# Was there ever a war because of religion? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 28, 2010, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-there-ever-a-war-because-of-religion/526755 "2010-01-28T13:04:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-there-ever-a-war-because-of-religion/526755/61 "2010-01-29T01:57:51Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > YOU did, in the very passage I quoted. You insisted that saying that it affected people was “absurd”. No, I said it was absurd to say religion causes things. Strictly speaking it doesn’t. Human action causes things, and religion is one of many possible motivators for human action. It’s absurd because 1. Religion doesn’t exist independently of culture, it’s a category, not a ‘thing’. 2. People do things for complex reasons, and religion interacts with a complex set of cultural activity. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-there-ever-a-war-because-of-religion/526755/62 "2010-01-29T02:04:37Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > Um could you provide a shred of evidence to support this assertion. Sure. There were quite a lot of heresies which, while getting smack talk from the Pope and having handfuls of leaders burnt to a crisp here and there, never received such attention. The Beguines, the Paulicians (gnostic dualists, too), the Flagellants, Patarenes, Bogomils (more gnostics), Pastoureaux, Fraticellis… none of those caught such a vast and bloody crusade up their collective bums. But unlike the Cathars, those heresies mostly recruited among the poor and downtrodden (well, OK, not so true for the Flagellants - but those were nominally Catholics when they weren’t whipping themselves into a frenzy). Catharism was special in that fat burghers and even nobles were getting into it. They controlled major cities, they had fortresses, they owned land. They were something else, and they got something else. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-there-ever-a-war-because-of-religion/526755/63 "2010-01-29T12:56:13Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Your examples of the Old Testament violence are poor examples, because the Jews were not a religion at that time, they were a tribe. It was tribal conflict. Every tribe had its various flavors of religion, so arguing that religion caused it is rather silly. Religion helps define the character of a culture, and therefore can define a culture as violent, like Sparta, or more peaceful like the Taino who were native to Puerto Rico, next to the violent Caribe. Christians might argue that the people who became Christians were MORE violent before they became Christians for instance. It’s not a bad argument when you consider the Warrior culture of the Europeans in pre-Christian times, the Gauls fighting other Celtic tribes, the Germanic tribes invading the Gauls. Rome invading and conquering everyone. > > Religion is ever-present throughout history, but so is war and violence. Religion is a much a cause of peace as it is a cause of violence as Religion is just the cultural narrative that developed people into ‘peoples’ with common identities. If religion was not the cause of a war why was Joshua supposed to have been told by his god to kill all the people of Jericho, and then when they blew the trumpets god was supposed to have made the walls fall. If that isn’t a religious reason what is? If religion wasn’t the cause it was sure the tool! ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-there-ever-a-war-because-of-religion/526755/64 "2010-01-29T13:04:27Z")
Would the peasants war be considered a religious war? If not what was the reason? ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-there-ever-a-war-because-of-religion/526755/65 "2010-01-29T14:32:37Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Would the peasants war be considered a religious war? If not what was the reason? I didn’t know what you were talking about, but my first reaction was “Bwuh ? The answer’s in the question - they were peasants. Peasants revolt, it’s what they _do_”. From Wiki : > [@](#): > > The Peasant War of 1524–1525 began as a petition made to the Holy Roman Emperor on behalf of some German peasants in 1524.[[1]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants_War#cite_note-0) The petition was called [Twelve Articles](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Articles) which sought relief from some of the particular oppressions that the German peasants were facing.[[2]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants_War#cite_note-1) The petition began as a religious sounding document. Indeed, the first “article” called for church congregations to have the right to appoint and/or remove their own ministers.[[3]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants_War#cite_note-2) **However, the petition soon moved to its real purpose. The main articles of the petition dealt with the economic hardships faced by the peasants**. The remaining articles of the _Twelve Articles_ petitioned the Holy Roman Emperor to abolish the “cattle tithes,” and the death tax; and to preserve of all “common fields, forests and waters” for use by the peasants, rather than allowing these lands to fall into private hands. The petition also requested that the peasantry be allowed to hunt on the common lands and fish in the common waters.[[4]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants_War#cite_note-3) One article called for the abolition of serfdom and establishment of a system of leasing of the land under stipulated conditions.[[5]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants_War#cite_note-4) Two out of three ain’t that bad, but one out of twelve is lousy 😃 Moving on : > [@](#): > > Furthermore, Munster’s concentration on the secular rather than the religious led him to become the main leader of the peasantry of Saxony in the Great Peasant War.[[10]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants_War#cite_note-9) Munster’s rhetoric became more secular as the Peasant War intensified.[[11]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants_War#cite_note-10) Indeed as just as the [Thirty Years War](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years_War) which occurred nearly a century later (1618–1648) also began as a supposed religious war and soon degenerated into a secular feud between contending secular groups in Europe, so too did the Great Peasant War of 1525 lose all pretext of a religious struggle as the War progressed. ---
