Written by axelx666 on 03.07.2012 at 17:29
the crusades: christians bringing christianty to the islamists.

You're being far too black and white. The Crusades are often brought up as an example of religious persecution; however, the cause behind the Crusades weren't purely religious.

For example, gender historians theorize that as Europe was coming out of the Middle Ages, there were less opportunities for noble men to demonstrate their masculinity - as knights and tournaments were a fading tradition. Therefore, they began to cause strife in peaceful countrysides and cities. Fighting amongst themselves, creating blood feuds - and innocent citizens and peasants were caught in the crossfire. This restlessness was especially evident amongst young adults, who essentially had to wait for their elders to die in order to inherit their lands and own estates. In order to deal with this problem, religious authorities drummed up religious fervour amongst the populace and encouraged them to reclaim the Holy Land - not "bring Christianity to the islamists". This of course only accounts for why only a portion of the populace went on the Crusades - but it demonstrates how societal and gender issues played into the motivation for the Crusades.

It is interesting to note that there were a number of Christians peacefully living in the Ottoman Empire, along with Muslims and Jews, during the time of the Crusades. Again, this illustrates that the wars were far more complex than just an "us vs them" dichotomy created by religion.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 03.07.2012 at 17:34

Written by axelx666 on 03.07.2012 at 17:29
so do i have enough proof now?

No, because you're ignoring the various elements of war and focusing solely on the religious aspects. The Crusades, for example, while predominantly religious-based, have territorial and economic elements as well. You should read up on the Byzantine Empire for some interesting information on that subject.

you are right on that i don't know much about the byzantine empire, i know about the war with the ottomans anything before that no.
i'll read up on it.

Written by FingerlessToes on 03.07.2012 at 17:56

Written by axelx666 on 03.07.2012 at 17:29
the crusades: christians bringing christianty to the islamists.

You're being far too black and white. The Crusades are often brought up as an example of religious persecution; however, the cause behind the Crusades weren't purely religious.

For example, gender historians theorize that as Europe was coming out of the Middle Ages, there were less opportunities for noble men to demonstrate their masculinity - as knights and tournaments were a fading tradition. Therefore, they began to cause strife in peaceful countrysides and cities. Fighting amongst themselves, creating blood feuds - and innocent citizens and peasants were caught in the crossfire. This restlessness was especially evident amongst young adults, who essentially had to wait for their elders to die in order to inherit their lands and own estates. In order to deal with this problem, religious authorities drummed up religious fervour amongst the populace and encouraged them to reclaim the Holy Land - not "bring Christianity to the islamists". This of course only accounts for why only a portion of the populace went on the Crusades - but it demonstrates how societal and gender issues played into the motivation for the Crusades.

It is interesting to note that there were a number of Christians peacefully living in the Ottoman Empire, along with Muslims and Jews, during the time of the Crusades. Again, this illustrates that the wars were far more complex than just an "us vs them" dichotomy created by religion.

all i can say is ah. interesting point.

The problem with attempting to distinguish the religious aspects from the "non-religious" or "secular" aspects is that religion purveys all societal facets and ideologies during the Middle Ages. It is increasingly problematic to distinguish the religious from the secular when speaking of the crusades, especially when the supposed reason behind them was to uphold one's piety by zealously undertaking an armed pilgrimage, as the crusades essentially were, to recapture the "Holy Land" from the power of those who were seen as defiling it, that is the Muslim domination.

So while axel may be treating things very black and white I wouldn't be so quick to inject too many shades of grey into the equation, religion was the predominate factor in causing the crusades, there is no denying that. And that is simply because of the extent to which religion held influence in other areas of societal function. Matters of economy and power struggles had inherent religious attitudes and ideologies as fundamental determinants in how things panned out, whether explicitly relating to crusading cause or not.

There is no clean divide which you can make when speaking of reasons of a religious nature as opposed to those not of a religious nature when considering the cause of the crusades.

Also it is not so much that Christian powers were attempting to bring their faith to the "Islamists" as axel says above, rather their aim was to restore their faith in the Holy Land and they were far more content to forcibly remove those of the Islamic faith than actively convert them to Christianity.

Written by axelx666 on 03.07.2012 at 17:29

but WWII is caused by religion due to hitler's hatred of jews.
and the other wars are too.


btw notice how CHRISTIANTY is in nearly all of these?
so do i have enough proof now?

I believe you already got what Troy wrote you.

