Does religion cause war?

[Drewsnia]

I think in the past and present, religion has been the cause of many wars and conflicts. But it is rarely the cause. The cause is usually something like greed, national aggression, a quarrel between leaders, or just an imperial conquest. I only know of 2 wars caused by religion and those are the Crusades and the present day Muslim Jihadist conflict.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Religion causes war as much as the song Helter Skelter caused the Manson family murders.

Not so. Helter Skelter doesn't contain lyrics about genocide that's supposedly justified because a small group of people did something.

[Johz]

A passage I find amusing is Judges 1:19
"The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots."

Chariots 1 God 0.

I've always enjoyed the verse somewhere in Genesis where God has chosen either Moses or Abram or similar to lead his people, and then the next verse along says that God caused this poor guy to be ill. It's a fascinating insight into ancient Israelite beliefs and understandings of the workings of the Almighty.

[Al-Harakut al-Islami]

No, religion doesn't cause war, but it has been used to justify war.
Wars have been done in the name of religion, nationalism, Communism, democracy, and other ideologies which aren't inherently evil, or are at least not evil because they've been used to justify war.

[Imperial Parhe]

I doubt that. You yourself said that religion is not usuallyalways the first cause of a war, so, even if there were no religion, the wars would have not really have been stopped.
I also doubt that a world without religion would have wars that were less frequent, shorter and less brutal. Could you please elaborate?

At each stage a conflict (from another first cause) is undermined by reason, hedges ageist spreading, self-interested resrante and diplomacy. Religion's (and other metos'/poedicks') role is to incapacitate thees. So without religion a tiny fraction of thees conflicts wold become wars. Likewise, a smaller fraction wold perduse atrositys and the geometric expatiation do to escalation is much smaller. And finally the same factors result in ends of wars, so the cases of peace treatys and reconciliation wold be in for force as opposed to the tinny fraction they have with religion and it's true evil faith intact.

And that's were religion is not the first cause.

Could you please apply this to three or four wars within the past five hundred wars?

[EnragedMaldivians]

Does religion inevitably cause war? No.

Can it cause war? Yes.

When it does cause war, is it because of the religion itself or because it is being used a political tool? Depends.

[Salandriagado]

Over the period of human history, a finite positive number of wars have been caused (or at least justified) by religion. This is pretty well indisputable.
Over the period of human history, a finite positive number of wars have been caused by things that are not religion. This is pretty well indisputable.
Thus, it is obvious and indisputable that the correct answer to this poll is "sometimes".

[New Sapienta]

Yes, it does.

But so does a shitton of other things.

[Sociobiology]

faith leads to war, religion is just the leading supporter of faith.

[Vorond]

Fanaticism does. What flavor of it does hardly influence the outcome.

[Ovisterra]

Nah, we just imagined the Crusades.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Fanaticism does. What flavor of it does hardly influence the outcome.

Except that dangerous fanatics are more likely to be religious. Someone who believes that what they do will lead to eternal paradise is more likely to commit genocide than an atheist with somewhat machiavellian policies.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Religion by itself does not cause war very often.

It's when you mix it with politics that it becomes a catalyst for fighting. It's like water. On its own, in moderate amounts, it's quite good for you. Too much drowns you and if you chuck some sodium into it, things start getting unpleasant.

OK, so it's not a perfect metaphor, but you get the idea.

[Mike the Progressive]

You think sometimes? Well good for you!

Religion can be a cause for war, but so can anything else -politics, gender, race, and the list goes on and on. Some of the worst crimes of humanity happened under regimes that were "atheist." This of course does not mean atheism is evil, it just means people can be, with or without religion.

[Imperial Parhe]

Fanaticism does. What flavor of it does hardly influence the outcome.

Except that dangerous fanatics are more likely to be religious. Someone who believes that what they do will lead to eternal paradise is more likely to commit genocide than an atheist with somewhat machiavellian policies.

But i don't know many religions that say stuff like that.

