Which is Worse? Politics or Religion?

[Chain Mailer]

Was perusing some of the threads and this thought just popped into my head (and the fact that I am meant to be writing a presentation on plants has nothing to do with the fact that I am writing this pointless thread)
I was just wondering which was worse for starting wars (historians please chip in with knowledge whenever you want). Maybe it should be Politics, Land/Economy or Religion. What do you think is worse? For example Iraq, was that mostly politics? (e.g. evil dictator, must be stopped by democracy loving patriots), or (the more popular belief) because of land (or rather the oil in the land) or was it because of religion (they aren't christians therefore they must be thinking of fanatical takeovers). Obviously I am shamelessly generalising the entire thing, but it's just a quick example.
Anyways, back to the question, which element is responsible for the most wars? (please bear in mind all wars, eg. the Crusades, Civil wars etc.)
All thoughts appriciated (as it gives me something to read and therefore not work!)


[hr]Not one shred of evidence supports the notion that life is serious

[fat bastard]

religion

obviously

[Mutley]

Some would argue they should be the same thing, and some might argue otherwise.

[hr]So how is life, love and the endless pursuit of happiness?

[Atangaladhion]

[s]fat bastard wrote on 16:06, 7th Dec 2004:
religion

obviously


I concur.

[Zombie Sheep]

It was politics - and if you want a fight about that, I'm up for it.

[hr]Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability. And I want you to know we are with you until victory, until Jerusalem.

[jennyo]

It's the combination of the two that's really dangerous.

[novium]

My impression is that every war is a mix of all of those, although the degree to which each contribute vary.

Many people, I think, would say religion is the worst and creates the nastiest wars, but I would hesistate before agreeing with that. I'd say that *idealogical* wars are the nastiest. Religion fits into this catagory. Has to do with when people feel their beliefs are under attack, and not all beliefs are religious.

And wars that may seem to be religious wars may not always be so- they could (and have been) politics masquerading under the guise of religion. Religion is a handy excuse for motivating the common foot soldiers and mollifying any guilt they may have.

[Jason Dunn]

[s]jennyo wrote on 16:37, 7th Dec 2004:
It's the combination of the two that's really dangerous.



I would argue that the two have been inextricably linked for the greater part of history, making the answer to your question rather difficult to calculate.

Even if they weren't linked, it wouldn't simply be a matter of making two columns headed "religion" and "war" and then going through history, putting a tally under each heading every time a war was found. Some wars are naturally more bloody than others, and this would need to be accounted for.

[Colin]

[s]Jason Dunn wrote on 16:55, 7th Dec 2004:


I would argue that the two have been inextricably linked for the greater part of history


That is the problem.

[LonelyPilgrim]

You also have the problem that religion inevitably gets drug into wars. Once a war starts, people need a reason to fight, or a reason to explain the carnage, or just a reason to hope. Religion often provides this.

You end up with wars such as the American Civil War that were political/moral in nature were both sides begin to invoke their belief that "God is on our side" through such examples as Jackson's preaching from the saddle or even the lyrics of the Battle Hymn of the Republic.

Therefore, there is a need to distinguish between wars with a religous side to them, and wars that actually stem from religious causes and strive for religious ends. The one fully and completely religious 'war' that I can think of would be the initial Islamic expansion.

Even the Crusades could be argued to be a political conflict arising out of:

1. tensions between the Pope and the Byzantine Empire

2. attempts by the Pope to solidify his political control over Western Europe

[md25]

Religion and politics are neutral, it's the misuse of either as an excuse for misdeeds that's the real problem in my opinion.

[Jamie McMorrin]

[s]md25 wrote on 10:00, 8th Dec 2004:
Religion and politics are neutral, it's the misuse of either as an excuse for misdeeds that's the real problem in my opinion.


This is exactly it. Religion is something which is a tremendously powerful 'motivator of the masses' and it is therefore only natural that politicians should use it to their advantage. Thus, we get the 'Orange Card' played by the British government in the North of Ireland in the late 19th century. More recently, Islamic terrorists in the Middle East realise that if their fight is seen as a 'jihad' for the good of Islam, they have a million soldiers willing to lay down their lives for 'the cause'. Genuine religious belief is for the most part based on love, of both God and one's neighbour, and violence should only be used as a last resort, if at all.

[steerpike]

id say religion.

