What Percentage of wars in history have a "religion" based cause?

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

Poll question: What Percentage of wars in history have a "religion" based cause?

That's the simple question.

[rockymountaindem]

1. Unlike many here

I think plain old greed is a greater motivator than religion in most conflicts. When I say greed, I mean to include "security", in such cases as WWI, when Germany provoked a war it thought it could win in order to neutralize growing "security" threats, which basically threatened their economic expansion.

[Tesha]

57. Religion is often just a handy tool for the greedy and power-hungry. (NT)

[hfojvt]

67. but then religion is not really the cause

there seems to be a trend here of 'blame religion first' if these poll numbers hold for the mass of DU. To me even in things like the Crusades or the expansion of Islam, religion was just a facade and the desire for power and plunder were the true causes.

[ComerPerro]

73. greed is the motivator, Religion is the justification

[Jcrowley]

2. Land

Religion as pretext, melding agent for the masses or camouflage.

Always for land.

[ret5hd]

3. What percentage of wars have a "money/power" based cause?

i would postulate 100%. The "masses" might be told it is a religious war, but the movers/shakers know it is all for their own money/power.

[noahmijo]

12. Bingo. They use religion/"values" to mobilize the sheep

Even as we speak the poor of both sides duke it out while our leaders and their leaders toast wine glasses and work on the next big plan to fuck all of us over.

The image of Bushie sucking Saudi Royal Family ass comes to mind.

[LostInAnomie]

4. The cause of wars mostly depends on what lens you are looking through.

If you have a problem with religion, you can twist facts until the cause of all wars becomes religion. If you have a problem with greed, the cause becomes economics. If you have a problem with conservatives, conservatives become the cause.

There isn't really a catch all. If pressed though I would greed is the biggest factor.

[rockymountaindem]

6. Good point n/t

[BlooInBloo]

18. Relativism = excuse for not thinking...

I don't know of any professional historians who wwould agree that there is no fact of the matter, in general, as to whether or not there exist wars one of whose primary causes was religion.

Then again, it's perfectly possible that 30-40 professional historians is too small a sample size to be helpful - ymmv.

[hfojvt]

68. it is a good idea to note the biases in perception

except that you seem to be saying that there is no objective answer. Another problem is that a war does not have a single cause. So if a war was 37% religious, 32% nationalism and 31% greed would it be fair to say it is 'mostly' religious? Not really, IMO.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

5. All great answers so far! Thanks, DUers! n/t

[Zynx]

7. Religion as the declared pretext or as a true cause?

As a true cause, a big number, but not even close to most. It's always invoked, but rarely is the real cause.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

8. From my POV, all religion is nothing more than superstition or

a political sham so your question is either spot on or beyond my comprehension.

:toast:

[The Straight Story]

78. Well Tom, have to disagree on that.....

Especially and most decidedly the politcal sham part.

I don't think american indians used such beliefs for political reasons, nor have many other cultures. Religion predates many things (which is where you can rightfully use the term superstition) but worldwide I would say being a political sham would have a limit tending towards zero.

As far as superstition goes - One can see the evolution of beliefs based on factors which relate directly to this, but such does not tell the entire story.

People at times related things in manners which, while maybe correlating to them, did not do so universally and as such became a localized belief. Astrology would be the most widely held example of such. From some of these observations knowledge grew, so superstition was a path to knowledge, albeit not always a pretty one (ie, lacked a better methodology).

Gravity is still an enigma in many ways to mankind, it is unseen but it results are evident. Assumptions people have made about it have led to deeper inquiries and a better grasp over time. Those who came before in the last many centuries made a lot of errors in science (as we now know) but that ignorance has led to better things as we had something to build off. Newton was right, but einstein was more so, etc and so on.

Folks of a religious or spiritual nature see the effects of something without seeing the something behind it, and relate this to an unseen power which acts in ways which shows that it makes choices and is not something bound by a law (whereas science deals more with things that obey laws, such as gravity, and not things which make choices as those are unpredictable).

The other factor worth considering is the very term 'god' as it was invented by humans who projected onto the term ideals which may not always fit it. Totally powerful being capable of anything, anytime, anywhere, etc. The view I have seen (as a christian) is really much different in my studies. It goes in to the entire reason, within the realms of the bible, that God had to send Jesus to earth. There was no choice in the matter, because god does obey certain laws and principles. This then falls into the realm of theology (or as I call it, the science and psychology of our god view).

This is not to say there are not really wacko believers in faiths :)

And while one may claim that most wars were fought due to religion, I say that the last war will be fought and mankind will cease as we know it due to science - ala nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, etc and so on. Science has perfected war so we may kill each other in massive ways, and more terrible ones. As the two things are generally considered opposite (science and religion) to some degree, one wonders IF so many wars are fought over religion then why is it being so well aided by science?

Was iraq over religion? Or oil? Oil is needed because science advanced us to a point where we use it so much. So now science has made a dependency which we must protect in order to maintain the great luxuries science has given us.

Small tribes of wacked out religious folks aren't out waging war for oil. Or for most anything else either. While the American indians did fight with one another here, it took science to wipe them nearly out.

Wars have been around since mankind has been here. Albeit usually on a smaller scale over everything from women to land to oil now. People have always wanted to kill off others for something they wanted or needed. It is part of human psychology and general group think - as well as group desire for survival.

Now PLEASE note - I am not bashing science, I love it. Not bashing anyone, just trying to say that perspective means a lot, and the world is a huge place with thousands of years of history (recorded) and countless wars and local skirmishes have been held over a zillion things.

A world without religion would still have the same issues, because it is inherent in mankind. War is about destroying threats, gaining real estate, getting items you need someone else won't let you have, etc and so on. The masses can be stoked by religion - but like right now, the masses are stoked on fear of terrorism. Islam is background noise in all this, the real reasons people backed war was the oldest in the play book - safety and security.