Hitler didn't hate Jews because they followed Jewish religion (because, as you might imagine, there are plenty of Jews who don't follow the religion... hell, I know Jews who are Catholic...)... You had a possibility to get killed just because you had Jewish heritage.
And let's not forget that it wasn't just about the Jews. Gypsies, Slavonic nationalities and Finno-Ugric peoples (unless those who had "Germanic" enough phenotype) were also in the "death list" and that's not about religion... that's racism. Not to mention the open secret of Hitler himself having Jewish heritage (among with several other nazi leaders)...

Yep, you should read about Byzantine empire. In fact, you should read a lot more than you have (or haven't) by now because it's the only way to learn about other things because what you've written in this thread so far, expresses, pardon me, very little and rather superficial knowledge and conception about historical events.

Written by FingerlessToes on 03.07.2012 at 17:56

For example, gender historians theorize that as Europe was coming out of the Middle Ages, there were less opportunities for noble men to demonstrate their masculinity - as knights and tournaments were a fading tradition. Therefore, they began to cause strife in peaceful countrysides and cities. Fighting amongst themselves, creating blood feuds - and innocent citizens and peasants were caught in the crossfire. This restlessness was especially evident amongst young adults, who essentially had to wait for their elders to die in order to inherit their lands and own estates. In order to deal with this problem, religious authorities drummed up religious fervour amongst the populace and encouraged them to reclaim the Holy Land - not "bring Christianity to the islamists". This of course only accounts for why only a portion of the populace went on the Crusades - but it demonstrates how societal and gender issues played into the motivation for the Crusades.

Thanks...

You're right but there are factual errors. As the crusades took place during the Middle Ages, what you described, couldn't have happened when Europe was coming out of the Middle Ages. Knights and tournaments were not a fading tradition. The reason why the young men had nothing to do was plain poverty.
And we're speaking about nobility here, not peasants who worked their fields and milked the cows. As you might've heard, when a nobleman died, everything he owned, was distributed to his sons. When one of the sons died, his share was in turn distributed among his heirs, and so on... That means that with every generation the share for every heir became tinier and tinier until you had the typical situation where a father's will might've looked like this "To my eldest son: house. To the second son: horse. To the third son... sorry, nothing left but the cutlery."

Those noblemen who inherited almost nothing, had no other option than to become "wandering warriors" who, obviously, either served for mercenaries in the service of whoever paid a good enough sum or instead just lived according to the "eat or be eaten" policy that implied robbing and raping.

So, indeed... could there have been any better opportunity to create new jobs for homeless delinquents with a military upbringing than sending them on a mission to the Middle East with an economically and politically promising outcome. Plus, of course, the ideological motivation "They're infidels!" that people bought...

And another true thing is that... The islamic society was a lot more highly developed than the western one. Obviously not because of religion but because Europe was, after all, lying on the post-apocalyptic ruins of a former superpower while the Middle East was a young and thriving superpower who had all the means for advanced technology and scientific discoveries. And of course, speaking of human rights, it was the same thing. In Europe you had the "eat or be eaten" policy while it was no problem at all for Christians to practise their religion or for European pilgrims to visit the holy sites there.

The Europeans eventually lost it all... The best and most iconic drama was the Christian attack on the Christian city of Constantinople which never recovered after that. And why? Because it was a damn rich town full of nice shiny stuff and the Venetians and westerners were awfully jealous of the Byzantine Empire being so successful and rich seafaring country... in fact... it was the last remnant of the Roman Empire and with its fall Europe had officially opted for degradation.

But hey... The Turks later had nice hot baths there while the French were shitting in the corners of their fancy palace rooms and hid the body odours with expensive perfumes...

Riley-Smith has concluded that the Crusades (especially the first one) weren't really an opportunity for dispossessed younger sons to go on a search for fortune. For Bohemund of Taranto (the leader of the Italian Normans on the First Crusade) it certainly was a way to make up for territorial losses, but preserved documents suggest going on a crusade was actually a signifigant investment. Nobles had to sell their estates and gather financial support from their families to be able to go on the trip (as they obviously did not go out as wandering footsoldiers, but knights with servants and expensive equipment). Many of the sales documents actually have a condition that lets the crusader buy back his land if he makes it back alive, at a reasonable price. It's a somewhat outdated 20th century theory that it was a problem of inheritance that led crusaders to seek fortunes on an adventure. It was often a matter of family honor, genuine religious enthusiasm, perhaps indeed a way to fulfill masculine expectations, and possibly a penance for some.

