So does secular intolerance.
Any intolerance, reguardless whether it’s religious or not causes conflict.
I ask again “Hows your tolerance towards others?”
Hey, Knight, I’m all for brevity, but it’s okay to have more than two sentences in a post occasionally.
Here’s a similar thread for your perusal.
But I count 8 not 7 . 87.5 % of these conflicts involve Islamic participants. Since Islam is actually a religion of peace, then these can not be classified as religious conflicts except Ceylon.
Now we are down to 1 of 25 or 4% of armed coflicts are religion based. I think that pretty well refutes the OP.
Well, if religion is indeed the cause of all wars, then certainly a few wars in American history would have to be re-explained to me, at least in terms of religion being a direct cause.
The Revolutionary War
The War of 1812
The Mexican War
The Civil War
The Spanish-American War
World War I
World War II
The Korean War
The Vietnam War
The Gulf War
The problem with making such an incredibly broad statement like “religion is the cause of all wars” is that it’s so easy to find at least one exception. And here it looks like I’ve found a bundle of exceptions, and I didn’t even have to go beyond my own country’s history.
If you are claiming that religion (Islam) is causing all of these conflicts, you would be wrong. As religion doesn’t fuel conflict intolerance towards religion and others cause war.
Even if you add the Troubles, it still does not support that the primary cause of human warfare is religion.
100 Years War (1300s-1400s England-France) – land grab
1848 US-Mexican War – land grab[1]
US Civil War - political
Spanish-American War – land grab[1]
Russo-Finnish War – land grab
1930’s Chaco War (Paraguay-Bolivia) – land grab
Korean War – ideological/land grab
Vietnam War – ideological
Honduras-El Salvador war – border dispute + soccer:rolleyes:
1980s Iran-Iraq War (both are majority Shi’ite) – border dispute/regional power play
Falklands war – land grab/political [2]
[1] Unless we argue that Manifest Destiny is primarily a Protestant anti-Catholic doctrine
[2] Unless we consider the very existence of a British Empire a doctrinal result of the Reformation, and the existence of Argentina a doctrinal result of the 1500s Papal demarcation of the New World.
“Religion is the cause of all wars, (ergo) Religion should be abolished” is refuted by evidence. A majority of wars even “holy” wars are straight land grabs or political power plays. Rephrased as “Religious politics is the cause of the worst, bloodiest, most violent, longest-running wars,” with the Crusades, the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Troubles as examples, then we may have something.
Question: If the Palestinians and Jews were in the same situation, only the populations were defined by skin color or any other distinguishing characteristic, would they be living peacefully and happily?
The root cause of the conflict is that the Palestinians feel like they got the short end of the stick in a U.N. partition plan, and rather than form a nation as Israel did at the time and try to coexist peacefully, they decided on a ruinous plan to camp out, fight back, and eventually win the whole terroritory back. Religion only plays a part in that it’s the traditional dividing line between disparate populations. The REAL cause of the Arab/Israeli wars is Tribalism and power struggles, not religion.
How about this: Scapegoating on a religious basis is evil, and should be abolished. Intolerance of religous choices should be abolished. That means Noxious Knight should be abolished.
Worst…OP…ever.
Economics and power are the root causes of all wars.
Religion is just a handy tool to get the rank and file fired up.
If there were no religion, other excuses would be found: race, trumped-up cartographic disputes, stars on the bellies, etc., etc.
Oh yeah, and The Troubles in Northern Ireland aren’t really about religion. They are about colonialism. Religion is just a handy way to separate the descendants of the original inhabitants (Irish Catholics) from the descendants of the colonizers (British Protestants).
Hmmm, this is the first time I’ve ever seen a troll post from someone with a count in the hundreds.
As long as this thread is clearly going nowhere, I suggest we take Godwin’s Law out for a little fresh air.
Perhaps we could round up all the religious people and put them in camps, or just forcibly sterilise them.
- Medic wars
- Punic Wars
- 1 world war
- 2 world war
- Vietnam war
- Korea War
- Spanish Succession war
- Most of the colonial wars
- all of the americans revolutions
- U.S.A vs spain war
- Napoleonic Wars
- Cold War
- Many (but not all) of the civil wars.
- Boers War
If I am not wrong religion played no part in this conflicts
What the hell is godwin’s law? Thanks in advance for explaining. The explanation would surely be a Highjack or at least it would be if this where an inteligent thread
Godwins’ law is that as the number of posts in a debate increses, the probability of one party comparing the other to the Nazis approaches 1.
Some people wrongly interpret this to mean ‘as soon as someone mentions Nazis, the debate is over(or lost)’, but that’s putting Descartes before the horse.
“What the hell is godwin’s law?”
Essentially, it’s the “rule” that a discussion has gone too far afield or has become too bitter when Hitler or the Nazis are mentioned in a manner not directly relevant to the discussion. Mentioning Hitler in a WWII thread would not involve Godwin’s Law, while mentioning Hitler in a debate over the designated hitter rule would. 
Hitler might have thrown a decent fastball, but he tired in later innings…
I don’t think that only an individual’s peronsal intolerance comes into play. If you are a member of one religion, aren’t all (or most at least) other religions wrong?
For example, look at Judaism and Christianity. Either Christ is God’s son and was resurrected and is coming back (Christianity), or he isn’t (Judaism). One or the other; you can’t have it both ways. If you’re a Jew, you have to believe that the Christians are wrong. And vice-versa.
Although, as I’m writing this, I realize that this doesn’t mean “intolerance.” I am not suggesting that because you think a religion is wrong, you automatically want to kill everyone who believes in it. I guess there is a factor of both religion and personality in a holy war…
It isn’t that hard when all one does is post one-liners minutes after one another such as:
“I meant this…”
“BTW, I also meant this…”
“But that’s beside the point.”
“I heard that before.”
You can come to your own conclusions about to religion and still be tolerance towards who don’t share the same view as you.
If you made the choice to believe Jesus is God’s son, okay. If you don’t, okay again. Tolerance comes in to play when you respect the choices that others have made, even if it isn’t the same as yours.
What causes war is intolerance. Intolerance people can use any tool for conflict whether it be religion, ethnicity, class, or gender.
You could say that divercity divides but who will cause fights: Diverse tolerant people or diverse intolerant people. Intolerance towards others causes conflicts