(The Age, Anzac Day 2014): The Battle of Fromelles is considered the bloodiest 24 hours in Australia's military history. In one night, 5533 men were killed, wounded or reported missing. It's a figure equivalent to Australia's combined casualties in the Boer, Korean and Vietnam wars. . Among the dead were 24 pairs of brothers and a father and son.http://www.theguardian.com/
'A weaker US military will mean a more dangerous world...'
http://www.jmm.org.au/
5Like · · Promote · Share
Corrupt regimes are the source of extremism and terrorism
'A weaker US military will mean a more dangerous world...'
http://www.jmm.org.au/
5Like · · Promote · Share
- Gavin Brown, Alan Harvey, Alistair P D Bain and 8
others like this.
- Giulia
Bastoni People's interpretation of religion may have been
a contributing factor in the cause of war bit it seems that mostly it has
been the ego of an individual person that has been the cause of war
mostly.
- Ian
Weller Religion is mostly a mask to cover fear, power or
control....those three issues are the main causes of war i think.
- Elizabeth
Mcalpine I think war is due to greed on one hand and
inequality on the other -but mainly greed!!
- Danko
Sučanj · Friends with Alan Harvey and 5
others
The article does not explain well enough that
theory. Hitler exterminated 6 million Jews and who knows how many Gypsies for
their beliefs. The Jews believed in Jehovah and the Gypsies were mainly
Catholic. Stalin did the same thing in USSR to the Orthodox.
So isn't this religiously a war or are we too blind to see that it is just an excuse for religious people to say that it had nothing to do with them.
Be careful throwing that sort of mud, some nut like me will bring up other points that says "Religion" has caused wars.
So isn't this religiously a war or are we too blind to see that it is just an excuse for religious people to say that it had nothing to do with them.
Be careful throwing that sort of mud, some nut like me will bring up other points that says "Religion" has caused wars.
- Daniel
Batt Genuine scholars of history, atheists and religious
alike, usually put religion way down in the teens as a percentage of wars.
Now, in the atheist community there is a lot of junk history to make out
religion as the cause of almost all wars, and they usually mention, like
Hitchens does, Belgrade, Belfast and Baghdad as examples of religious
wars. Now, anyone with a brain knows that there are presenting issues and
actual issues that produce conflict. Northern Ireland is mostly about
nationalism and colonialism, not really so much about the Reformation,
despite what an Orange man will tell you.
Personally, I think Christians can agree that religion is a factor in a lot of wars in history, as most Christians don't think that religion per se is something benign or worth celebrating. The real question for a Christian is how much the teachings of Jesus contributed to wars in history, and it is hard to make a case for many.
But the Belgrade analogy Hitchens tosses out is that the Serbian Orthodox Church was a haven for ethnic cleansers and war criminals and created the myth of Holy Serbia that had divine right over Kosovo. Yes, but was this a result of Christianity or was Serbian Orthodoxy a proxy for racism and nationalism. I would suggest the latter.
When I comes to Islam, which has a very clear doctrine of offensive and defensive Jihad in its theology, this really ups the ante in religious wars, because no Arab would have invaded Spain without a Muslim theological mandate, whereas the Spanish and English would have waged colonial wars around the globe whether they were dressed up in religion or not.
David Bently Hart has a good section on how much religion is the cause of wars in history in "Atheist Delusions". Personally, while it is a good academic case, I see no reason that Christians should rush to absolve other religions of their sins and think that helps Christian claims. It doesn't. I can't think of a good reason for Christianity to be used to defend any empires or colonial regimes.
- Danko
Sučanj · Friends with Alan Harvey and 5
others
Oh, and another point. Did you know that the
war in the Balkans was religious as well. The Croatians are Catholic, The Serbs
are Orthodox and the Bosnians are Islamic. Come on, don't tell me it wasn't.
BTW I am a Croatian,
- Daniel
Batt Who is the "you" you are addressing, Danko?
I think anyone with the least knowledge of history knows that Yugoslavia
was made up of different religions and denominations.
The Nazis found that they could build better bridges with the right wing Catholics in Spain, Yugoslavia and Italy because they were used ti flexing their muscles to gain state control and in Yugoslavia they could tell the Catholics/Ustashe that the Slavs (Serbian Orthodox) were less human than the Catholics.
Could we lay any of this at the feet of Jesus or the writers of the New Testament? Probably not.
- Danko
Sučanj · Friends with Alan Harvey and 5
others
Now Daniel Batt, you are saying that the
Croatians aligned themselves with the Ustasha. Cardinal Stepinač in his defense
of his people (the Croatians) at his trial denounced the Ustasha as well as the
"State of Jugoslavia" for the atrocities committed during the second
world war. Also to be noted that the then Jewish leader spoke up as well and
the court dismissed his evidence. I think we tread on thin ice here. I am ATM
looking for a documentary produced by British ITV on this. It details historic
documentation found after the collapse of the communist regime in Jugoslavia.