The immediate cause of the First Crusade was a plea for help from the emperor of Constantinople as the Turks conquered and/or threathened their lands. I think the request was officially delivered at the Council of Piacenza? It's been a while since I did my dissertation on a related subject. When the Turks took control of Jerusalem from the moderate Fatimids (whom had had good relations with Christians) pilgrimage to the Holy Land became increasingly difficult within a generation. Local lords taxed Christian pilgrims freely, and eventually they got turned back. That was one major cause and justification of the First Crusade.

There are a variety of reasons, religions, political, cultural (the ethos of vendetta; the blood feud thing Fingerless mentioned indeed seems to be a widely accepted view), economic, and so on. FingerlessToes was no wrong, though it wasn't the tournament tradition that was fading; I believe it was the pacification of Europe and lack of conquests to be made. I don't think Urban II was really aware of the sociological fine points of the situation or consciously tried to channel restlessness into the Crusades. He was probably quite surprised by how eagerly people responded to the Crusade rhetoric at Clermont and later. He wasn't inventing some new concept to forcefully push through, he was simply repeating rhetoric devices of previous popes (Gregory VII had said almost exactly the same thing about leading an army to Constantinople's aid, but it didn't start anything). It seems that the time was just right.

And yes, one more point: the First Crusade couldn't have been about converting muslims. That was strictly against canon law: it was not acceptable to use force to convert people into Christianity. It was only acceptable to use force to ensure safe conditions for peaceful missionary work. It may sound like splitting hairs to modern readers, but it was actually pretty consistently and strictly enforced by the papacy in the Middle Ages. It wasn't until Bernhard of Clairvaux's preaching later in the Crusades period that the canon ideal began to crumble, but even after that the popes tended to stick to the letter of the law. Bernhard was an exception who stepped over the line, not the norm. The conversion of Europe and elsewhere was primarily a peaceful process, and whenever the papacy was involved it tried to make sure of it. The religious aspect of the Crusades, apart from being a pilgrimage that granted complete indulgence, was to free Jerusalem. And it wasn't even a problem that muslims had control of the city until they started preventing Christian pilgrims from entering, so it's wrong to say mere religious difference was the cause of all that bloodshed.


Sorry for the fragmented, messy post! I just had so many tidbits of information to comment your posts with, and no coherent message. I know quite a bit since I did my candidate's thesis on how the Holy Lance and Petrus Bartholomeus is perceived in the contemporary and eyewitness accounts of the First Crusade (primarily Raimundus de Aguilers, Fulcherius Carnotensis, Albertus of Aachen and the anoynymous Gesta Francorum). I can't comment on the later Crusades though, it would need another few thousand pages to read.

Written by IronAngel on 06.07.2012 at 17:00

it's wrong to say mere religious difference was the cause of all that bloodshed.


Sorry for the fragmented, messy post! I just had so many tidbits of information to comment your posts with, and no coherent message. I know quite a bit since I did my candidate's thesis on how the Holy Lance and Petrus Bartholomeus is perceived in the contemporary and eyewitness accounts of the First Crusade (primarily Raimundus de Aguilers, Fulcherius Carnotensis, Albertus of Aachen and the anoynymous Gesta Francorum). I can't comment on the later Crusades though, it would need another few thousand pages to read.

Kiitoksia! Tack so mycket!

About the inheritance issues. While it surely was like that at some point, I agree that this wasn't the main reason behind the crusades. It just was a lot more plausible than "fading of the tournament tradition". In any case, I'm extremely happy to see posts by people who are better-than-average-read and aware of history. Too often does shallow and/or black and white knowledge of historical events cause misunderstanding and hatred.

History wasn't my main subject at the university, therefore I think you have a bit more detailed knowledge of the events.

Independently of concrete examples, me thinks it is interesting to see the situation of the past and present.

Alot of the examples cited here are from a long time ago... when religion had power in political, social and economic aspects. With secularization of society, influence of religion in all aspects gets weaker, and so does it's role in war. But there are still alot of wars, so religion wouldn't be a cause, only a variable that can easily be replaced.

Europe is the continent with most wars in History, and is the continent where Christianity is/was the strongest, hence the constant presence of Christianity in all those past wars (Crusades, Protestants, blablabla). Nowadays, what is the role of religion in wars that concern Western countries ? None.

On the other hand, if you check other societies that haven't taken the secularization as far (or haven't started), we see that religion still has a word to say in conflits. Middle East seems obvious answer, but also in Africa.

Of course, this doesn't mean that secular countries will be less prone to cause/suffer war, it is just that the reasons behind the conflit shifts in actors and interests. I also think it is much more influence by the political nature of the internal system (for interstate conflits) than anything else, and that the role of religion is put more aside since the Peace of Westphalia.