[izzie]

9. I think I need more time to think on this when I said 90

I think I jumped. So many were done by the rulers of countries that used a 'divine' right for so many things. Maybe now we just have taking off the blinders and it is all about wanting some thing some one else has. No more dressing it up?

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

10. I think many things are dressed in the guise of "religion"

to garner personal goals...

It's just a crying shame that there are so many stupid people that are willing to go along with them.

[izzie]

32. I can see this is a subject I will get into. I go off on such stuff

I have been deeply into WW1 of late so this will fit right in. I never seem to be able to read one book and will go on for ever on a subject right down to finding out what kids were reading at the time so to speak. It got me in a lot of trouble in college as one could hardly read every thing one wished about a subject as their was not the time. My daughter tells me it is a dis-order of some type but who cares when one wants to know all you can find out.

[papau]

11. Wars are for tribe w/ $'s&land&power as incentives- religion has little to

do with war -

IMHO

[Hamlette]

13. zero

greed, land, power. The "priests" are used to rally the masses and provide "justification" for the war. Otherwise, who would ever fight for the king/prez/whoever?

IMHO

[bananas]

14. I can't think of any wars caused by religion, except the Crusades.

WWI - no
WWII - no
Vietnam - no
Korea - no
Gulf War I - no
Gulf War II - no
Cold War - no
The Civil War - no

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

16. Hitler was the "uber" Christian....

Looking for the ultimate Christian/Aryan race....

Korea? Non Christians.

Gulf War? Mebbe, but personification rulz!

Cold war? "Godless Commies?"

Civil war, you got me!

[bananas]

17. Eugenics and Racial Hygiene were based on science, not religion. nt

[beam me up scottie]

19. His hatred of jews was based on religion.

Where do you think he got his start?

[bananas]

23. No, his hatred of the Jewish RACE was based on RACISM.

Where he got his start:

He later wrote in his book Mein Kampf that his transition from opposing anti-Semitism on religious grounds to supporting it on racial grounds came from having seen an Orthodox Jew:

<snip>

Hitler began to claim the Jews were natural enemies of what he called the Aryan race.

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

People were classified as Jews based on their physical genetic heredity, not their religious beliefs:

The Nuremberg Laws of 1935 employed a pseudo-scientific basis for racial discrimination against Jews. People with four German grandparents (white circles) were of "German blood," while people were classified as Jews if they were descended from three or more Jewish grandparents (black circles in top row right). Having one or more Jewish grandparents made someone a Mischling (of mixed blood). In the absence of discernible external differences, the Nazis used the religious observance of a person's grandparents to determine their "race."

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

[beam me up scottie]

24. You must be joking.

Do really rely on Wikipedia for history lessons?

Have you read Mein Kampf?

Ever heard of "On the Jews and their Lies" by Martin Luther?

Christians may tell themselves that Hitler was a racist and not an anti-semite or even a christian, but that doesn't make it true.

[bananas]

26. What the fuck does Martin Luther have to do with WWII?

He died in 1546 - three fucking centuries before WWII.

The Church of England was an offshoot of his work, but Britain fought Germany - so if Martin Luther's religious views against the Jewish religion was the basis for WWII, then Britain and Germany should have been on the same side.

Atheists may tell themselves that Hitler was not a racist, but if they say it out loud people will laugh at them.

[beam me up scottie]

28. Get a grip. My point is that Martin Luther was relevant to Hitler's belief

But if you really don't understand what Martin Luther had to do with Hitler, modern anti-semitism, and Nazism, I'm not going to waste my time trying to educate you.

Your comment about atheists is as ridiculous as your premise that he wasn't an anti-semite, since I never claimed Hitler wasn't a racist.

You, however, are in obvious denial about the man and his religious beliefs.

Read a book or two and get back to me when you can discuss this like an adult.

[Leopolds Ghost]

29. I don't see how Martin Luther inspire Hitler to be Anti-Semitic

Both Martin Luther and Hitler came from a region of Europe (Bavaria) that was known for its Anti-Semitism. It was a cultural thing.

Bavaria mostly rejected Lutheranism for Catholicism, did it not?

Bavaria was also known for extreme political and religious beliefs, on both ends of the spectrum. The Anabaptists preached complete pacifism and rejection of the State, in conflict with Luther who was an establishmentarian. The Anabaptists and Mennonites advocated allowing the Turks to overrun Europe on the theory "better to be ruled by a Turk, unfamiliar with the teachings of the Gospel, than to be ruled by a so-called "Christian" who takes up the sword to protect it." After the Anabaptists were defeated (the Munich commune of 16-something) Catholicism, not Lutheranism, took over Bavaria again in reaction to the perceived excesses of Protestant thought. Nevertheless, Anti-semitism was a part of the region's cultural DNA, equally so in Poland and both the Catholics and Protestants (and of course, the secular industrialists who supported Hitler) reflected those beliefs. Hell, many of those areas could STILL be considered Anti-semitic. Krakow has a whole "Jewish quarter" that is little more than a museum and nightlife district with no Jews left (and no attempt to repatriate Jewish property) -- sort of a Williamsburg of former Jewish ghettos.

[beam me up scottie]

41. Read Mein Kampf.

He'll tell you all about it.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

33. What the fuck does atheism have to do with racism?

You know it's entirely possible that Hitler was BOTH a religious AND racist bigot.

[bananas]

35. What the fuck does any of this have to do with causing WWII?

The subject of the OP is how many wars did religion cause.
WWII wasn't caused by Hitler hating the Jews.
Did Hitler invade Poland because he hated the Jews?
Did Hitler invade France because he hated the Jews?
Did Hitler invade Russia because he hated the Jews?
Did Japan bomb Pearl Harbor because they hated the Jews?
Did America nuke Japan because we loved the Jews?
No. This is all obvious nonsense.
WWII was not caused by religion.
And it certainly wasn't caused by Martin Luther.
See post #4.

