Religious wars or terrain wars?

[koan]

percentage wise... how many battles do you think are waged for religious reasons vs. wanting the land the other group is sat on?

If you think it was religious, do you think there wouldn't have been a war for the terrain if the religious aspect was removed?

Obviously I see "man's" hatred as materialistic based, cloaked in one reason or another... or rather straightforward, depending which war you look at. I'm just interested in what other people think on the subject.

[gmc]

koan;1343676 wrote: percentage wise... how many battles do you think are waged for religious reasons vs. wanting the land the other group is sat on?

If you think it was religious, do you think there wouldn't have been a war for the terrain if the religious aspect was removed?

Obviously I see "man's" hatred as materialistic based, cloaked in one reason or another... or rather straightforward, depending which war you look at. I'm just interested in what other people think on the subject.


Economic forces always come in to it there would have been wars over commerce and there were plenty of dynastic wars between warring kings but the wars when religion is the motive are the most ferocious in history. The catholic/protestant wars are among the most bloody in history. There have been many massacres committed in the name of religion.

[spot]

I think you need to distinguish which time period you're discussing. Then you need to distinguish who's being motivated, the troops or the professional army leaders or the industrialists or the politicians, because each is conscious of their own reasons for a given war and there's not a lot of overlap. The cannon-fodder has always been roused by patriotism, religious fervour and outright xenophobia, though those who come back from the wars have generally got over the last of those if there's been significant contact between the combatants. I note that the exception was World War One, the land war being primarily based on trenches and no man's land and faceless bogeys - many of the veterans still had the notion of the heartless Hun raping nuns once the war was over.

Politicians in the UK have actively sought out asymmetric wars for the last two hundred years because a country at war with the fuzzywuzzies, wogs and vortrekkers supports its government, and I suspect the US runs on similar lines. Industrialists like selling armaments and supplying as large an armed force as possible (quite often irrespective of whose armed force it is). Professional military leaders get a grim satisfaction out of doing the only job they think's worthwhile. Those three groups aren't ever going to voluntarily renounce their wicked ways. The public, on the other hand, could chose to stop the bastards if they ever wake up and spit on the propagandists.

[Scrat]

I think warfare throughout history has been waged for material reasons, all else is brought along as tools of war. Religion is merely a means of making war, a tool used to set people against one another.

[chonsigirl]

I agree with spot, that it depends on the war. Sometimes it is for territorial expansion, sometimes for religious "zeal."

[koan]

spot;1343692 wrote: I think you need to distinguish which time period you're discussing. Then you need to distinguish who's being motivated[...]
I didn't specify as the question is based on a disagreement with the nature of man being one of morals and reason. It is my position that, if religion was removed as an option, people would still war with each other either for terrain or to feel the power of victory and self worth.

gmc, I would rather see bloody violent religious war from the past with direct combat than cold aerial wars where bombs are dropped from the sky instantly killing everything in their path then those dropping the bombs have a cup of tea and clap each others back in congratulations of how well it went, writing off the civilian casualties as "Collateral Damage." At least the ferocious wars have some emotion involved. There should be emotion when a person is willing to kill another human.

[Ahso!]

koan;1343720 wrote: I didn't specify as the question is based on a disagreement with the nature of man being one of morals and reason. It is my position that, if religion was removed as an option, people would still war with each other either for terrain or to feel the power of victory and self worth.

gmc, I would rather see bloody violent religious war from the past with direct combat than cold aerial wars where bombs are dropped from the sky instantly killing everything in their path then those dropping the bombs have a cup of tea and clap each others back in congratulations of how well it went, writing off the civilian casualties as "Collateral Damage." At least the ferocious wars have some emotion involved. There should be emotion when a person is willing to kill another human.Either way, whether by arial bombs or hand-to-hand combat, one must lack empathy in order to engage in the activity, IMO.

I recall the surreal feeling I experienced when I came to understand that Roman soldiers were basically individual professional mercenary contractors that made a living off the spoils of those individuals they killed. Not really that much has changed today really, except the spoils are supposed to be left and we simply pay people to kill for us. Its crazy any way you look at it.