Theory - man causes war. man simply uses whatever -ism is handy.

Written by Vombatus on 08.07.2012 at 13:05

Of course, this doesn't mean that secular countries will be less prone to cause/suffer war, it is just that the reasons behind the conflit shifts in actors and interests.

Human being is a very interesting predator (sharp canines, eyes that look straight ahead instead of on sides like those of herbivores... these of course are characteristics shared by most carnivores). In fact, when ordinary predators kill because they need to eat, humans have developed it into some kind of sordid art by killing (all possible species, including and especially one's own) not so much for food but for pleasure.

Sure, religion has always been a good back-up system to give this urge a certain legitimacy. You get this "them vs us" thing and the pleasure of sacrificing and ritual killing (in the name of a deity or because a deity supposedly demands it or for other similar reasons...)

You asked for some modern examples and I can give you one. It's from a documentary clip I just saw on TV. It was footage from a US military aircraft that was patrolling over an area in a town in Iraq during the recent war. They shot unarmed people from above. The visceral "fun" was increased by the fact that hollow bullets were used that were meant to penetrate armour but in case of a civilian target had the power of ripping the defenceless body into pieces.

It was very sad to see how one wounded survivor crawled on the ground looking for shelter while the soldiers were filming it from above. Then a car appeared. It was a man taking his two kids to school. He stopped the car and stepped out in order to pick the wounded survivor up and drive him to a hospital.

I don't exactly remember the exact dialogue that took place inside the aircraft but it was something like that:
"There is a car there. They are picking up the bodies. Allow us to interfere."
The dialogue continued where the ones who reported were BEGGING for a permission to shoot.
"Permission granted. You can shoot."

And they opened fire... and regarding the kids it was said "Well, it was their own mistake brining the children to the battle."

They survived. They were contacted later by some journalists who showed them the footage and this family broke down in tears with the mother asking: "WHY did they do it? What crime had we committed that caused the soldiers to shoot?"

A logical explanation would be that for a soldier who commits these kinds of acts, it's like a video game (and yes, if you're shooting from an aircraft, the human beings look more like computer game characters indeed... sort of). Plus it's not uncommon for soldiers to brag about who killed the most during a day. Can it be better? You can take lives without being really responsible. Civilian casualties, women raped, children slaughtered and tortured... it has always been a part of every war, whether based on religion or not. If one starts to think of words of Christ, the message was that people should overcome these urges. The urges of receiving pleasure from the pain of others.

Another footage showed a building being blown up because three enemy fighters were supposedly hiding inside. The building was blown up although a civilian was walking past and he could be seen engulfed by the blast.

"Just look at those dead bastards down there..."

In fact, Szandor LaVey was right about one thing. Satanism is the best suitable religion for human beings. There really is some apparently primordial evil urge inside this species (perhaps this is what some call Original Sin) because no other living organism does things like that.

Example: you all have probably seen videos where a herd of wildebeest saves a young from predators or where a young elephant is being saved from drowning by other members of the herd. Or where a predator lactates a herbivore young or vice versa. Sure, human beings also can do beautiful things, display love and compassion... But are there any animals that would skin another alive and hang it up to die slowly? For pleasure... not for eating...

If one looks for causes of wars... religion can be a powerful back-up but it's clearly not indispensable...

Written by Ernis on 10.07.2012 at 01:20

Plus it's not uncommon for soldiers to brag about who killed the most during a day.

really? how many soldiers do you know?

i'm a vet, i served for the entirety of the first gulf war.

one of my good friends, buddies for over a decade, and who i meet up with for a beer or two whenever we are in the same zip code served boots on the ground twice in Iraq. he's never said fuck all about the war to me, just that he was there. that's it. not one fucking word more. and i won't pry.

my next door neighbor was 25mi away when they caught Saddam* ... all i know is he served over there and needed me to look after his dog while gone. not one word more

participated in the Adopt-A-Soldier program, and sent some comforts of home to an Army soldier stationed somewhere near the ancient temple of Ur. He actually CALLED me from Iraq one day to thank me for a package with snacks, magazines, peanuts... talked about his job escorting convoys and the long ass stress filled days when they ran into possible IED's while in the middle of nowhere. at no point was any "action" mentioned.

while flying home from a trip a marine who lost his fucking leg and had a prosthesis sat next to me. didn't broach the subject, but eventually he mentioned his service. never bragged. none of that. was just legitimately sad about friends of his who never made it home.

i know or have met a lot of vets. not a fucking one has ever mentioned, let alone bragged, about killing anyone.

but i'm sure you have a lot more non-straw man interaction and knowledge in this area than I do.