[FormerDem06]

59. Hitler was raised Catholic.....

But he was an equal opportunity killer. He killed millions of christians in Europe including all of the catholic priests in Poland.

Again, he used religion as a tool, and maybe he believed a bit of it. But he was obviously NOT a Christian, anyone with 1/4 of a brain can see that (that was not a personal attack at the poster just a statement).


==============================
Adolf Hitler was brought up in his family's religion by his Roman Catholic parents, but as a school boy he began to reject the Church and Catholicism. After he had left home, he never attended Mass or received the Sacraments.

In later life, Hitler's religious beliefs present a discrepant picture: In public statements, he frequently spoke positively about the Christian heritage of German culture and belief in Christ. Hitler’s private statements, reported by his intimates, are more mixed, showing Hitler as a religious but also anti-Christian man. However, in contrast to other Nazi leaders, Hitler did not adhere to esoteric ideas, occultism, or neo-paganism, and possibly even ridiculed such beliefs in private, but rather advocated a "Positive Christianity", a belief system purged form what he objected to in traditional Christianity, and reinvented Jesus as a fighter against the Jews.

Hitler believed in a social darwinist struggle for survival between the different races, among which the "Aryan race" was supposed to be the torchbearers of civilization and the Jews as enemies of all civilisation. Whether his anti-semitism was influenced by older Christian ideas remains disputed.

Among Christian denominations Hitler favoured Protestantism, which was more open to such reinterpretations, but at the same time imitated some elements of Catholic church organization, liturgy and phraseology in his poltics.
=============================

[beam me up scottie]

60. How much of a brain does it take to cut and paste from Wikipedia?

(that was not a personal attack, just a question)

Why did you fail to credit the source? Did you want us to think those were your words?

Your cut and paste from Wikipedia doesn't even claim he's wasn't a christian, and since you obviously know nothing about his life, the only thing I'm willing to credit you with is a naive belief in the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Tell you what, you read Mein Kampf, Hitler's notes in his bible, all of his speeches and private correspondence, and Martin Luther's "On the Jews and Their Lies" and get back to me when you have proof that he denounced his christianity.



Buh bye for now. :hi:

[FormerDem06]

69. I am at work.....

So i don't have time to respond in full. I probably should have waited until later. My senior college thesis was entitled:

"Hyper-Inflation and the Rise of the Nazi Party in Depression Era Germany"

I've done a bit of research on the subject, but the Wikipedia article says it pretty eloquently. It's not 100% accurate, but it's not 100% off either and was the best source I could find at the moment.

When I'm not working, I'll respond a bit more. Thank you for your condescension.

[beam me up scottie]

75. Why, don't mention it, I was just returning the favour. :)

And I was also at work, which is why I didn't explain why I find discussing this topic with christians to be an exercise in futility.

I'll make this short and sweet since I've had this discussion waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many times already.

Here we go:

1.) Hitler claimed to believe in the christian god.

2.) Hitler never denounced his christianity.

3.) Hitler was never excommunicated from the catholic church.

4.) Hitler mentioned his religious beliefs many, many times throughout his adult life, both in public and in private.

5.) Not one single christian and/or historical revisionist has been able to prove that Hitler stopped believing in the christian god.


Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to prove that Hitler lied about being a christian.

Please don't bother citing edited notes from Martin Bormann and/or other hearsay found in "Hitler's Table Talk" or opinions from christians who want to distance themselves from Hitler by narrowly redefining christianity in order to posthumously exclude him from the religion.

I understand their desire to do so, but neither christians nor Germans can change the rules to disown one of history's cruelest human beings.

I am using the term "christian" as a noun, not as an adjective, since there is no doubt whatsoever that Hitler did not follow all of the teachings of Jesus Christ, and also because you so adamantly claimed that he was NOT one.

The broad and inclusive definition of "christian" followed by a brief explanation from the wise people at http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn3.htm#ocrt">ReligiousTolerance.org :

any individual or group who devoutly, thoughtfully, seriously, and prayerfully regards themselves to be Christian. Included are: the Roman Catholic church; the Eastern Orthodox churches, conservative, mainline, and liberal Christian faith groups; The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons); Jehovah's Witnesses and a thousand or so other religious organizations that identify themselves as Christian. Also included are those who consider themselves to be Christian even though they do not identify themselves with any particular religious group.

***

* To conservative Protestants, a Christian is often defined according to their salvation status. Their definition is "true" to them, because it agrees with some of their foundational beliefs: that the Bible is inerrant, that salvation is by grace, and that one must be "born-again" to be saved and avoid eternal punishment in Hell.

* To Roman Catholics, a Christian is often defined according to their baptism status. Their definition is "true" to them, because it agrees with their fundamental beliefs, including their understanding of the Bible, the declarations of many Church Councils, the statements of many popes, and their church's tradition.

* To many in the very early Christian movement, a Christian was defined as a person who was baptized and proclaimed "Jesus is Lord." Their definition was "true" to them because it agreed with their understanding of their religious belief at a time when the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) had not yet been written and assembled.

And so on, with the remaining definitions.

***
So there is not a single version of Christianity; there are literally thousands. Many of these faith groups believe that they alone are following Jesus' teachings; they are the "true" church. The Roman Catholic Church issued a formal statement to that effect in 2000-SEP. Although many ecumenical efforts are active today, the Christian religion remains split into thousands of denominations -- in essence thousands of varieties of Christians.

A quick definition of the No True Scotsman fallacy from SkepticWiki:

No True Scotsman

Definition

No True Scotsman is a type of logical fallacy in which the arguer claims that elements of class X have a property, and, when presented with a counter example Y, asserts that Y therefore does not belong to class X.

The argument is a fallacy since it redefines the class as needed to suit the argument. In doing so, it can make any claim at all vacuously true under the new definition.

Examples

Antagonist: "Because Christians fear God, they will act more ethically."
Protagonist: "But Jim Bakker wasn't acting ethically when he stole millions from his church."
Antagonist: "Yes, well, Jim Bakker seemed to be a Christian, but apparently, deep in his heart he was not."