It starts with a reference to the book of Esther in the old testament.
- Daniel
Batt We are not on ice, thick or thin. The Catholic Right
in many countries have been Phalangists, and have snuggled up to right
wing regimes. All Catholics weren't Ustashe (that was a Nazi inspired
right wing group), but Catholics are a mixed bunch, much like Protestants,
and can have sentiments on the left and right of the political spectrum.
The Mufti of Jerusalem tried to get the Bosnian Muslims to turn in all the Jews to the Nazis, but found the progressive Bosnian Muslims had lived in peace with their neighbours for generations and had no desire to align themselves with an Aryan movement. But, as in any group of people, there will always be racists and nationalists, and Hitler did manage to co-opt some Muslim communities to help in his final solution.
You might have to explain what thin ice you are talking about further.
- Michael
Cox Jihad should be reflected way more than it is in the
column graph (see Dr Bill Warner: "Political Islam" on youtube)
- Danko
Sučanj · Friends with Alan Harvey and 5
others
I do tread on thin ice because many people such
as yourself even denounce me for my support of the Catholic Cardinal of Zagreb.
I am one of the few who believes that he was right. He was accused and
sentenced and finally died in his hometown. I went there on my last visit to my
homeland and was struck by the people I met who lived with him till his death.
If those people were what was said of them then I don't know what I saw.
One of my friends is a minister and shared this
same graph. His view was that many tried to draw him into arguments claiming,
as Daniel says, that religion is the source of lots of wars. I think they want
to argue about it also because there are those who want to "put down"
those of us who have a faith. It's argument by association. "Some of your
lot started wars, so *you* must be evil as well and your faith is
discredited."
- Peter
Robert Green Hitler didn't kill Jews, Gypsies and Slavs
(don't forget) on account of their religion -- though he doesn't seem to
have considered Jewish religion particularly attractive. He killed them on
account of their race. Being a Jewish convert to Christianity was no
protection.
However, he was willing to work with the Ustasha in Croatia and with the Rumanian right wing despite their Slavic backgrounds, and with Arab Muslims on account of their dislike of Jews and their perceived greater willingness to kill; so he wasn't particularly consistent. One interesting example was his effort to coopt the Moroccans: he was willing to help them rid the country of Jews if they would provide military support. The Moroccan King told him that there were no Jews in Morocco: everyone was a Muslim.
- Daniel
Batt Danko, the Cardinal of Zagreb, Stepinac, is a complex
character and I can't venture an opinion on him. But . . . the logistics
of WWII are quite separate from Aloysius Stepinac. Not sure why you would
raise him, or think he makes my point any the less robust.
- Danko
Sučanj · Friends with Alan Harvey and 5
others
Have found the documentary. Watch it and also
the second part.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S1BU9n-dv0&bpctr=1379854773
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S1BU9n-dv0&bpctr=1379854773
- Daniel
Batt Danko, I don't have the time to watch every YouTube
video people post a link to. All I have posted is basic history, stuff
Peter Green seems to have no objection to, and seems to know a fair bit
about. I have studied this stuff for over a quarter of a century and use
it professionally. If you have a problem with any assertion I have made,
please correct me, or point out how a YouTube video will refine my
commentary on the issue.
- Danko
Sučanj · Friends with Alan Harvey and 5
others
This I see is pointless. So be it.
- Evan
Hadkins The assertion that religion causes wars has always
been silly. It doesn't explain why adherents to different faiths live
relatively peacefully with each other until war breaks out. That the
violent use religion to cover their greed, egotism and so on is a complicating
factor - but it isn't all that hard to see through.
- Danko
Sučanj · Friends with Alan Harvey and 5
others
It does as evidenced in the book of Esther. Or
do we disregard the books of the bible that refer to wars or the hatred of
another religion.
- Daniel
Batt Well, we all know that anything can have
multi-factorial causes . . . that's just life. War included.
Much of this was unpacked by Pape in his paper "Dying to Live: the strategic logic of terrorism", where he decoupled religion from nationalistic aims. It was a good paper, yet still flawed. Notions of honour, tribe, state, patriotism, revenge and other things propel violence and wars, often under a religious banner, sometimes on the basis of a religious concept.
Idiots like Dawkins think that if everyone was not religious and we would all then live in a John Lennon inspired heaven on earth are just, well, ideologues. Wars break out for many more reasons than belief in a metaphysical being outside of nature.
That's not to say religion is true or benign: often it is not. It is just to look at history without being a bigot and trying to blame everything on a metaphysical scapegoat.
