Christians are aresholes when Jesusnis very clear on not being an arsehole? And how come so many non religious people are good people? This is how we can prove that being an arsehole comes from somewhere else in humanity.

Suicide bombers really, truly believe they are going to nirvana.

Suicide bombing is just a choice of weapon. There'd still be violence if there weren't suicide bombers. This stinks of Islamophobia by the way.

Religion provides another opportunity to identify cultural differences. As does preferred football teams, skin colour, gender etc, etc.

As you go on to list many other differences I think you have shown that we don't need religion to discriminate. Which is my point.

Religeon is a foul regressive force.

You're citing a list of bad stuff people have done and associated with religion. Firstly, there is absolutely no evidence to say that they would not have done similar things without religion*; secondly you have completely and apparently wilfully ignored all the good stuff that religion does for people. When religious people have posted this out you've dismissed it as having no value. So your arguments are pretty weak from an intellectual point of view.

It's like seeing cyclists jumping red lights and then saying all cyclists jump red lights so they should be banned. You don't notice the ones that don't jump lights.

* In fact many of the things you point out are part ofmxuktural identity along with religion. Do Jews circumcise kids because the Bible tells them to? Or did they write that into the Bible because that's what Jews do?

Lip stretching is done in certain tribes because it is a mark of belonging to that tribe, not because it religions doctrine. So it happens for secular reasons too. You cannot therefore single out religious mutilation and ignore secular and use this as evidence for religion being bad.

The death toll that has been amassed over time in the name of religion

In the name of it, yes, but not because of it. If you think none of those things would have happened without religion then you have a very poor understanding of how people work!

Molgrips - stop inventing stuff you claim I have said

When religious people have posted this out you’ve dismissed it as having no value.

Balderdash and piffle.

When you see first hand as I have done the deep psychological harm done by religion and the suffering and torment it causes it makes one feel very strongly. Have you seen people die in fear and distress because they believe that their dying is because they did not believe enough? I have. ( if you want to know more about this PM me.)

Religion is medieval superstition used to control people - thats that top and bottom of it. anything else is a corollary - the main purpose of religion is to control and the attempts to control the secular stink

I will give them as much freedom to worship and they give me to be secular.

With that I step away from this thread - Brads was right in his comment

Let me put it another way. There are 2,400 Hindus in Northern Ireland. I don't recall seeing much anti-Hindu violence there, even though their beliefs are far more different than Protestants and Catholics. If the Troubles were religiously motivated wouldn't the IRA be against all non-Catholics?

Many Irish nationalists were protestant eg Wolf Tone and Parnell.

You need to untangle religion from national, racial identity..

Taiping Rebellion - religious, 20-70 million deaths. Religious start, inflaming racial tensions.

Oil
Oil and gas
Oil, gas, minerals
Oil, gas, minerals and water

Thats in history, now and in the future
Obvs not in pre industrial revolution times

I give this until lunchtime at the latest…

As long as that?

@molgrips shove the islamaphobia card up you arse. These people are literally telling you the answers to questions you ask and those answers are religious. But in the face of them telling you why they're doing what they're doing you seem to think that actually it's all a bluff and really they mean something else. Islam isn't a homogenous block, the particular beliefs underpinning violent extremism are not the majority but they do exist and deserve recognition and criticism. Just like it's possible for the worst head banging Christian cult to exist at the same time as Christianity, and criticism of the former does not necessarily reflect on the latter.

Religion is medieval superstition used to control people – thats that top and bottom of it

That's your view of it - other viewpoints exist.  As @tomd has just pointed out the extremes only define the extremities, not the whole of the thing

Your logical fallacy here is the idea that none of this would happen if it weren’t for religion.

I think that's the point I was failing to make. I agree with all the points TJ was making in his reply to me, but I don't believe that all those terrible things would end if religion was banned. Human nature means some exploitative bastard would find some other reason to inflict misery on "others".