Waivers:

I am not claiming with absolute certainty that Hitler remained a catholic or even a christian.

I am not claiming that Hitler persecuted jews solely because of his religious beliefs.

I am not claiming that Hitler in any way represents christians or christianity.

What I am claiming is that Hitler could, and very possibly did, retain his belief in the christian god throughout his adulthood.

Since Hitler claimed to be a christian, I am not the person whose words you need refute, he is.

The burden of proof is on you since you made the absolute claim that he was not a christian.



Now, since I have been accused of being condescending, and you inferred that I have less than 25% of a brain, let's have a look at your first post:

Hitler was raised Catholic.....

No argument from me there.

But he was an equal opportunity killer. He killed millions of christians in Europe including all of the catholic priests in Poland.

Well, I don't know if he killed all of Poland's priests, since that is another absolute claim, but he certainly was responsible for the deaths of millions of people of all religions in Europe, including two of my uncles who were killed in Germany.

Again, he used religion as a tool, and maybe he believed a bit of it.

Certainly he used religion as a tool, and I'm glad to see you admit that he may have been a believer, since you contradict yourself in your next statement.

But he was obviously NOT a Christian, anyone with 1/4 of a brain can see that (that was not a personal attack at the poster just a statement).

Please explain how he was "obviously NOT a christian"?

What evidence have you provided that would convince someone with less than a quarter of a brain that he wasn't qualified?

And, even better, what evidence can you provide that would convince someone with an entire brain?

You yourself admitted that he may have been a believer.

Did they develop a mathematical formula that excludes certain christians based on the percentage of their religious beliefs?

And, if you still have time after all of that, since you oh-so-snarkily inferred I was operating on less than one quarter of a brain, please explain why you then took issue with my admittedly snarky, but not quite as snarky, reply.

[FormerDem06]

79. Well let's see.....

Hitler was a master at propaganda and he knew that religion was paramount to population control (just as it is today).

I will share with you the following from the Bible and I think that this applies to a LOT of people who claim to be Christians today:

================================================
Matthew 7 (the words of Jesus):

13 "Enter in by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter in by it.

14 How narrow is the gate, and restricted is the way that leads to life! Few are those who find it.

15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.

16 By their fruits you will know them. Do you gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?

17 Even so, every good tree produces good fruit; but the corrupt tree produces evil fruit.

18 A good tree can't produce evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree produce good fruit.

19 Every tree that doesn't grow good fruit is cut down, and thrown into the fire.

20 Therefore, by their fruits you will know them.

21 Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

22 Many will tell me in that day,'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works?'

23 Then I will tell them,'I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'
======================================================

Versus 17-23 are the key here. Hitler produced no good fruit EVER. The last three versus indicate that even though he may have believe in some twisted form of Christianity. he may not get the end reward after all. And methinks that killing a few million people in the name of a twisted brand of a christianity may qualify him for hearing the words of verse 23.

My firm belief is that Hitler was a genius who was able to control a whole population of Germany and make them do things that no normal human being would have been able to stomach. He used relgion as a tool to get that done. I also believe that the words absolute power corrupts absolutely may come into play here as well.

So I guess if the argument is "Hitler claimed to be a christian" then I cannot dispute it. But if your argument is "Hitler was a christian and by that definition should sitting up in heaven right now" I cannot agree with that at all. It's kind of like me picking the worst atheist in the whole word ever, and saying that by that definition atheism is evil. Which in fact, its just a personal choice with possible consequences in the afterlife (but none of us will know until we get there).

But since I'm guessing you're an atheist (and I'm fine with that by the way to each his own), I guess we'd have to start somewhere around the "christianity is a fairy tale" argument and work from there.

I'm sorry that I used that last comment about having a quarter of a brain. I'm not one to try to argue that Hitler was an atheist...he clearly believed in something stupid. But at the same time I've seen the "Hitler was Christian" argument used so many times just to denegrate Christianity that I have a quick trigger.

I respect everyone elses beliefs. Mine seem to be open for attack every day on this board.

[beam me up scottie]

83. Who attacked your beliefs? I think a long look in the mirror is in order.

Because I'm an atheist "we'd have to start somewhere around the "christianity is a fairy tale" argument" ?

Where the fuck did that come from?

I never maligned your faith.

As a matter of fact, I never even mentioned it.

Not a single fucking time.

Thanks for the lesson in religious tolerance.

You'll have to forgive me for not believing your line about how "fine" you are with the fact that I'm an atheist.

And people can't understand why we have issues with religion.

:banghead:


Has it ever occurred to you that non-christians might resent the inference that christians are morally superior to them?


By making the claim that Hitler/Bush/Phelps/etc. is morally inferior and therefore not good enough to be one of you, you're saying that they must be one of us.


That's called christian supremacy.



To me, all the label "christian" tells me is which god you believe in.

I don't think your religious beliefs make you morally superior OR inferior to me or anyone else.



So by calling you on your bias I wasn't denigrating christians or christianity, I was actually doing what you failed to do when you insulted me because you assumed I was an atheist, practicing religious tolerance.

[LSK]

66. from being a poor unemployed looser in Vienna???

:shrug:

Try READING William Shirer.

[beam me up scottie]

77. Right. Because Adolph became a catholic AFTER he was unemployed.

After all, no catholics in Europe ever learned anti-semitism in church.

:eyes:

[bananas]

25. WWII was not about religion

and it's fucking ridiculous for anyone to say it was.
Let's see, which religions were fighting against each other?

Germany was ... Christian.
Italy was ... Christian.
Japan was ... Shinto.
U.S. was ... Christian.
Britain was ... Christian.
France was ... Christian.

If it was about religion, it would've been Japan vs everyone else.