* when the mustachioed dictator who rises to power representing 30% of the population who uses his secret police to crush all opposition, squash freedoms, violate international agreements on re-armament, invades his neighbors and uses chemical weapons against minorities he doesn't like hits white Europeans we couldn't get there soon enough.

when the mustachioed dictator who rises to power representing 30% of the population who uses his secret police to crush all opposition, squash freedoms, violate international agreements on re-armament, invades his neighbors and uses chemical weapons against minorities he does like hits non-white/non-Europeans we shouldn't be there at all.

damned if we do, damned if we don't. time to bring our troops home and keep 'em here. let the rest of the world butcher and murder one another. it's only "war" if we're involved, apparently.

Written by BitterCOld on 11.07.2012 at 00:32
i know or have met a lot of vets. not a fucking one has ever mentioned, let alone bragged, about killing anyone.

I come from a military family and have met a few of my grandfather's friends from his time served. He retired a chief warrant officer after serving for 33 years. His greatest pleasure aside from the travel was the fact that he only ever had to fire his gun once - as a warning shot. He has never talked about the casualties of war. None of his friends talk about their time together in the military... they're happy to be alive in the present and prefer to focus on keeping the talk as light as possible. The only thing they brag about is their golf handicap.

My great-grandfather survived his time served during WWII as a low-level infantry and retired not too long after returning home to Canada. He loved to talk about the war but always managed to omit the death toll. He lost his thumb to a rifle bullet and that was the only thing he was able to joke about. When his mind started going in his later years he would talk about the deaths of his friends and his enemies in depth. Sometimes he'd zone out and yell at the people around him as if he were back on the battlefield, which eventually led to a violent seizure. Long story short, the guy never bragged about a single death, be it a friend's or an enemy's.

Written by BitterCOld on 11.07.2012 at 00:32

Written by Ernis on 10.07.2012 at 01:20

Plus it's not uncommon for soldiers to brag about who killed the most during a day.

really? how many soldiers do you know?

Thanks for shedding the light to the topic from another angle. I admit I should have presented that more directly as a quote because it was said in the documentary. Apologies if the phrase left an impression of being applicable to everyone.
I think it falls under the same category as "Are all muslims terrorists?"/"Are all Christians crazy puritan fanatics?" This time it's "Are all soldiers violent murderers?" No, I think not. Even though every now and then you hear news stories of veterans who murder their wife and kids or who commit suicide or who end up as drug/gambling/alcohol addicts. There's no point bringing up any topics about POWs being tortured and things like that as we all know that the worst news sells best and if everything makes the headlines, it's the most negative.

While I don't want to say that every soldier commits crimes mentioned in the documentary, it is a sad fact that things like that do happen and have always happened.
My great-grandfather was in war and as much as I've understood, it ruined his life completely because he wasn't the same person any more after the return. And the change had been towards worse. Same thing about my grandfather who was sent to a certain camp... those who survived, usually had more or less severe psychological problems for the rest of the life which made blending into ordinary society very difficult.

The question is, does a war make things better? Is a nightmarish end better than an endless nightmare?

Does war makes things better?

sure, some times it does. it is an evil, but sometimes a necessary one.

the problem the peace idealists don't realize is that all the sternly worded letters from the UN and hippie drum circles in the world won't liberate Tibet, wouldn't have given the Iraqis a shot at freedom from the Husseins (between a locked up abroad with Uday's body double and a BBC "Saddam's Tribe" docu/pic that aired this week, seems Saddam was NICE compared to the insane jackass that could very well have taken over. how anyone can not see the removal of that family as a positive is beyond me... unless they ARE a Hussein. And even then the family preyed on their own just as brutally as they did the Kurds)

just like every attempt at keeping the piece and appeasing Hitler ended up making things worse.

certain situations can be resolved peacefully, provided both sides are rational actors (Gandhi, India, and the Brits), but others are not and don't care. the only way to free peoples from entrenched dictators with a stranglehold on their country is force.

or just to simply sit back, do nothing, and let people suffer and die in the name of "peace".

I never know Saddam is fucking dictator to the point he had a statue. Iraqi celebrated when pulling it down.

Theory: Religion Works to End Wars.