Because a religious institution is more likely than a political party to brand something as 'evil', which therefore justifies any means possible to anihilate it. And isnt there no better cuase than to fight for the anihilation of evil?

Unfortunately we are seeing this today. Some more extreme elements of the islamic world today see the Western world and our culture as being evil personified, hence this goes some way to explaining their use of tactics.

However having said that, I suppose that that could also be applied to the more radical elements in politics too, such as 'good' capitalism versus the 'evil' communism. portraying the opposition as Satan is always going to lead to hostilities.

[novium]

[s]steerpike wrote on 12:52, 8th Dec 2004:
id say religion.

Because a religious institution is more likely than a political party to brand something as 'evil', which therefore justifies any means possible to anihilate it. And isnt there no better cuase than to fight for the anihilation of evil?

Unfortunately we are seeing this today. Some more extreme elements of the islamic world today see the Western world and our culture as being evil personified, hence this goes some way to explaining their use of tactics.

However having said that, I suppose that that could also be applied to the more radical elements in politics too, such as 'good' capitalism versus the 'evil' communism. portraying the opposition as Satan is always going to lead to hostilities.



I'd say that is a too simplistic a view, which relies heavily on direct decisions. (i.e. the institution)

The nastiest wars are centered around when people feel that their deepest beliefs are being attacked.

This can be political and it can be religious and it can be both.

[android]

[s]steerpike wrote on 12:52, 8th Dec 2004:
id say religion.

Because a religious institution is more likely than a political party to brand something as 'evil', which therefore justifies any means possible to anihilate it. And isnt there no better cuase than to fight for the anihilation of evil?

Unfortunately we are seeing this today. Some more extreme elements of the islamic world today see the Western world and our culture as being evil personified, hence this goes some way to explaining their use of tactics.

However having said that, I suppose that that could also be applied to the more radical elements in politics too, such as 'good' capitalism versus the 'evil' communism. portraying the opposition as Satan is always going to lead to hostilities.


I quite agree with the last bit. But, especially today, most religious organisations have neither the time, the power, the resources or the inclination to start and carry on a war, whether or not it's thought of as a good idea. Where it's really dangerous is when people with real political power drum up support by calling on an absolute power as support for anything they do. It's a divine carte blanche, and it is so simplistic and inane, often, that it has nothing to do with the beliefs of the religion. And it's often destructive and upsetting for those who find their beliefs being hijacked.
Now, this doesn't necessarily tie in with less recent conflicts, esp. when you get the so-called 'religious wars', but it's worth looking at from the point of view of how we regard them today. For example, it doesn't seem fair to me that a Christian who may follow a non-violent example ('When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats.' 1 Pet 2:23) or who goes along with Augustine's Just War tradition, should have to explain away or be asked to justify the Crusades, which from their own paradigm were unjust. There are likely to be examples from most religions.


[hr]
Isn't it weird when the signature is longer than the message? This won't be one o' those.

[android]

[s]steerpike wrote on 12:52, 8th Dec 2004:
id say religion.

Because a religious institution is more likely than a political party to brand something as 'evil', which therefore justifies any means possible to anihilate it. And isnt there no better cuase than to fight for the anihilation of evil?

Unfortunately we are seeing this today. Some more extreme elements of the islamic world today see the Western world and our culture as being evil personified, hence this goes some way to explaining their use of tactics.

However having said that, I suppose that that could also be applied to the more radical elements in politics too, such as 'good' capitalism versus the 'evil' communism. portraying the opposition as Satan is always going to lead to hostilities.


I quite agree with the last bit. But, especially today, most religious organisations have neither the time, the power, the resources or the inclination to start and carry on a war, whether or not it's thought of as a good idea. Where it's really dangerous is when people with real political power drum up support by calling on an absolute power as support for anything they do. It's a divine carte blanche, and it is so simplistic and inane, often, that it has nothing to do with the beliefs of the religion. And it's often destructive and upsetting for those who find their beliefs being hijacked.
Now, this doesn't necessarily tie in with less recent conflicts, esp. when you get the so-called 'religious wars', but it's worth looking at from the point of view of how we regard them today. For example, it doesn't seem fair to me that a Christian who may follow a non-violent example ('When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats.' 1 Pet 2:23) or who goes along with Augustine's Just War tradition, should have to explain away or be asked to justify the Crusades, which from their own paradigm were unjust. There are likely to be examples from most religions.


[hr]
Isn't it weird when the signature is longer than the message? This won't be one o' those.