[Leopolds Ghost]

31. THe Civil War was fought over religion.

Religious people (revivalists) wanted to end slavery. The pro-slave, pro-aristocracy and anti-labor forces wanted to turn religion into a tool of the state so they could use it to justify slavery (and thus prevent uprisings from poor whites who sided with the abolitionists mostly out of religious sentiment.)

The levels of religious sentiment in the South were historically low. The poor whites were made to hate black people over the course of the 19th century in order to keep both groups from banding together in a land revolt. Classic example of pitting the lower class against the underclass. Charismatic religion was a class leveller and opposed by the Southern aristocracy who considered it to be a Northern abolitionist plague.

So they took over the Southern Baptist church and turned it from a nominally liberarian institution into a tool of the slave state which advocated notions from the Dark Ages, chiefly the subservience of religion to the interests of the state and in particular the slave-owning class.

Eventually, the industrialists (proposnents of "free labor") turned the anti-union movement from an originally secular, urban phenomenon that it was in the late 19th century (equivalent to today's DLC, who advocate the same policies of globalization and labor market liquidity) into an "anti-Communist" phenomenon, in order to co-opt the Baptists and Charismatics. (who, as mentioned, were originally libertarian, even leftist in their political outlook.)

It wasn't until the Vietnam war that the Republican party was finally able to crack the nut of combining evangelical Christianity (traditionally hostile to authority, especially rich landowners and industrialists), Southern kleptocracy (the leftover remains of the slave aristocracy), and anti-Communism into a sort of right-wing populism.

[spoony]

34. Hitler's religion

They did an excellent piece about this at the Straight Dope. It seems he, like certain politicians we're more intimately familiar with, was two-faced and manipulative to get Christians behind him. He had nothing good to say of them in private. He considered Christianity a "fairy story invented by the Jews."

[deaniac21]

62. You think the soviets didn't have a religion?

[TreasonousBastard]

20. Not even the Crusades...

which were more about opening trade routes and control of the Middle East than anything else.

Through most of Arab and Turk rule, the Holy Land was pretty well open to Christians, and the local churches were not harassed or bothered. Problem was that the European kings and the pope didn't run the show there, so "Taking back the Holy Land" was the battle cry in yet another power and money grab.

You can add the French & Indian war, the Revolution, War of 1812, Indian wars, various invasions of Central America, several threatened invasions of Canada, the Mexican War, and the Spanish American War. And that's just our wars, not Alexander, Ghengis Khan, the Roman Empire, Napolean, the Sino-Japanese War...

Side note that during the Spanish-American War, we said we were invading the Philippines to bring "Christianity to the natives" provoking a huge outcry from bishops around the country that Spanish missionaries had already brought Christianity to the Philippines a few hundred years earlier.

See how silly this sort of thing can get?

[bananas]

27. Very good points. nt

[Leopolds Ghost]

30. THe movie "Kingdom of Heaven" provides an excellent balanced portrait

of the Crusades and what they were supposedly about (at first).

** Europe was in the grip of political repression, and religious fervor was a chance to get away, like joining the army to get away from the Depression, or Tibetans joining a monastery to escape Chinese repression.

** The Crusades, a movement to project violence externally to other continents, were an enormous engine of social and economic mobility for Europeans, in a time when Europe was becoming increasingly integrated politcially and culturally despite vast income differences, a culture of violence, and class tension. Sound familiar?

** The original Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem was sandwiched between two Caliphates ruled by rival sects of Islam (Shi'a and Sunni) as well as the Orthodox Byzantine Empire. None of them saw much reason to band together with each other against the other parties. Genghis Khan, a decidedly non-religious figure who had a Nestorian (1st Century Chinese Christian) wife (one of many), was about to wipe out Baghdad at the request of the Crusaders of Antioch, (politically motivated to prevent Antioch iteslf from being wiped out) thereby destroying centuries of scientific progress in Baghdad. That's why the Crusader kingdoms survived for so long.

** The Kingdom of Jerusalem had a peace treaty with Salah'al din and wanted to maintain it. However, the 11th century version of neocons wanted the kingdom to go to war so they could profit off of it and gain riches and standing back home. The Knights Templar, in particular, gained vast riches from the Crusades, mostly by spice trade and stealing money from pilgrims, becoming the neocon equivalent of the late Middle Ages. The Masons considered themselves descendants of the Knights Templar, but the reality was that late medieval masons had learned how to build pointed arches from the Saracens.

** Until the Spanish Inquisition, the Spanish city of Toledo (?? I think) was a free city inhabited by both Muslim, Christian, and Jewish scholars. This was the source of much of the Renaissance learning that was based on Arab and Greek scholarship, all of which was derived from Baghdad before it was sacked.

** The "dark skinned Sicilians" of Italy are actually descendants of Moors and Saracens who used to rule all of Southern Italy. They converted to Catholicism, and the Saracen "pirates" evolved into La Cosa Nostra.

** Most of the Moors and Greeks were not actually "driven out" of Spain and Turkey, respectively; they merely converted. Sephardi Jews in particular either left (many for Britain) or converted (and were looked down upon for doing so.) THere were far fewer consequences for Greeks and Eastern Europeans who converted to Islam: the entire Ottoman Turkish "special forces" were for centuries composed of "slaves" who had converted to Islam. They had special privileges in the Turkish political system. After Franco died in the 20th century, a couple whole villages in Spain converted (back?) to Judaism. Similarly, many "Catholics" such as the Quechua (Incas) in Peru have two sets of religious beliefs. In Cuba, an officially atheist state, NPR recently reported that the Cuban poor who practise Santeria are sacrificing chickens in honor of Fidel Castro, who is considered an (honorary?) priest of that religion. NPR also quoted senior Communist leaders remarking how ironic it was that most of them were Jesuit divinity students and official atheists, and when they sat down with Jesuit priests to pray for Castro's health, it turned out that the priests were all card-carrying Communists and products of the state school system.

** Most of the Christians of the Kingdom of Jerusalem were Arabs or other people who had lived comfortably in the region for centuries, thus explaining why the "native-born" Christian aristocracy was reluctant to engage in further warfare with Salah'al-din.