I hear so much about how "religion" starts all these wars and conflicts. And I'm not going to go off on a tangent there but I wanted to bring up the concept that religion has also helped to end many of these strife filled moments. Just look at something like the Gladiators in Rome and why and how it ended! It was because of Christianity. Or what about Apartheid? Or the rebuilding of Rwanda? Even today, folks like Shane Claiborne and his work during the invasion of Iraq. Here in the United States we had a massive civil rights movement in the 1960's and probably the most important leader of the was Martin Luther King Jr. who was clergy. I could go on and on, but I think you get my point.

Written by Dane Train on 12.07.2012 at 00:35

Theory: Religion Works to End Wars.

I hear so much about how "religion" starts all these wars and conflicts. And I'm not going to go off on a tangent there but I wanted to bring up the concept that religion has also helped to end many of these strife filled moments. Just look at something like the Gladiators in Rome and why and how it ended! It was because of Christianity. Or what about Apartheid? Or the rebuilding of Rwanda? Even today, folks like Shane Claiborne and his work during the invasion of Iraq. Here in the United States we had a massive civil rights movement in the 1960's and probably the most important leader of the was Martin Luther King Jr. who was clergy. I could go on and on, but I think you get my point.

That's definitely true. I'd also like to add that when Islam came, it united Arabs and ended silly wars between them (Two tribes fought 40 years for a horse. Imagine that).

Written by BitterCOld on 11.07.2012 at 00:32

Written by Ernis on 10.07.2012 at 01:20

Plus it's not uncommon for soldiers to brag about who killed the most during a day.

really? how many soldiers do you know?

i'm a vet, i served for the entirety of the first gulf war.

one of my good friends, buddies for over a decade, and who i meet up with for a beer or two whenever we are in the same zip code served boots on the ground twice in Iraq. he's never said fuck all about the war to me, just that he was there. that's it. not one fucking word more. and i won't pry.

my next door neighbor was 25mi away when they caught Saddam* ... all i know is he served over there and needed me to look after his dog while gone. not one word more

participated in the Adopt-A-Soldier program, and sent some comforts of home to an Army soldier stationed somewhere near the ancient temple of Ur. He actually CALLED me from Iraq one day to thank me for a package with snacks, magazines, peanuts... talked about his job escorting convoys and the long ass stress filled days when they ran into possible IED's while in the middle of nowhere. at no point was any "action" mentioned.

while flying home from a trip a marine who lost his fucking leg and had a prosthesis sat next to me. didn't broach the subject, but eventually he mentioned his service. never bragged. none of that. was just legitimately sad about friends of his who never made it home.

i know or have met a lot of vets. not a fucking one has ever mentioned, let alone bragged, about killing anyone.

So... I hate to be "that guy" but despite the fact that there are some good old fashioned 'Murican freedom fighters out there, people like this still exist:

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/07/12/accused-in-afghan-massacre-to-have-court-hearing-in-september

Soldier goes on rampage and kills 16 civilians. Women and children kind of civilians. Obviously not every soldier is like that but I think in your anecdotes you may be idealizing soldiers as a whole population. Whether or not people you know who served or veterans you met did their duties respectfully, the reality is that there are members of the soldier population who do downright horrible and disgusting things. And 16 civilian rampage has no excuse.

Also, from the Rolling Stone article about the "Kill Team" of US soldiers:

"Then, in a break with protocol, the soldiers began taking photographs of themselves celebrating their kill. Holding a cigarette rakishly in one hand, Holmes posed for the camera with Mudin's bloody and half-naked corpse, grabbing the boy's head by the hair as if it were a trophy deer. Morlock made sure to get a similar memento."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327

So honestly I wouldn't say it's "not uncommon" but it's out there.

Although it's a tad off topic regarding religion, I feel like it's worthwhile to discuss.

I've never been part of a war nor have known anyone been part of a war, but I wouldn't say war makes things better, not even some times.

Every country has problems, but it doesn't work if another country comes in and puts an end to what they think were the problems of the people.
You can't really judge unless you live in that situation.

Also regarding Gandhi and India, I don't know if you know, but there were loads of people who were killed during this time.
I like to believe that peaceful methods bring about change, this may be in the long run, but I think its a lot better than taking out the problem through violence and the ramifications being a lot of innocent people getting killed.

I have problems with the government. But I still enjoy my life with my friends and family. If someday someone decides we could be living a better life, starts a war to take out our government and bring about change, but in the end I lose my friends and family. How is my life better? How are my friend's families lives better?
I don't know maybe this way of thinking is "wrong" but I'd prefer it this way to any other way.

Oh I just realised the topic was Religion Causes War
I don't really agree with that though.
Humans cause war!

Written by Dane Train on 12.07.2012 at 00:35

Theory: Religion Works to End Wars.