- Jonathan
Jong · Friends with Karl Hand and 2
others
This study examines the role of religion in
ethnic nationalism and revolutionary...See more
- Danko
Sučanj · Friends with Alan Harvey and 5
others
very profound saying "that's life".
Its death to those that are in the middle of hatred. If Esther was not in the
bible it would be much simpler to say that but her example to the
"Assyrian" king was in effect denouncing war and really taking sides
with what she believed was true. It isn't that easy to say that when you are in
the middle or have close friends and relatives in the middle of it.
- Peter
Robert Green It is probably impossible to quantify this,
but too little consideration is given to the issue of what wars have been
stopped by religion. Religion is a cohesive force in societies, and most
religions include sanctions against violence, both individual and
corporate. By expanding their range to cover more groups of people, they
bring increasing numbers of people groups under their protection and limit
wars between them.
Clearly, some religions view only a very limited group of people as being under the religion's protection, others are more inclusive. Christianity and Buddhism are probably the most inclusive, with Judaism less so, and Islam less so again because of its embrace of offensive jihad.
Despite these variations, the majority of religions also encourage prudence in inter-society relationships; for example, Jim Wallis says that all major Christian groups in the US with the exception of the Southern Baptists advised GWB against his Afghanistan/Iraq adventures.
So, when war breaks out between groups embracing different religions, it is mostly evidence that this stabilising influence of religion has failed rather than that religion has once more caused war.
The biggest problem is in the much rarer situation of conflicts occurring within a religion, where the application of normal controls can be much more difficult for people to understand, and the war can be far more vicious.
- Daniel
Batt Danko, a "that's life" comment isn't an
"I don't care" comment. It simply states what has happened for
millenniums between human tribes and countries. Humans no doubt killed our
cousin Neanderthals, and committed genocides throughout history. Right up
until this century in Darfur. This is a statement that is true
historically regardless of external events. It sums humanity up, albeit in
a negative way.
- Peter
Robert Green I find your references to Esther quite
obscure, Danko.
- Ravynwolfe
Moondancer It's never been religion,it's been
dogmatism,fear and bigotry.
- Peter
Robert Green ...and Real Estate. Real Estate is the main
cause of wars.
- Lynda
Stuart Brain washing is another weapon of the devil.
- Ravynwolfe
Moondancer and his bar of soap has little bitty hairs on
it...ew!
- Rodney
Blackwell It is a somewhat of a straw man argument to
suggest that religion is the no 1 cause of wars although most probably all
the wars in the bible are in a sense religious. No doubt Harris and the
late Christopher Hitchens make/made claims of this nature
to sensationalise the debate and sell the odd book or two.
In the first world war the overwhelming majority of the leaders were practicing christians and in some cases head of their respective churches. So it seems to me that christianity cannot claim much moral superiority in this regards.
- Terry
Hannon · Friends with Giulia Bastoni
read your history, to say religion only caused
6% of all wars is a complete fallacy - christians have been murdering people
who dont believe in their line of faith, in huge numbers, for a millennia -
Islam has been far more tolerant over the centuries of other faiths than
Christianity, and it will take them decades to reach the murder rate of the
Christian faith - next thing you'll be saying that the catholic church hasnt
preyed on children horrifically, all over the world! Religion takes away
natural morality by imposing it from above.
- Gavin
Brown Terry, have you read what Daniel and others have
written, or just inserted your comment at the bottom without reading the
link or the comments? It is clear from a reading of the comments that the
latter is more likely. "Read your history" is an interesting
comment - it really does depend on which history book you read. You need
to do a bit more than just 'read your history' then you may realise that
it is much more complex than that.
- Sharon
Letchford Terry, I guess it comes down to what one thinks
'religion' is. For a Christian, is it an adherence to a dogma, or a simple
following of Christ? If the former, as Ravynwolfe suggests then, yes - I
would say that particular 'religion' - which some call Christianity - is
responsible for causing the deaths of many. If the latter (which I would
call 'true' Christianity rather than Christianity in name) then there is
no way anyone could claim that Christianity causes wars. The question is,
how has the article writer defined 'religion'?
BTW, there are a lot of red herrings in these comments. Those referring to individual conflicts have not really put the numbers into context in the way that the article writers have. Terry, you have not done so nor has Danko who makes various mention of a sinlge conflict but does not put it in the wider context of comparing his observations to worldwide conflict throughout written history, which is what the article writer has attempted to do. This is a bit like comparing kangaroos and potatoes. As Danko states, the impact on the individual is not diminished by the wider context of the debate, but it is also true that the wider context (ie. does religion cause wars or not) is not negated by the the fact of individual sufference.
Peter Robert Green I find your references to Esther quite obscure, Danko.
No comments:
Post a Comment