** One of the most infamous Crusaders was the Duke of Kerak, who wanted to invade Mecca and destroy the Ka'aba. His motives were religious, yet he was happy to spend most of his time pirating on the Red Sea and harassing pilgrims in Syria in order to steal spice trade from the Arabs. He was rebuked by the King of Jerusalem for attacking Arabs, who the "neocons", most of whom were recent arrivals from France, attempted to depose.

** When Salah 'al-din finally reconquered Jerusalem, he was asked by religious leaders to leave no survivors, for the Crusaders had murdered every Jew and Muslim (and no doubt quite a few of the Christians, who were also Arab) when they took the city 100 years previous. The Duke of Kerak (or someone related to him) had also captured and murdered Salah 'al-din's sister, precipitating the fall of the main crusader kingdom. Salah'al-din had recently united Syria and Egypt under the nominal rulership of the Caliph of Baghdad, a Sunni. However, Salah al-din, an educated Kurd with supposedly moderate religious beliefs, was the real leader.

The King of Jerusalem, who had kept peace, had died of leprosy a year earlier and his chosen successor, the Duke of Tiberias, who wanted to keep the peace, had been unable to ascend the throne because the King's daughter had fallen in love with Guy de Lusignan, the 11th century version of George Bush.

Instead of massacring everyone like most people continue to do in the Middle East (Israeli-Arab, not Israeli-Muslim -- Israelis have the same policy towards Arab Christians that they do towards Arab Muslims)...

Salah 'al-din cut a deal with the (Orthodox) Patriarch of Jerusalem (the Catholic Crusaders had been defeated and fled the city.)

Under the terms of the deal, all citizens of Jerusalem were to be spared according to ransom; when the city could not produce enough ransom, 3 days of haggling ensued, and finally it was decided that 3/5 of the city's non-Muslims would be set free and the remainder enslaved (as was customary by Muslims at the time, although the definition of slavery was not the same as what it later became.)

The Crusaders blamed the Patriarch for ransoming the city to Salahuddin and in the 4th crusade, sacked Constantinople, setting it up for the fall of the Byzantine Empire.

The last Emperor of Constantinople died defending its walls, after having sent his daughter to Russia by boat to marry Ivan the Terrible, first Tsar (Caesar) of Russia and thereby in a sense, successor to the Roman Empire. (Historians have pointed out that the Holy Roman Empire was none of the above.) The last descendant of the Eastern Roman Emperors was overthrown by Lenin in the 20th century.

** The crusaders spent most of their time engaging in ordinary warfare with both the Arabs and each other. While they were definitely motivated by a religious revival, that took different forms. The leaders spent most of the time trying to accumulate power and wealth. They did not merely massacre Arabs.

** Your average peasant was in it to "make something of himself", and many (perhaps most) ended up staying in the Middle East (the ones who didn't die.)

** Many were motivated by a monastic revival: The Knights Templars were unusual (and condemned in some circles) for being the first Catholic order to take up the sword. Other orders, such as the Knights Hospitaler, concentrated on building centers for pilgrims.

** The Knights Templar were disbanded and excommunicated for their excesses and bloody-mindedness during the first or second (I forget which) crusade. This is the origin of a lot of conspiracy theories having to do with the Knights Templar going underground, sort of like "Nazis and Prescott Bush" that sort of thing.

In general, most of the big battles of the Crusades were motivated when one side or the other attempted to cut off access to each others' pilgrims. Keep in mind that the pilgrimage trade back then was huge; at least as important as the tourist trade in, say, Florida or Las Vegas.

[papau]

37. The movie has a few problems with staying always true to history -

The phrase "Ottoman Turkish "special forces" were for centuries composed of "slaves" who had converted to Islam" refers to the Turkish evil that resulted in the Janissaries - the product of Sultan Mehmet I (1380's) village child tax called devshirmeh where child rape and forced homosexuality produced men totally ready to die - the slaves of the Sultan.

I do like the way this is made into ""special forces" who had special privileges.

As to the Byzantine empire history, after the "end" of the Roman Empire, the West had Slavic tribes invading the Balkans, with a new wave of Asiatic nomads being kept at the gates of the empire only by paying tribute, and with the Persians conquering Syria, Palestine and Egypt. But the emperor Heraclius who ruled from 610 to 640 conducted 3 brilliant military campaigns and destroyed the Persian empire and regained Syria, Palestine, Egypt and the Holy Cross. Then after the Prophet’s death in 632, Arab forces in 636 conquered Syria and in 642 conquered Persia. Arab attacks on the Byzantine empire resulted in Arab control/subjugation of Palestine, Syria, Persia, Egypt and most of Northern Africa by the middle of the seventh century. Islam's expansion via the Umayyad's movement into Spain in 711, gaining a foothold in southern France, only ended with their defeat by Charles Martel near Tours in 732. Of course the Umayyad put their own into power, treating non-Arabic Islamic citizens as second class citizens (this lead to the Shia arising as a reaction Umayyad's "secular" pretensions of authority - the Shia believing that in every age a messiah would appear, rejecting the sunna which was the body of later tradition that was not contained in the Koran, claiming the Koran was the sole authority on the life and teachings of the prophet).

Indeed the Byzantine empire would have folded around this time under the combined threats of the Arab fleet which attacked Constantinople yearly, and the Bulgars who in 680 would settle in what today is Bulgaria, except for the fact that in 718 Leo the III adopted new "Greek" technology - called Greek Fire which was the first flame thrower - that allowed him to drive back the Arab assault on Constantinople in 718. This was followed by the conquering of the Bulgarians when had tried to expand the territory they controlled beginning in 976, and the taking back from the arabs the land that had earlier been lost in southern Italy and Sicily.