I hear so much about how "religion" starts all these wars and conflicts. And I'm not going to go off on a tangent there but I wanted to bring up the concept that religion has also helped to end many of these strife filled moments. Just look at something like the Gladiators in Rome and why and how it ended! It was because of Christianity. Or what about Apartheid? Or the rebuilding of Rwanda? Even today, folks like Shane Claiborne and his work during the invasion of Iraq. Here in the United States we had a massive civil rights movement in the 1960's and probably the most important leader of the was Martin Luther King Jr. who was clergy. I could go on and on, but I think you get my point.

Any idea or theory forced upon someone else doesn't make things better. So I wouldn't agree that religion works to end wars either.
You have your beliefs I have mine, what makes it right for you to say your beliefs are right and mine are wrong? (Btw way you does not imply you, Dane )

Written by Dane Train on 12.07.2012 at 00:35

Theory: Religion Works to End Wars.

I hear so much about how "religion" starts all these wars and conflicts. And I'm not going to go off on a tangent there but I wanted to bring up the concept that religion has also helped to end many of these strife filled moments. Just look at something like the Gladiators in Rome and why and how it ended! It was because of Christianity. Or what about Apartheid? Or the rebuilding of Rwanda? Even today, folks like Shane Claiborne and his work during the invasion of Iraq. Here in the United States we had a massive civil rights movement in the 1960's and probably the most important leader of the was Martin Luther King Jr. who was clergy. I could go on and on, but I think you get my point.

Yeah, I was going to bring this up in the medieval context, too. There were movements like the Pax Dei and Treuga Dei, and the papacy worked actively to protect both the newly-converted and the pagan from the Fratres militie Christi Livoniae, during the missions and crusades to Livonia. (This included the concept of papally protected states where military orders had no say.) The examples go on.

That is not to say religion is a force of peace and education, either. Just that it's something intertwined with every aspect of society and can work in conflicting, contrary ways in various historical situations. Evaluating religion "as religion" and not as an inseperable part of a unique historical situation that has never been and will never come again is simply not fitting for academic historical studies.

Written by IronAngel on 13.07.2012 at 13:45

Yeah, I was going to bring this up in the medieval context, too. There were movements like the Pax Dei and Treuga Dei, and the papacy worked actively to protect both the newly-converted and the pagan from the Fratres militie Christi Livoniae, during the missions and crusades to Livonia. (This included the concept of papally protected states where military orders had no say.) The examples go on.

In the history class we studied one particular incident where the representatives of the pope were slaughtered by the FCL (Fratres militie Christi Livoniae) in front of the very altar.

Also, being Christian or being pagan didn't save from death. Natives could be slaughtered even when they were Christian. Therefore, it wasn't as much about exterminating "pagans"... It was about strengthening the hold of the land.

Written by Mattybu on 13.07.2012 at 06:53

Although it's a tad off topic regarding religion, I feel like it's worthwhile to discuss.

Thanks Ninja Ape. I just bring one example from our local recent history. This country here was occupied (sorry, I mean, liberated) by both the nazis and the commies. They took turns and every time people were either (forcibly) recruited as soldiers (which meant that fathers/sons/brothers/friends were forced to kill each other if they ended up abducted by the opposite sides) or sent to "safe places" (where many never returned from). In the end the commies won and a pro-Moscow puppet government was installed and for the next 50 years all we heard was "We brought you freedom. You owe your happy and safe life and democracy to us." Yeah right? What bout the people who died when you bombed the hell out of us? What bout the families who were separated and sent to different camps and who never saw their loved ones again?

Some people here escaped into the wild and for a while they attempted to resist the new regime. Guess what they were officially labelled? So... a man who had lost his wife and kids, who had lost his home, who had lost everything, teamed up with some others who had suffered the same fate, escaped and tried to avenge the occupying soldiers was called a... you guess what... And for 50 years it was absolutely out of the question to mention the casualties because we had to be thankful for our liberation...

Written by Spirit Molecule on 13.07.2012 at 12:36

Any idea or theory forced upon someone else doesn't make things better. So I wouldn't agree that religion works to end wars either.
You have your beliefs I have mine, what makes it right for you to say your beliefs are right and mine are wrong? (Btw way you does not imply you, Dane )

I feel that you have missed the entire point of my original post. Nowhere did I mention anything about forcing ones beliefs upon someone else, did I? My point is that because of "religion" (oh how I hate using that word) there are so many people who have worked and helped to end conflict. And it has nothing to do with forcing someone else to believe as you do.

I don't know why but I have been getting into a lot of these types of discussions lately (both online and in person).