The fact that a lot of the reasons driving "religious" extremism could be removed by political and economic will - poverty, education, healthcare etc - makes me believe that "religion" per se is rarely the cause, it is the symptom. If the money spent by the allies militarily in Afghanistan had been put into wider social projects, (and not siphoned off in corruption!) the Taliban would not have gained the ground they did.

And so banning religion because a minority exploit it is like banning football because a minority use it as a cover to abuse and attack others, while ignoring the pleasure and emotional wellbeing that the majority get from it, (the weirdos).

It's too easy to want to ban X or y as it is the obvious problem, while failing to realise that the desire for a quick and easy result doesn't actually deal with the root cause which is z.

Came here to see the comments about Northern Ireland. I'm not disappointed.

[quote=Brads]Religion starts all wars and it’ll start another one here.

It should all be banned.

brads wrote:
Religion starts all wars and it’ll start another one here.

It should all be banned.

spEak You're bRanes

@morecashthandash if the causes of violent extremism are poverty, education and healthcare then why was Al Queda, for example, started by a wealthy man from Saudi who could have done anything with his life? Why do people leave rich western countries to go and live in poverty in the caliphate? What are the demographics of people attracted to violent religious war?

You could listen to what they tell you and they do it for religious reasons. They want to reach paradise for eternity and therefore what is some earthly hardship?

Above you also dismiss the phenomena of suicide bombing by saying that if it wasn't that it would be some other violence. If you think about it it's far more terrifying. You have people who are better educated than you, smatter than you, richer than you, with better earthly prospects than you - deciding that the logical thing to do is kill themselves and as many others as possible. They do this because they sincerely believe they are going to paradise. As hard as it is to believe it's the truth. They are not mentally ill downtrodden people, far from it.

Religeon is medival superstition used as an instrument to control people

Always has been and anyone who base's their outlook on life through any religion in the 21st century should be considered mentally ill

Search for George Carlin on YouTube, he absolutely nails it with his views on religion

They do this because they sincerely believe they are going to paradise. As hard as it is to believe it’s the truth. They are not mentally ill downtrodden people, far from it.

The two are not mutually exclusive, though I'd prefer to call them vulnerable rather than mentally ill. Very few rich and "successful" western based people have gone to join AQ/ISIS etc, I'm not sure picking the extremes on either side of the argument justifies anyone's point in thus discussion. The point I'm trying to make is that probably 90% of the "religious" folk in the world are peaceful and tolerant, which a lot of intolerant non-religious people insist on glossing over.

Above you also dismiss the phenomena of suicide bombing by saying that if it wasn’t that it would be some other violence

At no point have I discussed suicide bombers, which is a very different phenomenon to general abuse of power, war and control that I have been talking about.

As mentioned, religion and power often go hand in hand.
'opium for the masses' to regurgitate an old phrase.

The power hungry need the peasents onside to do the dirty work.
More often than not religion or nationalism, or ideally both is a very convenient vehicle to that aim.

See brexit, ISIS, Israel, Northern Ireland, American patriots... Etc.

I am well aware that many folk find comfort in religion and I support their freedom to worship. I do this to the point I have taken patients in my care to church on my time off. Same as I have done this for football / rugby and cricket fans. Its the right thing to do. I have also made sure people get care in the way their religion requires making sure they get the right spiritual support they want again going right out of my way to do so.

What I will not do is be quiet when religious people want to control aspects of my life to conform with their religion and once you start to think about it this happens far more often than many realise. Religious interference in my secular life is never acceptable. the most obvious one is the utterly foul way they interfere in end of life care. and be very sure of this - the vast majority of objections to dignity in dying are religious pretending to be secular and spreading foul lies.

the other aspect i will not countenance is the mental and emotional turmoil religion causes in some people