The rise of Venice as the economic power of the area, replacing Byzantine commercial control (which would lead to their eventual financing of attacks on Constantinople, with their crusaders having no trouble capturing the city), plus the external threat in the forces of the Turks who threatened Asia Minor, was the scene when in the battle of Manzikert in 1071 all of Asia Minor was lost.

But then in 1096 the first crusaders appeared on the scene, weakening Muslim power, and allowing Alexius to recover portions of Asia Minor. "The Crusaders blamed the Patriarch for ransoming the city to Salahuddin and in the 4th crusade, sacked Constantinople" is a bit of a partial truth lie, in my opinion. Likewise "the Kingdom of Jerusalem had a peace treaty with Salah'al din and wanted to maintain it" breezes by the short less than 10 year truce obtained by the crusaders from Saladin by their victories over him, which he broke as he retook Jersusalem.

When the Ottoman Turks, named after the leader Ottoman, arrived, crossing into Europe in 1356, and in 30 years overrunning Bulgaria, Serbia and indeed reaching the Danube by 1390, the fate of Constantinople was perhaps sealed. In 1453 their siege of 7 weeks with an army of 160,000 Turks easily overcame "Christianity's" 9,000 soldiers, conquering the Great Eastern Fortress of Christianity for Islam.

[nemo137]

49. Keep in mind, too, that in the later Crusades, then Venetians had

huge dog in the fight. Byzantium was one of their rivals in the Mediterranean trade, and the sooner they were out of the way, the better. So Venice (in a really rather colorful story, with stone-blind, 89-year-old Doges leading armies and suchlike) launched a Crusade that, just coinicidentally, took Byzantium down, shattered its empire (giving us such historical treats as the Despotate of Trebizond and such), and set up a Latin empire at Constantinople.

Yeah, that really had little to do with the OP, but Byzantine history is fascinating, and too little studied.

[jobycom]

40. Yes. Excellent summary.

During the Crusades Christians often fought Christians and allied with Muslims, who fought other Muslims. Even Urban's famous preaching of the First Crusade included more calls to a person's greed than religion. He emphasized that there was land there for the taking, that there were glory and riches to be earned, etc.

Religion is just another flag tyrants wave, and a uniform soldiers don.

[AngryAmish]

53. Where did the jannisaries come from?

Christians were not exactly treated well in the Ottoman Empire. The whole dhimmi thing.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

15. Hard to say

I don't know about every war that's occurred in history.

The ones that occurred in Japan between the years 1000 and 1615 were land and power grabs, pure and simple.

Even the ones that have apparent religious components are "religious" only in that the two sides happened to be of different religions. For example, the well-known "Catholic-Protestant" war in Northern Ireland is not ABOUT religion in any sense. People are labeled "Catholic" (indigenous Irish) or "Protestant" (brought in from Scotland in the seventeenth century by the British) irrespective of whether they are actually religious themselves. It's an inter-ethnic war about economic and political grievances.

I don't call a war "religious" unless it's actually about religion. The Crusades would quality, as would the Moorish invasions of Spain.

Most others would not. I know this fact will disappoint the habitual religion bashers, but in most case, you could replace religious labels with "shirts" and "skins."

[leftofthedial]

21. almost none

wars are started to satisfy the greed and other lusts of "leaders."

religion is a propaganda and recruitment system.

[Junkdrawer]

36. Bingo. n/t

[StellaBlue]

22. I despise religion in general, but... I say "it's the economy, stupid"

Economic forces, at the root, cause most wars. People argue over land sometimes because they don't want to co-habit it with those of other religions/ethnicities, though (Palestine, Northern Ireland, Kashmir, etc.).

$0.02

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. Wars are about power.

Religion is just one of many justifications that the bosses use to get ordinary citizens to kill their fellow humans to get and maintain power.

Priests, politicians, emperors, generals, and other "leaders" all justify the murder by dehumanizing other people and then dehumanizing their "followers" by making them murderers...all for a good cause, of course. The "leaders" all promise to lead us to the Promised Land and save us from the always "evil" others who are being told the same thing by their "leaders".

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[newportdadde]

39. Zero - even if disguised as religion is about power and money.

[Finder]

50. Religion is power and money...

nothing more, nothing less.

[TheFriedPiper]

42. Religion is what gets the idiotic masses behind war

It isn't the reason, but it is a necessary catalyst for most war.

Without religion, most people would not support wars that benefit the few at the expense of hte many.

Religion makes it possible, hell, even EASY to manipulate people.

[Swede]

43. Zero.

Gold is the reason for the wars we wage.

[Finder]

44. If organized religion did not exist, there would not be any wars. n/t

[nemo137]

47. Right.

Because people are incapable of being led into conflict by any other means. Certainly not nationalism, or a "need" for revenge, or a sense of obligation, or threat of violence. And the leaders who push them into war are completely unable to start a war for, say, economic benefit, or to secure their state. Only belief in a bearded sky-daddy makes people go all crazy and put holes in eachother.

[etherealtruth]

45. Group identity is a rallying cry

Greed/ lust for power the reason.

Be it religion, ethnicity, tribe, clan ... whatever ... identification with the group is used by those in power to motivate the masses. Us against them.

[robcon]

46. There hasn't been a religious war since 1947.

The partition of India was a purely religious conflict that ended up with mass migration, 1.3 million dead, and two countries where there was one (there are three countries now, including Bangladesh.)

All other conflicts since then have been ethnic, national or civil wars, AFAIK.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

52. Slightly misleading.

I doubt there's ever been a *purely* religious conflict, but there have been a good few since then to which religion has been a contributory factor - the depredations of the Lord's Resistance Army, Darfur, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, etc, etc all have religious dimensions that aggravate tensions, even though none of them is *purely* religious.

[Greyhound]

48. I see others interpreted you question differently than I.

When you put religion in quotations I took that to indicate that religion is used as a pretext for the war. From that perspective it is well over 90%.