Religion, per se, is certainly not a bad thing. Religion is simply an idea and by itself it is incapable of doing harm to anyone, what really harms people is thirst for power and influence. With this in mind lets take a look a few major world conflicts that are often associated with religion:

1. The Cruzades -- Sure it sounds like religion played a major role in this conflict but if we dig a little deeper we will see that religion was simply used as an escape goat. During the time the Cruzades took place, the Catholic Church was perhaps the most powerful institution in the Western World. The reason for going to war was not to convert the Muslins and Jews that lived in the region but it was to obtain land and to spread its influence to the near east (thus strengthening the Church). Also as Ernis said before, Europe was going through very tough times financially and let me tell you without getting too much into economics: war is among the best things to have when you are facing tough economic conditions because it ramps up production and provides a lot of employment, especially with the form of government used at the time.

2. The Spanish Inquisition -- once again it sounds like the Catholic Church was persecuting those that did not agree with Christian values. The Spanish Inquisition is actually an example of an institution that held too much power and oppressed those that threatened its position of power. Its frankly not much different than the murders, kidnaps, torture cases, and rapes that happened in South America during the dictatorship in the second half of the 20th century.

3. The Sunni and Shi'a -- Once again it sounds like religion is the main problem, but in fact these are historically different tribes that share the same political boarder. This is not a case of "I am more righteous than you" but rather a case in which both parties are trying to seize control of the government. Lets keep in mind that religion is not the only issue that divide these two groups, they are historically and culturally different but live in the same country.


It is very naive to believe that religion (or any sole issue) is responsible for the atrocities we see. I highly recommend everyone to take a class in Public Choice Economics at one point of their lives. This helps us see that problems occour when we give too much power to institution, it doesn't matter if this institution is a church, a government, or a corporation, the results will be very similar because they will do whatever is necessary to maintain and expand their political, economic, and cultural influence.

All i have to say is...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STALIN

Stalin was a die hard atheist and responsible for arguably the biggest genocides in history.
Not to mention that Hitler, while pretending to support anglo Christian's in a political power move, did not practice the religion or any other religion himself and he promoted Atheism in the doctrine of the Hitler Youth, telling the children that religion will make you weak. (as seen in the autobiography The Shame of Survival: Surviving a Nazi Youth by Ursula Mahlendorf)

So the 2 Biggest Mass Murderers in Earth's History were fundamentally Atheist.

-END OF DISCUSSION-

Hmmmmm that some atheists are responsible of mass murdering doesn't necessarily mean religion is out of the equation. It misses the point of the thread me thinks.... but no worries, I always was against the "theory" (if you can even call it that : ) that religion causes war

Written by Vombatus on 13.12.2012 at 16:59

Hmmmmm that some atheists are responsible of mass murdering doesn't necessarily mean religion is out of the equation. It misses the point of the thread me thinks.... but no worries, I always was against the "theory" (if you can even call it that : ) that religion causes war

Well i guess thats true because the way the poster gave his statement he claims religion is the cause even when it is severely indirect, as in the case of the American Rev. Talking on that point..

Making a claim that something indirect leads to something bigger and naming the indirect as the sole cause of the bigger catastrophe is a classic slippery slope argument, a type of argument considered by most to lead to fallacies. I could just as easily plug in "resources" where "religion" was in the statement. The Jamestown expedition came to America to try and become rich(well rich-er), so it could be argued that resources were the cause of the revolution. It could be said that the Greeks were the cause of the revolution because their ideas inspired American forefathers to take up arms and create a democracy. etc etc.

I think you get the point. The statement is a slippery slope argument and incredibly absolute for something that is much broader and complicated.

The 20th century is arguably the most athiestic in the modern era,

The biggest killing machines have been by Non religious Regimes, or where religion was not the main driver. Hitler, Mao, Lenin, stalin, Pol Pot, The North Koreans, and many more.
This short list alone is responsible for over 100 million deaths. There is no comparison with respect to religion. Even the Crusades only killed in the 10s of thousands.

I think that it is not purely religion that causes war, but intolerance of different religions. Any religion that does not teach its followers to be violent cannot cause violence by itself, but it is people not accepting others or wanting to live peacefully that causes war. That intolerance, though I'm not going to make any over-arching statement, I think is the cause of a large percentage of wars, because if people accepted each other peacefully you wouldn't have any border wars, religious wars or quite of few other kinds of wars. That does leave out energy wars though, those are their own thing. The world would be very different if we were not in need of new fuel sources at all times or fearing that we may run out.