so i started taking a college philosophy class *yea, i know, big mistake* and im amazed how many times i hear this in a snide self righteous tone: "RELIGION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MORE WARS THEN ANYTHING ELSE ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET! RAAARFGH!"


so i was wondering, if anyone actually buys into that "religion is to blame" b.s.?

personally, i think people kill people, not religion. if those wars werent faught over religion, you better believe they would have been fought over nationalism, greed, land or racism or culture. you could say the hatred in the middle east for americans isnt necesarily a religious hatred, but a cultural hatred. to say religion, a human instituition, is responsible for the crimes committed by the human spirit is just ridiculous.

i guess im just sort of sick of hearing everyone diss religion *even though i have no religion* when it is the basic nature of humanity to be violent. i think religion has created some of the most amazing things and given people stuff that nothing else could give them. hope for the hopeless. faith for the downtrodden. something for people who in this mortal realm are being beat down, raped and pissed on every day. not to mention the works of art and charity it moves people to make. Pat Robertson may be an oldfashioned anti feminist, but he has probably done more charity work then anyone else in america. no one in the green party i know of has built a flying hospital to help people in true need. people who are generally regarded as more morally pc are generally only wrapped up in their own special interests, like keeping abortion legal, protesting wars and getting the bible out of the classroon when the religious people are actually helping the hungry.

so what is up with all this religion bashing in our culture? is it just backlash from angst ridden teens rebelling against their parents or a sort of attempt to escape the guilt for the faults of humanity by blaming it on an organization that they can safely claim they have no ties to?
(ie: "europeans didnt launch the crusades, christians did!" or "americans didnt kill the indians, christians did with their selfish belief in manifest destiny!" or something similar. )

anyone have any ideas? anyone feel religion IS to blame for all the bad things in the world? im just sort of curious.

Quite honestly, I don't think you can blame human problems on any one thing. I agree with you, I don't think religion is to blame, but people are.

At their very core, all religions teach respect and compassion, two ideals which are never bad.

However, people will gladly twist anything they can for the human faults of nationalism, greed, land, racism or culture. And therefore, religion does become a tool of the wicked, and it is misused and causes *a lot* of problems.

No doubt a large portion of the common anti-religion sentiments in our society are part of the intolerance that is often taught part and parcel with religion and all the problems that intolerance create.

Religion is a complex phenomenon. At its very core, I truly believe it is a beautiful thing, not only socially but also personally (bringing fulfillment to many people's lives). However, it is wrapped in many layers of problems that will take a *long* time for it to extract itself from. Intolerance is something that has plagued religion for a very long time, and it will take a lot of liberalized thinking and action on the part of its followers in order to extract itself from that.

True, but many religions seem all too happy to leave compassion and respect in the gutter when it comes to people who are not actually of that religioun.

Sadly, yes. It is the intolerance which has infected religion of which I spoke.

But then, intolerance is almost ubiquitous to the human experience -- whether it comes in the form of racism, bullying on the schoolground, or fundamentalism.

Religion is a way to feel free and as you said, give hope. Yeah it may have just triggered mass murder in israel, but it pull people through from the dark. But i don't beieve war come from religion. Its the idoiots who act apon theb differences and the divirsity between people and the big bad, squeesing in.

It's not the religion itself; it's the people in said religion. Islam is actually a peaceful religion but, as in any religion, there are radicals. There's a group based near where Missy lives that preaches that homosexuals should all be put to death before they corrupt the whole country. I'm not with what these people do, but I don't hate them them and sicerely wish they'd change their ways. In any case, you can't always judge a religion by its followers.

People have free will. No matter what the books or the priests say, it takes a conscious decision to pull a trigger.

Agreed, Commie. Agreed

Hmmm. I think religion can be a factor, but then again so can economics. I mean, the most obvious examples of religious wars are going to be the crusades, and that's fairly easy to defend as a position.

Hm. I'm incoherent. Religion can be a factor in wars. So are alot of other things though. Most religions I know of preach peace. Some of them, at the same time, also preach violence. Contradictions in an ideology or religion can make it difficult to follow.

Religion is people, a religion is its followers. Maybe you mean the scriptures do not preach the same behaviour as the people who call themselves 'Christians'.

I could never even begin to follow a religion such as Christianity, as there is actually no real set of practices, it seems one would have to make their own rather inevitably inept interpretation of the bible and then follow it as best they can. There are just too many questions like 'Should I follow Judaism, as Jesus did, do his views conflict with those of Judaism' etc

im a christian... but the largest thing ive been drilled on for the past few mouths (after spending a eternity learing otherwise) is that its more important that you belive in god and have a relation ship and that your atleast trying then being perfect and snotty.... so no i dont feel that religion has caused wars... war mongers use religion as an escuse to start wars when they want somthing...