**Author:** ![tacoloco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tacoloco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tacoloco)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-there-ever-a-war-because-of-religion/526755/66 "2010-01-29T14:58:36Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > Your prediction really adds nothing to the thread and other than shitting on me or the idea for discussion I see no point to it. Why so serious? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-there-ever-a-war-because-of-religion/526755/67 "2010-01-29T18:57:15Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > No, I said it was absurd to say religion causes things. Strictly speaking it doesn’t. Human action causes things, and religion is one of many possible motivators for human action. > > It’s absurd because > > 1. Religion doesn’t exist independently of culture, it’s a category, not a ‘thing’. > 2. People do things for complex reasons, and religion interacts with a complex set of cultural activity. I disagree with 1 - a category is a thing, since it describes a collective of things. A ton of bricks is a thing, despite the fact it is a collective describing a specific category of things (as in, “these bricks here”). I suppose you could make an interesting philosophical discussion on this subject, but trying to use it to obfuscate a non-philosophical discussion is a transparent dodge. To those of us using english, religion is a thing, catholocism is a thing, and even atheism is a thing, for the purposes of a discussion like this. 2 is also a transparent dodge. The fact that humans have multiple motivations for, well, _everything_, does not mean that nothing causes human actions. Hunger causes me to eat yogurt, and a personal preference for yogurt also causes me to eat yogurt. By your argument here neither hunger _nor_ my preference are causes of my yogurt consumption, specifically because they both are. And I dunno about you, but that seems pretty silly to me. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-there-ever-a-war-because-of-religion/526755/68 "2010-01-29T19:05:46Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > If religion was not the cause of a war why was Joshua supposed to have been told by his god to kill all the people of Jericho, and then when they blew the trumpets god was supposed to have made the walls fall. If that isn’t a religious reason what is? My point was that at that time the concept of religion didn’t really exist. Every tribe had its particular Gods that they ascribed the actions of their tribe to. You cannot separate their religious belief from their meta-ethnic genetic kinship identity grouping. > [@](#): > > If religion wasn’t the cause it was sure the tool! Religion wasn’t a concept at that time. Is my point. Separating it from tribalism is impossible. The idea of religion as separate from culture is a modern conceit. > [@begbert2](#): > > I disagree with 1 - a category is a thing, since it describes a collective of things. A ton of bricks is a thing, despite the fact it is a collective describing a specific category of things (as in, “these bricks here”). Ok fine, a category is a thing. But the problem with this viewpoint is that ‘religion’ as a whole doesn’t have much in the way of cohesion as many mutually exclusive ideas of belief fall under the rubric of ‘religion’. > [@](#): > > I suppose you could make an interesting philosophical discussion on this subject, but trying to use it to obfuscate a non-philosophical discussion is a transparent dodge. To those of us using english, religion is a thing, catholocism is a thing, and even atheism is a thing, for the purposes of a discussion like this. I mean it doesn’t have independent existence, cannot act in and of itself, and ‘religion’ doesn’t inspire anyone to do anything. Catholicism can inspire people to do things, Islam can inspire people to do things, Judaism or Hinduism the same, but they aren’t inspired by ‘religion’, they are inspired by a particular religion. One could argue that the existence of multiple religions is really what causes the problems. If there was one unified religion that everyone agreed upon, maybe we’d be harmonious. > [@](#): > > 2 is also a transparent dodge. The fact that humans have multiple motivations for, well, _everything_, does not mean that nothing causes human actions. Hunger causes me to eat yogurt, and a personal preference for yogurt also causes me to eat yogurt. By your argument here neither hunger _nor_ my preference are causes of my yogurt consumption, specifically because they both are. And I dunno about you, but that seems pretty silly to me. Nope. I am saying that religion is akin to ‘bodily functions’. Whereas ‘hunger’ is akin to Christianity, for the purpose of this analogy. One cannot extrapolate anything by saying that bodily functions caused a particular effect. One needs to know which bodily function to understand its impact. Religion is a super-category in the way ‘bodily functions’ is a super-category that includes hunger. