|
Post by nonny on Nov 16, 2003 23:38:19 GMT -5
Do you think getting rid of religion would lessen the number of wars, i mean World War II was becouse of religion, the war in iraqi started over religion. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by Yaw on Nov 16, 2003 23:53:38 GMT -5
Nope. Not a chance.
WWII was actually fallout from the measures inflicted on Germany following WWI by the Allied powers. Germany was in an extreme recession for much of the 1930's. Hitler used justifiable anger against the ridiculous economic conditions to consolidate power, and chose suitable scapegoats. Naturally, what he did was evil, but it wasn't particularly motivated by religion. It was a cynical use of prevailing stereotypes to manipulate the German population, combined with an expansionist philosophy. Note that the Allies learned from this lesson, and upon defeating Germany in WWII began the Marshall Plan to get Germany back on its feet economically, rather than forcing the country to suffer and creating the conditions for another war.
And the war in Iraq wasn't caused by religion either -- Iraq under Hussein was a secular country, and bin Laden considered Hussein an enemy of Islam. The most recent round was caused by belligerence on the part of the Bush administration, that decided to attack Iraq before Bush even got into power. There were reports written about taking over Iraq by the People for a New American Centure (PNAC) think tank, which was run by many of the people now involved in the Bush administration, back when Clinton was in power. Even on Sept. 11, 2001, Paul Wolfowitz was looking for any excuse to pin the terrorist attacks on Iraq. This was probably one of the most blatantly fabricated pretexts for war in history.
In general, while religion may form part of the rationale for a war, it's never the entire rationale. Usually, many other things factor in, such as economic factors, political relations, etc. My tendency is to think that the non-religious factors form the backbone of any justification for war, and any religious factors may be used to fill in some areas to justify it to the public. Hardly a rationale for doing away with religion.
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Nov 17, 2003 0:00:10 GMT -5
The way I have always looked at the 'religion and war' issue is as follows:
Wars will still be fought, land will be conquested/disputed, man will still seek power and riches.
What will probably change is the leaders will not be able to use differences in theology as a 'banner' under which to rally their troops. The paid military will still be marching off to war whenever their leader calls for such action, but the general citizenry may be more ready with a protest, more able to question, more knowledgable of the true motives of their leadership.
Will war stop? Probably never.
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Nov 17, 2003 0:08:20 GMT -5
As the saying goes'War will never stop till everone is dead' another question sorta comment i have is,yes a bit of topic, but a lot of poeple kill others saying it was under God's will, like a while bacm a christian killed an abortion doctor saying it was in God's will, same with the killing of some gays it is all god's will, that seems a bit wrong to me. Doesn't the bible say 'Thou shalt not kill'? so most of them are hypocrits?
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Nov 17, 2003 0:17:41 GMT -5
Yes, the fundamentalist extremists do claim that they are doing God's will. As far as being hypocrits, well, it depends on how you look at the Bible. If you read the entire book (especially the Old Testament), you will find that the same god that supposedly commanded that his chosen children not kill also commands them to kill on his behalf. There are countless examples where this "Loving God" has either killed himself, threatened to kill, or commanded killing in his name.
Will these sorts of murders end if religions ceased to be? I doubt this also. The only factor that would change is the 'reason' the killer uses. Again, these people are unbalanced at a lower level than their adherance to a religion. If you look at the killing of abortion doctors, in particular, the person is murdering someone who is acting within the law because they feel that this doctor is murdering 'innocents'. Their action against the doctor is no different than what they accuse the doctor of, except they are doing it to protect the lives of future 'innocents' that may be killed by the doctor. Although they may say it is the will of their god, they are actually committing the murder in order to stop abortions. In my opinion, even without religion, there would be people who feel that abortion is wrong ... and are unbalanced enough to take violent action to stop it.
|
|
|
Post by ck on Nov 18, 2003 8:27:11 GMT -5
I think religion starts alot of wars but even without religion wars would still be going on.
|
|
KEvb0
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 21
|
Post by KEvb0 on Dec 3, 2003 0:12:18 GMT -5
I look at it as religion being a mechanism of control to push people to war. Generally I'd say that religion is a kind of excuse for war, because basically war is caused by greed. Greedy people make up some bs religious reason to fight others so that they stay in power and prosper. The masses they control follow and you have two groups of people fighting for an illusionary reason.
I always found the idea of fighting for a "holy land" to be kinda ridiculous. Isn't worshiping a piece of ground equivalent to worshiping a false idol? Besides the fact that any god who cares more about land than people, can't be such a great god.
|
|
|
Post by Yaw on Dec 3, 2003 0:36:08 GMT -5
While the concept of a land being "holy" is debatable (meaning that I'm not particularly interested in debating it ), I think there's a "sense of place" aspect to this that's important. For example, if some army invaded the US, would you consider fighting for it ridiculous? If not, then you can at least appreciate a part of the mindset that would have people fighting for a "holy land". It's a place that has meaning to them, and hence, that they feel is worth defending. It doesn't necessarily need the religious verbiage to be considered worth fighting for.
|
|
KEvb0
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 21
|
Post by KEvb0 on Dec 3, 2003 0:46:08 GMT -5
Worth fighting for to defend, but if you are an invading army who is attacking on the grounds that you will reclaim land you believe to have religious significance, or if you are trying to remove a group of people who live on that land because they have a different faith, than I don't see how that can possibly be considered good faith.