First off, I rather like philosophy. Secondly, people do have free will.


I will say that relligion has greatly influenced actions of people around the world for all of time, but we ourselves as a people are responsible for our own actions.

If someone choses to follow a religion blindly then I guess ignorance is bliss, but it's people who refuse to look at a problem/issue/topic at all angles who have caused the major disputes so easily blamed on religion.


Stand up for yourself and your beliefs. Be open minded, and learn when to keep your mouth shut.

This case seems to represent an oh so favorite t-shirt of mine at hot topic:

Why do people with close minds always open their mouths?

Sometimes war mongers use religion as an excuse, sometimes they see it as the reason

The quote above seems to me to be inaccurate, because in most practical terms I cannot differenciate between what is called religion on one hand, and nationalism, greed, land, racism or culture, on the other.

I tend to go with the phrase "religion has caused more wars than bla bla..." but when I say it I'm not thinking of religion as a set of thaughts, pointers or even philosophy, but of the actual individuals who organise it, own it, and enforce it. The board memebers, so to speak, the executive officers. In my opinion, because religion is used to bring people together and herd them in a given direction, in most cases by trashing other ways of thinking and living, it is a good vehicle for driving the masses over cliffs they may not otherwise choose to leap.

It used to take a lot of people to make a war, because of the simple labour issues involved in killing and destroying, and so the few (oh so few) individuals who actually had an interest in said war would naturally go to the largest rallying institutions they could find. The further we go back in time, the more the warmongers and religious board-members were the same people, and the more they would serve eachothers interests.

The only real differences now are that people are too inclined to form an opinion about going to die for the landowners and bank managers, and about killing and destroying other people, and religious organisations no longer carry the clout they used to ... so now its advertising people that rally people to their deaths, not even the politicians ... ie the politicians ask the advertising guys to come up with a lie that will serve their purpose ... Soon we will see "Saachi & Saachi - Warmongering department" ... Indeed, by that rationale, we should soon be seeing "Manchester United - Ethnic cleansing division" or "Kill thine enemy with Burger King" ... Incidently, the Burger King one, from an advertising point of view, has already happened. They made sure they had a big fat f*ck-off truck with their slimy name and logo emblazoned all over it in the barracks set up in the middle east for American soldiers ...

To conclude: Religion is indeed responsable for more wars than anything else, but as with all institutions, the responsability lays with the guys at the top, not Joe Public consumer of the product.

I recently posted on another forum on this subject. My feeling on the matter is that humans are basically animals who can develop a conscience. The animal urges are acheived through the mental processes which I refer to as the ego (but please don't give me anti-Freud hassle). All forms of social control rely on the ego as their main tool. The fear of death/the unknown is harnessed by the various churches to control the resource that is Humanity. Others do similar things from a slightly different perspective - the "government", the military, judiciary etc. The point is that, until we realise and admit how weak and easily manipulated most people are we have no chance of raising the consciousness of humanity above a basic, animal level.

Effectively, we cannot blame the "bosses", the church leaders, Bush or Blair for the evils of this world when we look for alpha-males to protect us. We created their thrones in our minds, long before they arrived. We are the cause as we have not been able to raise our consciousness to the extent that we can act morally with conviction in any great numbers. The problem with trying to help others think for themselves is that they are daily assaulted by the media and the education system which try to keep them from independent thought, using all the tricks of manipulation they can find. The propaganda machine stimulates the animal nature then associates something else with it to control us.

Seriously, even those who regard themselves as radical, political, revolutionary types are often just doing it because they enjoy it - they have no real chance of changing anything for the better as they still look to leaders, people stronger, smarter, wiser to tell them how to think and behave.

Any takers?

this is really reaching over and above my meagre intellect, but i always think the same thing. no one factor is to blame, and it IS the actions of individuals and groups that cause the problems we have to face in this world.
there is no evil, it is the actions of people that are sometimes evil. so it's the same with religion...why do my posts never make coherent sense? (apologies)
and i agree with TSZ on the lack of tolerance too often demonstrated for other religions...that i admit, is one way religion has caused problems.

.../end incoherency

I think it is kind of responsible. Everyone thinks their own religion is the best, and they are willing to fight for it.

I'll just throw in a quick one here. As an atheist on grounds of personal cynicism I tend to wobble along on the following principle...

Religion: Don't blame me and I won't blame you.

But should wars be waged over that sort of ideas?

Is religion to blame for wars? No. Organized religion is designed to influence. In instances of radicalism, influence turns to brainwashing. Brainwashing creates zombies. Therefore, it is not the religion itself, which is a mere abstract, but those who influence, the religious leaders, or in some cases, the person themself. When they coerce people/themselves, they are part to blame. A religious fervor is not a clear state of mind, the individual is not completely responsible.