One of my most distressing experiences in end of life care was a very devout religious ( IIRC RC) person who believed ( and this was reinforced by her minister / vicar / priest) that her pain and suffering was "gods will" She was dying hard with intractable pain. She honestly believed she was being punished for not being devout enough by her god and she died in real distress. Its unforgivable that religion would do that to someone. I have seen this many times but in this particular case it was really distressing to me and nothing I could do would alleviate her distress. she died full of guilt an turmoil believing she was being punished.

this element is also seen in"mother" Theresas "beautiful suffering" where she deliberately refused treatments for people in her care. Foul

I suspect the reason religion tends to be a recurring factor rather than the sole cause of conflict, is because it is easier to motivate a population to fight and die for you if the glory of eternal life is at stake rather than the enrichment of your rulers. Also it's perhaps easier to get all shooty and stabby with people if they are heathen infidels. Othering at it's logical extreme.

I think it’s very hard for an atheist to appreciate the power of religion. Suicide bombers really, truly believe they are going to nirvana. They are not running in to die thinking of Gaza.

I believe the use of suicide bombers in the Palestinian conflict would suggest otherwise.

I suspect the reason religion tends to be a recurring factor rather than the sole cause of conflict, is because it is easier to motivate a population to fight and die for you if the glory of eternal life is at stake rather than the enrichment of your rulers. Also it’s perhaps easier to get all shooty and stabby with people if they are heathen infidels. Othering at it’s logical extreme.

Dunno, the Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese and Cambodian revolutions, Rwandan and Yugoslavian civil wars and the Third Reich seem to suggest otherwise. And that's just within the last century or so. Humans have a great capacity to "other" each other, religion is just another banner to rally around, if it isn't that it's something else. The key to getting all these people to act in these ways is disenfranchisement, if people feel in control of their lives they generally don't harbour extreme tendencies, it's when you make then feel insecure that they can be exploited and manipulated to extreme acts.

TL:DR don't sit there feeling smug because you're atheist/intellectual/white, you're just as many missed meals away from it as anyone else.

The waters quickly get muddy when you remember how extensively Saudi Arabia has invested in the promotion of the wahhabist version of Islam... and the arms that the fundamentalists created by such religion need to further their cause

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/872075827575492609

All very odd when you consider Boris Johnson is apparently a 'passionate zionist'

Humans have a great capacity to “other” each other, religion is just another banner to rally around, if it isn’t that it’s something else

I don't disagree. I suppose I was just saying religion has performed the function of rallying people to a cause, but I wasn't suggesting it was the only thing that does. There are a lot of aspects of the ideologies behind the conflicts you mentioned that inspire the same kind of behaviour from those that follow them.

@squirrelking have you read Hamas' covenant? Everything in it revolves around the religion. They even have a specific article clarifying that nationalism is part of their religious creed and not a thing in itself. That's between the bits about killing all non believers and there being no political solution, only jihad.

I'm not suggesting Hamas aren't religious, that much is obvious, but the Palestinian conflict on a bigger scale is not purely one of religion. There are adversarial religious elements but they aren't the whole story.

@LimboJimbo that wasn't intended to read as just you I was replying to.

What other elements are there in Isreal / palestine?

Israel's role in the formation of Hamas is another odd one...

Palestinians aren't one homogenous lump, the only common link they have is they aren't Israeli.

The Palestine conflict isn't about religion, its about resources.

What other elements are there in Isreal / palestine?

Err... land, surely? The absolute crux of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is who has the right to live where. Religion is by the by in comparison.

The absolute crux of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is who has the right to live where. Religion is by the the by in comparison.

I am definitely NOT saying that religion is NOT part of the Israel-Palestine conflict (it obviously is), but it is important to remember that many Palestinians are Christian - which makes the whole thing less obviously religious. Indeed, Yassar Arafat's wife was a Christian.

Land and resources is definitely a massive part of the conflict there.

Yes and the jewish diaspora that became Israel decided that bit of land was theirs as gods chosen people - and as a corollary threw the arabs off the land

Most of those jews had no links to the middle east being europeans

the only reason for the conflict is religion 100%. without religeon there would have been no jewish diaspora to the region.