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Dec 3, 2003 8:05:45 GMT -5
The thing I find most disturbing, in the case of Jerusalem, is that the Jews, Christiams and Muslims worship the same god. The God of Abraham. I have wondered, if (big if, I know) the religious significance was removed from the equation, and the city was viewed only from a historical stand-point, would there still be the violence we see today?
|
|
KEvb0
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 21
|
Post by KEvb0 on Dec 3, 2003 12:08:18 GMT -5
When it comes down to it I think it's prejudice. I have a tought time with the situation between Israel and Palestine. Both sides commit atrocities, so it is hard to pick one. All I know is I saw footage of giant bulldozers plowing down homes, some with people still inside. Fuck that, that's a step away from being a nazi. If I was a jew I'd be ashamed of Israelis for acting in such a fashion. Chomsky has some interesting things to say on the situation if you get a chance to read it. He seems to hypothesize that the violence is perpetuated by the United States support of Israel and he makes a very good argument. (well duh it is chomsky)
|
|
zoul
Maverick's Chew Toy
Posts: 35
|
Post by zoul on Dec 3, 2003 20:46:18 GMT -5
War, what is it good for? Whoa absolutely nothing huh. As the old song goes. So we need to look for the course, delve into human history. Evidence from paleontologists suggests that homo Neanderthals and homo Africans recognized each other as humans even trading jewelry, speculation on cross breeding is still out there. But the way of life was completely different from life a few thousand years later. When the climate changed and hunting large game became almost impossible six or seven thousand years ago people turned to farming. Where as hunter gatherers lived in small nomadic groups with females being as equal as men because lets face it women can hunt and gather just as well as men, with the ability to give birth, maybe hunter gatherers where matriarchal groups. Farming on the other hand for early Stone Age man was hard work. For the first time people had property in the form of land and animals. Nomadic wandering was a thing of the past. Anyhow farming with stone tools and semi domesticated animals must have been hard work so people started to live in societies. Society needs rules, because you always have transgressors who take the benefits of living in a society without giving anything back. Religion stops transgressors by giving ultimate justice, (if you don’t obey the rules you’ll go to hell obey the rules and you go to heaven). So when you have groups of people living together under the same rules and rituals they begin to think they are better than another group who are slightly different in their approach to the rules. There by justifying raids on property and the taking of slaves ect. So cultural differences makes war possible rules set up to unite groups of people set other groups apart. When a society grows and there is not enough arable land it’s effective to take more land from other groups, to justify this is your god or gods. which says our rules are the real rules set by the real gods and they are a bunch of heathens who worship false gods. Unless you want the people to work and be part of your culture, like the Romans who would take the god’s of the people they invaded and add them to their own. Today wars are more about land rights and political ideals, as well as mineral resources, but you still have nations saying we are the right people with the right laws and they are a barbaric bunch. Fear and ignorance of the other culture.
|
|
muddog
Maverick's Chew Toy
The blue things are books titles Plato, and the kid has a jar of Play-Doh
Posts: 29
|
Post by muddog on Dec 14, 2003 18:40:11 GMT -5
[glow=green,3,450]"Only the dead have seen the end of war"[/glow] Plato
I agree with Plato on this quote. War will always continue, even if religion is erased. What will change will be the reasons. The wars will be fought for power, land, oil, instead of a small streach of barren sand in the middle east known as the holy land.
The crusades promised a place in heaven for Europeans if they went and fought. Its a good deal for the knights. They get to kill, maim, steal, all in the name of christ. There was a city where the killing of eveybody was so great, the blood was held in by the walls, and left a line on the buildings calf high.
Instead of large massicares, paid armys will fight to the victory and surrender to gain land and power, or to erase a politicaly importent person. War will never end, it will simply continue to be refined. Destroying religion will not end wars, just the truely unnessisary killing in them.
|
|
tamara
Broken-in Plebe
Posts: 96
|
Post by tamara on Dec 19, 2003 10:53:00 GMT -5
I'll tell ya how to get rid of wars. Get rid of men.
How often do you think women would go off on a frigging crusade? Like, never. We have better things to do with our lives.
Besides, I don't know if anyone ever added up the toll of the so called godless political systems but hell if you look at Russia and China and all the lesser atheistic regimes they killed millions upon millions. Stalin systematically starved 30 million Ukranians in the 30s, just like that. Compared to that, most religious massacres are just small potatoes.
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Dec 19, 2003 18:18:26 GMT -5
If we did that, who would change our flat tires?!? Just kidding, I know how to change a tire myself.
Hmmm, what about Joan D'Arc? I can think of several Queens and Goddesses that were associated with wars, whether they are historical is another story. (Gráinne Ní Mháille (The Pirate Queen of Connaught), The Morrigan (Celtic War Goddess), Queen Maeve (Red Branch of Ulster, Celtic Myth), Queen of Sheba (caused civil unrest because of her affair with Solomon), Diana, Athena, The Valkyrie, the Amazons, etc...)
Did they rule/kill in the name of "atheism" though? Did they declare that there was no god (or that god is fake) and use that as their justification for the atrocities? That's the big difference, in my opinion. There is no doubt in my mind that these men (Pol Pot is another one you could cite) were horrible and committed great acts against humanity, but again, they didn't kill on the basis of atheism being the one and only way.
As for Stalin, he was raised in the Russian Orthodox tradition and was very devout in his youth. I think his catalyst was power. The Church stood in the way of his power, and in the way of collectivism.
|
|