This aspect of organized religion is unavoidable, even in shamanistic cultures where the religious leaders are regarded more as guides of spirituality and less as "men of god" (as faiths such as christianity imply), the shamans exert control.

Therefore, the only answer is that in a religious community, religion will have influence. The positives are unity for communal projects. The downsides are bloodshed. But, with the right religious contruction, bloodshed can hopefully be minimalized. As I am creating my own religion for such express purpose as a part of my social engineering plan, when I find the way to make this so, I shall tell you all .

Yes, but if you go back even farther, to the source of the religion, the warmongers and the creators of each world religion were not the same (with a few exceptions, yes, of course). In fact, they were often opposed to one another. But I think the fact remains that these were violent times, regardless of what religion taught. (And, at the same time, I agree that the religious leaders *were* in fact, corrupt and on the side of war. But then, they really weren't following the basic precepts of their religion, now were they?)

I disagree with Sir Maxerpopple... While it is true that the religious leaders often *do* exert a large level of control on their believers, many modern religions *do* encourage freethinking -- take Unitarian Universalism, as the perfect example. No creed, no dogma, no necessary beliefs. Or even a liberal Christian church, where it is perfectly acceptable to question such fundamentals as the resurrection of Christ. Or the Ba'hai faith, in which every world religion is considered but another branch of the same tree. Although I would agree that "A religious fervor is not a clear state of mind," neither is a political fervour, or any sort of fundamentalism at all.

Wars SHOULDN'T be fought over that, but sadly, they often are. This is where human intolerance sets in.

Modern religions are moving away to much more individualistic tendencies. This I acknowledge. However I was referring to the more traditional religions, that even if they are a minority, can wreak havoc.

Point. However, the fact remains that traditional religions are also slowly seeing a shift in viewpoint. I mean, for example look at the recent feminist and pro-homosexual changes in the Anglican/Episcopalian Church -- admitedly, these organizations are slow moving, but change *is* occuring.

Individualism trends are nice, however they all would eventually fall into the zen/buddhist/soul searching religion/philosophy. This is really something for the individualistic and educated minority. Granted in the last 150 years this number has been steadily rising, many people will still practice traditional forms. These are often the lower socio-economic classes(but I make no absolutes here or above), those most prone to violence and coersion.

In addition there will always hopefully be cultural historians, who like myself, see traditional religion as a necessary thing to preserve to keep an open window to our past. I just won't be killing anyone.

Mayhaps, although mysticism has been a part of nearly all religions for a very long time, and I don't necessarily seeing this as where individualism within the community of the liberal Christian church is going. But I can only speak for a very small part of the religious population here. In my church, everyone is encouraged to challenge the teachings of the church, because it's healthy for one's faith to have a healthy dose of skepticism and doubt. At the same time, we all "basically" subscribe to a similar creed. But I digress.

You know, I've never thought about it in a cultural historical setting like that before? Honestly, if the church is going to die, I say let it die (in a similar manner as Bishop Spong pointed out in his phenomenal book "Why Christianity Must Change Or Die"). (It's pretty much my attitude towards the monarchy in Canada, which is in contrast, say to that of my dearest Artemesia, who applies the concept of cultural historical links with the past, and our heritage, and whatnot. I say, the monarchy is a useless institution in Canada, has been for years in reality, and we might as well get rid of it in name. But I digress yet again! )

If we lose heritage, we lose the past. And without the past, we lose so much of ourselves. It is necessary to keep the past alive., so it can be learned from.

really? i often think about what history texts will say about various things in the years to come. in a few thousand years, possibly less, reading the bible will be like reading herodotus' history or the homeric hymns.

Organized religion has a very interesting dual nature-- it's one of the most beautiful and dangerous things, in my opinion. There are good things in every faith and spirituality... no one religion possesses the whole truth because, well, we're human and how can we expect to be able to comprehend all the mysteries which religion attempts to explain? That shouldn't matter. We should accept our limitations and celebrate the spirit in whatever capacity is appropriate for the mortal world. It's when humans, in their pride, want to twist religion-- something that is naturally ambiguous-- into absolute truth in order to justify their own purposes, that problems happen. So, yes, I think religion holds within it the capacity to cause divisions and anger in the world. But what doesn't really? Violence and pain occurs as a result of all kinds of things... and all of those things stem essentially from the violent and vindictive human nature. If you want to blame religion, you're not WRONG, per se, but you have to trace it back to the source... it's not the institution, it's people.

Hmm... rambled and then arrived at the same point that most people have already expressed. Hooray for circumlocution.