I basically agree with what Scrat posted.

[recovering conservative]

It's not an either/or question in modern times. It's been a few centuries when popes and other clerics could raise armies to fight, just on the basis of defending the faith. The different religions make it possible to divide between in-groups and out-groups -- just like racial differences. During bad times -- like an economic collapse -- that may be all that's needed, to turn an uneasy peace into a shooting war.

[koan]

empathy and emotion aren't synonyms.

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

this wasn't worse than any religious war that can be called to mind?

[Ahso!]

You're absolutely right about empathy and emotion, IMO.

[gmc]

koan;1343736 wrote: empathy and emotion aren't synonyms.

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

this wasn't worse than any religious war that can be called to mind?


Haven't you heard the latest? the pope thinks ww2 was a war of religion.

Atrocities commited in war are bad enough but atrocities commited in the name of religion have a visceral hatred to them that gives them an added element of horror imo. The holocaust wasn't just horrific because of the number (stalin arguably killed just as many if not more) the justification for it was what was shocking, it came out of religious bigotry and two thousand years of antisemitism on the part of the catholic church it shocked bacause many shared the anti-semitism sentiment on the allied side, it was a shock to realise where it could lead. The japanese carried out medical experiments on chinese prisoners and perpetrated the most appalling atrocities yet that is somehow not as bad.

Arguably all wars have economic reasons at the back of them and religion is used to incite hatred by leaders. The two main monotheistic religions are the worst culprits when it comes to religious wars, is that a reflection on the people or the nature of their religions? The chinese, so far as I know, never had a war where religion was the cause, nor have the japanese. The indians did when they were attacked by muslims. When the united states expanded westward manifest destiny was used as the justification for the largest land grab in history, probably it would have happened without it even now the most gung ho in favour of war are the religious right. Personally I don't have an answer, I could put a case for both sides of the debate.

[dchistoryman]

"Personally I would prefer a war" who said that? So we now have preferences for wars!!!!!!!

Having been in one and a couple of other "conflicts" I cannot possibly comment without getting banned, except to say that regardless of whether the war is territorial or religious a territorial war is based on economics rather than some mythical being who it appears to me to be pretty similar whichever clothes it comes in.

[spot]

dchistoryman;1343912 wrote: Having been in one and a couple of other "conflicts" I cannot possibly comment without getting bannedIt's not that sort of site. Any opinion whatever, it's all welcome though it might lead to disagreement. Ideally people discover the extent to which they overlap rather than emphasize their differences. Bans only ever result from severe, repetitious and intractable personal insults. And spamming by newbies, of course.

[Bryn Mawr]

spot;1343692 wrote:

I note that the exception was World War One, the land war being primarily based on trenches and no man's land and faceless bogeys - many of the veterans still had the notion of the heartless Hun raping nuns once the war was over.




Christmas, 1914?



Scrat;1343714 wrote: I think warfare throughout history has been waged for material reasons, all else is brought along as tools of war. Religion is merely a means of making war, a tool used to set people against one another.


The People's Crusade?



Both exceptions to the rule, I realise, but both interesting examples of the vox populi.

[K.Snyder]

gmc;1343689 wrote: The catholic/protestant wars are among the most bloody in history. There have been many massacres committed in the name of religion.That's because those unfortunates hadn't realized just how valuable the land was they were sitting on

[koan]

Reading the OT right now has me thinking that all those bloodbath wars are really just a record of the efforts to acquire a segment of land. God telling Moses or anyone who followed that it was His command they take the land doesn't really seem likely or relevant, imo. It's a story told after the fact to explain how they got to where they are and to give them pride and courage. (I'd not be proud of that history but then I'm not from that time period.) They wrapped it in religious clothing but it can stand naked for what it was, people without land wanting land for themselves.

I'm not suggesting that the biblical wars of the OT happened as described, it has just given me great humour to think that folks can see it as a religious war when it's brutally obvious that the biblical tribes were unable to commit to any religion for a significant time period without relapse.

