After reading responses to the leader-for-a-day thread, it seems a lot of people think that religion causes wars. I don’t think this is the case. Let’s go back through history based on the ones I can think of:

1. Afghanistan/Iraq: Maybe – retaliation for an act of terror from people who hated the West, but this could well be derived from the Israel/Palestinian conflict which itself could be considered ethnic or territorial

2. Gulf War: Nope – resources/politics

3. Yugoslavia: Maybe religious, maybe ethnic

4. Iran/Iraq: Nope – politics

5. Soviet/Afghanistan: Nope: territorial

6. Israel/Palestine: Maybe, or maybe ethnic/territorial

7. Vietnam: Nope, political

8. Korea: Nope, political

9. WW2: No again, territorial and ethnic. The allies didn’t even know about the final solution until afterwards did they?

10. WW1: Political

11. Boer war: colonial

12. Loads of colonial wars

13. Napoleonic wars: territorial

14. US/British wars: political and/or territorial

15. English civil war: Probably a yes, this is the strongest religious cause I can think of. But only at the start, a lot more issues came out in the wash. But fundamentally it could also be considered a constitutional revolution, parliament vs monarchy.

I’m not seeing religion as a specific cause of that many big bust-ups.

What do the historians of STW think?

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..