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-there-ever-a-war-because-of-religion/526755/69 "2010-01-29T21:32:13Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Ok fine, a category is a thing. But the problem with this viewpoint is that ‘religion’ as a whole doesn’t have much in the way of cohesion as many mutually exclusive ideas of belief fall under the rubric of ‘religion’. Many mutually-exclusive attributed fall under the label of “car” too - some are big, some are small, some are red, some definitely aren’t. But there are still enough similarities to speak of the category meaningfully. Also worth noting, the existence of a small number of exceptions doesn’t make generalizing completely invalid. There are certainly cars that are incapable of taking people anywhere, but that doesn’t mean that it’s invalid to speak of cars (in general) as a mode of transportation. > [@mswas](#): > > I mean it doesn’t have independent existence, cannot act in and of itself, and ‘religion’ doesn’t inspire anyone to do anything. Catholicism can inspire people to do things, Islam can inspire people to do things, Judaism or Hinduism the same, but they aren’t inspired by ‘religion’, they are inspired by a particular religion. One could argue that the existence of multiple religions is really what causes the problems. If there was one unified religion that everyone agreed upon, maybe we’d be harmonious. Er, Catholocism doesn’t have independent existence of the ability to act in and of itself either, so those apparently can’t be the problem. And you seem to be mistaken about the way categorization works. If Catholocism is a religion, and Catholoscism can cause things, then religion can cause things. Perhaps not _all_ things that match the category “religion” can cause things - but certainly some of them can. Now, you might be able to argue that the percentage of things called religions that can cause things is so small that it’s fallacious to extrapolate from the specific to the general. But personally I don’t think you’ll be able to argue that successfully. Most religions seem to have effects, in my experience - otherwise we wouldn’t notice they were there. Inspiring people to do things is also something that they seem to be good at, generally speaking. > [@mswas](#): > > Nope. I am saying that religion is akin to ‘bodily functions’. Whereas ‘hunger’ is akin to Christianity, for the purpose of this analogy. One cannot extrapolate anything by saying that bodily functions caused a particular effect. One needs to know which bodily function to understand its impact. Religion is a super-category in the way ‘bodily functions’ is a super-category that includes hunger. Except when bodily functions have things in common, like say the tendency to define an “us” and a “them”, for example. (I know my respiration defines "us"es and "them"s all the time.) Suffice to say, I find no reason here to claim that religion is incapable of being the direct cause of actions. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-there-ever-a-war-because-of-religion/526755/70 "2010-01-29T23:11:03Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Separating it from tribalism is impossible. I have to disagree, at least in this context. I’d say rather that seperating can be difficult. In a sense it becomes kind of a perspective argument - whether one takes a reductionist or holistic approach to culture. I think going towards either extreme is a mistake and I think you might be wandering just a bit too much in the holistic direction. We can take FGM in Horn of Africa as an example. One can make the argument that is a facet of Islam, Christianity and Judaism in the region. Ask Muslims, Christians and Jews in the area ( or rather the Jews that used to be in the area ) and many will say/have said that their religion mandates Pharaonic FGM. But if we look at the history of the region, we can see that said practice pre-dates all the Abrahamic religions in the area and doesn’t seem to be directly mandated by any of the holy scriptures in question. So you then end up with two interpretations: 1.) FGM is a _cultural accretion_, given post-hoc religious justification. It isn’t _really_ a genuine religious practice, but rather a regional practice given a veneer of religiosity. 2.) Pre-Abrahamic and non-scripturally based or not, it is still a religious practice because the practitioners of that tradition regard it as such. Frankly I think both answers are correct in a sense. I spend more time on the first, because when the qestion of FGM comes up it is easy to refute misconceptions ( usually related to Islam ) that it is a _universal_ feature of the religion by pointing out just how regional, non-scriptural and pan-religious it is in practice. But the argument that local folk religion is still religion is also perfectly valid. To go back to wars, Northern Ireland to me represents more a “tribal” than a “religious” struggle because the conflict is not fundamentally driven by piety or arguments over religious interpretation. It is driven mostly by a struggle for regional power between two groups who define their tribal affiliation by the religious faiths of, in many cases, their forefathers rather than themselves ( only 45% of NI’s population attends church even once a month ). Now you can claim that the ostensible Catholicism of the IRA or at least its traditional identification of its supporters with Catholicism , is so inextricably intertwined with their culture that arguing whether they’re truly religious or directly inspired by their faith or not is silly. That it’s just a part of one inextricable whole. Up to a point it’s a fair argument. But ultimately from my standpoint I think focusing so much on the indivisability of culture is a bit obfuscatory, in this case unnecessarily muddying the understanding of this conflict. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2010, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-there-ever-a-war-because-of-religion/526755/71 "2010-01-29T23:16:32Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > Even though I expected this to be the first example brought up, I’m not completely sure that religion was the main cause of the crusades and hope that someone who knows more about that part of history will contribute. It also happened a millennium ago. There has been plenty of wars since, so for the argument that religion _causes_ wars (and not only helps justify them) to be considered relevant there should be more recent examples. Perhaps you should have avoided the word “ever” in your OP. ---
**Author:** ![figure9](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f0a364/32.png) [@figure9](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/figure9)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2010, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-there-ever-a-war-because-of-religion/526755/72 "2010-01-30T00:05:33Z")
Isn’t the current “war” on terror a religious war? I don’t see that the extremists have gained much by the war. They are fighting for god not profit. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2010, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-there-ever-a-war-because-of-religion/526755/73 "2010-01-30T00:14:38Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > I have to disagree, at least in this context. I’d say rather that seperating can be difficult. > > In a sense it becomes kind of a perspective argument - whether one takes a reductionist or holistic approach to culture. I think going towards either extreme is a mistake and I think you might be wandering just a bit too much in the holistic direction. It depends on the context. The Jews of that time were a tribe, that had particular religious beliefs. They fought and warred with other tribes that had other beliefs. Part of what they would do when they came through was to kill the enemy Gods to show that their God was greater. This was sort of the old school version of capture the flag, it was called behead the idol. Christianity’s innovation on Judaism essentially was taking its ideas and mass-marketing them. Essentially decoupling the relationship with the God of Abraham from a particular genetic strain of humans. It was precisely this universalism that set it apart from the pack at the time. Sure, syncretism happened all the time, but Christianity, separately and distinctly believed itself to be a universal religion for all mankind. > [@](#): > > We can take FGM in Horn of Africa as an example. One can make the argument that is a facet of Islam, Christianity and Judaism in the region. Ask Muslims, Christians and Jews in the area ( or rather the Jews that used to be in the area ) and many will say/have said that their religion mandates Pharaonic FGM. But if we look at the history of the region, we can see that said practice pre-dates all the Abrahamic religions in the area and doesn’t seem to be directly mandated by any of the holy scriptures in question. So you then end up with two interpretations: I am unsure of what your acronym means. I’ll respond when you clarify. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2010, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-there-ever-a-war-because-of-religion/526755/74 "2010-01-30T00:30:46Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > It depends on the context. Sure. That why I said it can be difficult. > [@](#): > > I am unsure of what your acronym means. FGM? Female Genital Mutilation, i.e. female circumcision. The pharaonic form practiced in the Horn of Africa is probably the most extreme version. Sorry for not being more clear - I should have wrote it out the first time. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2010, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-there-ever-a-war-because-of-religion/526755/75 "2010-01-30T19:25:17Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > But that, again, is another argument that is carefully designed to favor religion. People are so dedicated to religion that rather than admit that it can ever be bad, they will call their own species monsters. Bullshit. You’re basically taking away everyone’s responsibility and blaming religion – an abstract concept. “I’m not REALLY a brutal sociopath – it was my religion that made me so!” It’s not about “favoring religion.” It’s about having people stepping up and taking responsibility for one’s own actions. Sometimes people simply use their religious beliefs as an excuse to be an asshole, do they not? And before you point out, “Well, what about people who say that ‘that religion made these people good!!!’” That’s bullshit too. It inspired them, yes. The same way it inspired people to do evil. In the end, though, is it just religion, or is humanity? What came first – humans, or religions? Religion itself, as I see it, is an abstract, that can be an inspiration for good, or for evil. But it’s not an excuse, or a total cause. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-there-ever-a-war-because-of-religion/526755/76 "2010-01-31T00:31:18Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Bullshit. You’re basically taking away everyone’s responsibility and blaming religion – an abstract concept. “I’m not REALLY a brutal sociopath – it was my religion that made me so!” Perhaps I have failed to recognize this argument before, but the truth of it as expressed has suddeny met with my complete concurrence. Well done ! ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-there-ever-a-war-because-of-religion/526755/77 "2010-01-31T19:43:30Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > If religion was not the cause of a war why was Joshua supposed to have been told by his god to kill all the people of Jericho, and then when they blew the trumpets god was supposed to have made the walls fall. If that isn’t a religious reason what is? > > If religion wasn’t the cause it was sure the tool! Well, that probably didn’t actually happen, so it’s not the best example, any more than the Iliad is an argument that beauty contests cause wars. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-there-ever-a-war-because-of-religion/526755.md?page=3)