Anyway, bible or not. I've heard some clever people tell some whoppers of stories and been shocked to see how many believe them. I believe in ulterior motives.

[K.Snyder]

"Justification" is the pretense for ungodliness

[koan]

K.Snyder;1344137 wrote: "Justification" is the pretense for ungodliness


pretense: attempt to make something untrue appear to be true

ungodliness: impiety by virtue of not being a godly person

so "justification" is an attempt to make an impure/ungodly person seem like that are pure/godly?

There are so many ways you could have said that less obscurely. Also, there are so many justifications that don't attempt godliness at all, they just attempt avoiding getting in **** for something.

[K.Snyder]

koan;1344138 wrote: pretense: attempt to make something untrue appear to be true

ungodliness: impiety by virtue of not being a godly person

so "justification" is an attempt to make an impure/ungodly person seem like that are pure/godly?

There are so many ways you could have said that less obscurely. Also, there are so many justifications that don't attempt godliness at all, they just attempt avoiding getting in **** for something.


"For", not "of".

Justification is the pretense for ungodliness so that one may wish to impose judgment upon another by virtue of harm entirely related to retribution.

If someone were to so much as harm anyone, and I were there to witness it, I'd splatter their brains out without hesitating long enough to choose in how I'd do it is a question one might ask themselves whether or not they'd like to deem such an event as either being Godly or ungodly, the difference being myself never feeling the need to justify it

[koan]

K.Snyder;1344368 wrote:

If someone were to so much as harm anyone, and I were there to witness it, I'd splatter their brains out without hesitating long enough to choose in how I'd do it is a question one might ask themselves whether or not they'd like to deem such an event as either being Godly or ungodly, the difference being myself never feeling the need to justify it


Leaving aside the interpretation of the former post, just call me lost in your thesaurus, I find this last bit a little theatrical. There are all kinds of harm. If you were to witness a coworker being humiliated by a boss (a type of bullying that can result in suicide and is most certainly harmful) you surely can't believe splattering their brains out would be proper action. Even if you felt no need to justify splattering the brains of a rapist if you stumbled upon the attack in an alleyway, you would be expected to either justify it or be considered a criminal.

The idea that you readily admit a tendency to brain splattering without consideration has me very concerned for you and somewhat happy that you don't live in my town.

Perhaps this is again a matter of not interpreting your words correctly?

[koan]

oh... I think you meant "justification is the pretense for godliness"

the confusion is what the word pretense means.

[K.Snyder]

koan;1344371 wrote: Leaving aside the interpretation of the former post, just call me lost in your thesaurus, I find this last bit a little theatrical. There are all kinds of harm. If you were to witness a coworker being humiliated by a boss (a type of bullying that can result in suicide and is most certainly harmful) you surely can't believe splattering their brains out would be proper action. Even if you felt no need to justify splattering the brains of a rapist if you stumbled upon the attack in an alleyway, you would be expected to either justify it or be considered a criminal.

The idea that you readily admit a tendency to brain splattering without consideration has me very concerned for you and somewhat happy that you don't live in my town.

Perhaps this is again a matter of not interpreting your words correctly?It's surely a matter of not interpreting words correctly I can say that much... The first being "humiliated" which is an argument of complete relativity and is in no way Universally defined. I can just as easily be bullied and humiliate the crap out of that bully simply by accepting his behavior. Why that poor confused soul wished to wonder off and kill his/her self remains to be defined in my "thesaurus" as you wish...

As for the rapist I'd just as soon be humiliated by my inability to "interpret" a rape and a typical pleasant evening spent by a man and a woman, man and a man, woman and a woman, monkey and a 10' 6" gorilla etc etc is entirely up for judgment but if you don't mind I'd like to reiterate my lack of need, with 100% certainty, of ever having to justify a single thing I've done or ever will do in the future

I'm going to bed, I do hope you enjoy your evening

[koan]

That was a reasonably good justification of your statements. lol