[Vorond]

Fanaticism does. What flavor of it does hardly influence the outcome.

Except that dangerous fanatics are more likely to be religious. Someone who believes that what they do will lead to eternal paradise is more likely to commit genocide than an atheist with somewhat machiavellian policies.

I read your point and raise you a Hitler (or a Stalin if you will). Secular fanaticism can be just as dangerous as any other, though religion has a way of hindering actual thought by making people believe instead of questioning. Look at North Korea, their "Juché"-crap is completely secular and still just as stupid as the ravings of an orthodox [insert major religion here]. Anyone who does not admit that his convictions could be wrong is an idiot, it's that simple.

[ALMF]

faith leads to war, religion is just the leading supporter of faith.

good simplification of my point

[Yichta]

You think sometimes? Well good for you!

Religion can be a cause for war, but so can anything else -politics, gender, race, and the list goes on and on. Some of the worst crimes of humanity happened under regimes that were "atheist." This of course does not mean atheism is evil, it just means people can be, with or without religion.

lol

[Genivaria]

Religion can certainly lead to "death by faith-healing."

[ALMF]

Except that dangerous fanatics are more likely to be religious. Someone who believes that what they do will lead to eternal paradise is more likely to commit genocide than an atheist with somewhat machiavellian policies.

I read your point and raise you a Hitler (or a Stalin if you will). Secular fanaticism can be just as dangerous as any other, though religion has a way of hindering actual thought by making people believe instead of questioning. Look at North Korea, their "Juché"-crap is completely secular and still just as stupid as the ravings of an orthodox [insert major religion here]. Anyone who does not admit that his convictions could be wrong is an idiot, it's that simple.

Hittlarian fascism is catlick not secular at base. Stalin was mi-6 due to his 1918 Angickin conversion, so his actions are a religiously motivated war on the country he was the head of. Granted that doesn't go for many of his supporters, but can we end this rediculas clame of a catlick and a Anglican as examples of the "evils of atism" .

[ALMF]

At each stage a conflict (from another first cause) is undermined by reason, hedges ageist spreading, self-interested resrante and diplomacy. Religion's (and other metos'/poedicks') role is to incapacitate thees. So without religion a tiny fraction of thees conflicts wold become wars. Likewise, a smaller fraction wold perduse atrositys and the geometric expatiation do to escalation is much smaller. And finally the same factors result in ends of wars, so the cases of peace treatys and reconciliation wold be in for force as opposed to the tinny fraction they have with religion and it's true evil faith intact.

And that's were religion is not the first cause.

Could you please apply this to three or four wars within the past five hundred wars?

I'll try but given my writing difficultys that much deateal may take some time.

[Parhe]

Could you please apply this to three or four wars within the past five hundred wars?

I'll try but given my writing difficultys that much deateal may take some time.

its okay. While I do, for the most part, currently disagree with your view, I do find this interesting, and would like to understand better what you mean through examples.

[The Multiversal Species Alliance]

Nearly every war and conflict in human history has had religious justification, from the Sumerians to the American military in Iraq, the soldiers have used their religious beliefs to justify atrocities and murder. The Sumerians would say that they fought, murdered, and enslaved their own people on behalf of their city's patron deity.
The 523rd Fighter Squadren of the USAF named the "Crusaders" which includes a Christian cross and a helmeted crusader painted onto their aircraft. During the Gulf War, an F-14 fighter/bomber had "Isaiah 21:9" written on it's explosives.

[The Batorys]

Fanaticism does. What flavor of it does hardly influence the outcome.

Except that dangerous fanatics are more likely to be religious. Someone who believes that what they do will lead to eternal paradise is more likely to commit genocide than an atheist with somewhat machiavellian policies.

Pol Pot.
Kim Jong-Il
dare I say it, Hitler
Stalin
Mao
And countless other examples through history.

People don't need religion to be utter monsters to each other. It's just occasionally a convenient excuse.

[Cruciland]

"Does religion cause war"

TA-DA!!! (points to the Taliban)