If you meant a true root-cause, then close to 0 would be accurate. Religion has always (for the last 4,000 - 6,000 years) been the preferred tool of the rulers to coerce and justify their murder-for-profit schemes.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

51. I'm disappointed by the number of people who've voted for what they'd like

to be true, rather than what actually is.

A moment's thought will reveal that the most popular answers - 90 and 100% - are absurd - WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the first and second Gulf Wars, the Kosovo conflict, etc, etc, etc would all have happened even if all concerned had been agnostics.

The only conclusion I can draw is that an awful lot of DUers hate religion and *want* to believe it's responsible for all mankinds ills so much that they let this blind them to the need to be objective. This, while unsurprising, is depressing.

[robcon]

54. But you left out the important wars that add to the 90%

the Buddhist vs.Christian War (Vietnam War)

the Buddhist/Protestant/Catholic vs. Atheist War (Korean War)

the Catholic vs. the Atheist War (Spanish Civil War)

the Shinto vs Confucian War (Japanese invasion of Manchuria)
:sarcasm:

[Clarkie1]

55. Religion is seldom a cause for war, it is an excuse for war.

Like pouring gasoline on an already burning fire.

The root cause of the vast majority of wars is economic...it's all about the haves and the have nots. Always has been.

[robcon]

56. It's rarely about the haves and have nots

Clarkie1 wrote: 'The root cause of the vast majority of wars is economic...it's all about the haves and the have nots. Always has been."

I think it's rare that a war is between the haves and have nots.

It's more often the haves against the haves (WWI and II), or a proxy war between two haves (Vietnam, Afghanistan 1979, etc.)

[Clarkie1]

72. Germany was a "have not" after WWI

Granted, their was a worldwide depression in the 30s, but Germany suffered more after WWI.

[FlaGranny]

58. I didn't answer the poll questions because

I really am not certain. While I think the majority of wars are about power and territory, I believe most of these wars would not have been possible without leaders convincing their people that a war was being fought for "values" or "religious beliefs." You've got to make the poor people want to fight and they aren't going to want to fight for dear leader to have more power over some other poor people in some country they care nothing about.

[Hatalles]

61. You're right but I think the polls puts religion at the basis...

I voted 10%. If religion wasn't being used as the cloak and catalyst, it would be race, class, nationalism, or something else.

[Karenina]

63. Or brown hair or innie belly buttons.

:toast:

[Hatalles]

64. blue eyes vs. brown eyes

Ever see that documentary? :)

http://janeelliott.com/

[Karenina]

70. Exactly what I was alluding to!

:hug:

[Irreverend IX]

65. War is just another form of politics.

And as with all forms of politics, religion makes a handy tool to rally people to your side and bolster their morale. I don't know of any war that was fought purely for religious reasons as opposed to territory and resources; when a religion is faced with a choice between maintaining pure doctrine and gaining more territory and influence, they usually pick the latter. Like the Mormons renouncing polygamy so Utah could become a state, or the early Christians ditching Jewish dietary law so they could convert the pig-eating European tribes.

[slackmaster]

71. Interesting bimodal distribution

A peak at 10 and another at 90.

I haven't voted because I really don't know. The big ones in the 20th Century, and most of the significant ones in my lifetime had nothing to do with it.

[Jcrowley]

74. Zero

gold is the reason for the wars we wage

[Jed Dilligan]

76. Not a simple question

Percentage of wars or percentage of casualties in wars? Does WWII = the 1st Boer War of 1881, both being 1:the total n of distinct wars ever fought?

[The Straight Story]

80. Indeed, not even sure what it means:

Religion based wars that is (though I expounded myself up thread).

I don't see china as a religious place, but it's soldiers would follow their leader into a war. So religion as a basis for duping people does not seem to hold a lot of water.

Religious causes of wars, ie, to rid a place of 'infidels' purely for the sake of converting/killing I don't see much of either.

Wars in the OT could be construed as religious in nature (ie, god told me to do it) but in the end usually boiled down to territory, pure greed, etc.

Remove all religion, and you would still have wars...

[NotGivingUp]

81. The cause is greed, and it's sold to the masses as religion.

[Spider Jerusalem]

82. Economic reasons and territorial expansion are the cause of most wars.

Religion has caused some wars, sure (the Crusades, the 16th/17th c. 'Wars of Religion' in Europe), but by and large religion has been responsible for many fewer wars than the drive for territorial expansion and/or economic gain of nation-states (with internal political reasons responsible for most of the rest; i.e. various civil wars and revolutions): the wars of the ancient Greek city-states, including the Peloponnesian War, Trojan War, Greco-Persian Wars; the wars of ancient Rome, including the Punic War, Gallic Wars, et cetera; the wars between various Germanic tribes after the collapse of Roman power in the West; the wars of territorial expansion of the Islamic caliphate in the seventh and eighth centuries, and the resultant Spanish reconquest of Iberia; the Anglo-Saxon, Danish and Norman invasions of England; the Mongol wars of the late Middle Ages; the Hundred Years' War between France and England; the Ottoman Turks' wars of territorial expansion against first the Byzantine Empire and later after the fall of Constantinople much of Southeastern Europe; the Seven Years' War (including the French and Indian War in North America); the Napoleonic Wars (including the War of 1812 in North America); the Crimean War, the Spanish-American War, both world wars, and so on. up to the present day.

[Vidar]

84. The majority of wars have been land grabs, but the bloodiest & most

torture-filled have always been religious.

[Spider Jerusalem]

85. Hardly.

The bloodiest wars in history: the Taiping Rebellion in China (the Taipings were nominally religiously motivated, but in reality the causes were a lot more complex and involved in part peasant revolt against the oppression of Manchu rule); the First World War (triggered by European power politics, Prussian militarism and expansionism, and Austria's attempts to pacify its crumbling empire); the Second World War (more German militarism and expansionism, and the same thing from the Japanese). Collectively, those three wars saw the deaths of something like a hundred million (which is probably as many as, or even more than, had been killed in all the wars of history prior to the mid-nineteenth century).