In this specific case, I don’t think so. The Muslim goal going into that battle wasn’t conquest, but to punish the Duke of Aquitaine, who was a revolting vassal.
That’s not to say that the Muslim army, if it had been victorious, wouldn’t have taken the opportunity to grab more land, but that wasn’t their goal.
The Pope and his Church’s temporal power was threatened by the heresy. The local folks stopped listening to priests and stopped paying their religious taxes. And nobles only started paying attention to the “problem” when there were some tangible rewards to be had (and, as **Tamerlane **rightly points out, some nested political influence mongering as well).
I’d say that puts the roots of the conflict pretty squarely on the material side.
Had it *really *been about religion, there wouldn’t have been a need for a financial carrot : fanatics would have happily lined up at the Pope’s first injunctions, secure in the knowledge that God would reward them with Heavenly goodness. I mean, today’s suicide bombers don’t get paid, do they ? 
Unless you’re talking about the Hatfields v. McCoys, EVERY war was started with religious motives involved… and basic paranoia, xenophobia and later McCarthyism. 
One problem with the argument that if a religion isn’t 100% responsible for a war, you can’t blame religion is that that standard would hardly be applied to other motives. People don’t go around insisting that greedy people who conquer and plunder weren’t actually motivated by greed just because they hated their victims for some other reason. Holding such a high, unique standard for blaming religion for war ( and everything else ) is just another attempt to let it off the hook.
This thread title actually made me laugh out loud.
I’d laugh more if I didn’t run across people here and elsewhere claiming that religion is never, ever responsible for wars. Or anything else bad.
Religion is responsible for many good things and many bad things. It’s about 50.0000000000000000000000000000000000000001% versus 49.9999999999999999999999999999999999%.
If those numbers add up to 100, it’s a miracle and we all have to convert to Roman Catholicism.
But the same is true of most belief systems, though the specific numbers differ. The only reason that atheism and agnosticism haven’t started any wars is that they aren’t belief systems. 
Also, the non-believers are always outnumbered anyway.
That’s the difference between you and me, Trihs. You seem to think religion turns people evil, and I think people are evil to begin with and use any old excuse to let it out :). In that sense, religion is no worse (and no better) than the patriotism of the Spartans, the Bushido of the Japanese or the race theories of the Nazis. No culture has ever come up short of “reasons” to kill and steal.
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.
Well, yes. I thought it was well established that we were, by now. Not that I’m particularly unfond of individuals, such as they are. Groups however scare the piss out of me. All of them. Even Mother Theresa’s Kitten Feeding & Knitting Club. *Particularly *Mother Theresa’s Kitten Feeding & Knitting Club.
Even if this were true, that doesn’t mean religion didn’t cause the Albigensian Crusade, it would just shift the blame from one religion to a different religion–from the Catholic religion to the Cathar religion.
So the pope and the catholic religious hierarchy AREN’T part of the Catholic religion ? I suspect catholics may disagree with you there.
Yes they are.
I didn’t say it didn’t. For the most part the way religion is treated on this forum is asinine. ‘Religion’ per se is not an entity, but a category of human culture. The idea that religion is causal of anything is so over-simplified as to be bordering on the absurd.
The problem is really with the question, though many people on this board find such a question meaningful for some reason.
Yes, the impetus for the Albigensian Crusade was indeed religiously motivated. That is not something I will dispute.
So religion hasn’t ever caused anything, eh? The celebration of Christmas can’t be traced back to religion, when you go to church it can’t be traced back to religion, when you pray it can’t be traced back to religion…
I see a baby/bathwater problem here.
No, we aren’t. If humans were innately evil society would tear itself to shreds.
Ah, yet another standard defense of religion. Somehow though people never rush out and declare that religion can’t affect people’s behavior when they do good things in its name.
And why is it that religion out of all belief systems doesn’t affect people? By what logic do you claim that someone who, say, is told to kill gays for God, does so, says he is doing so because God wants him too isn’t doing so because of religion?
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say, or what you understood from my words. I meant to say that the Pope’s beef with the Cathars had little to do with their beliefs, and very much to do with the fact that people who espoused them stopped putting money in the jar.
To me, a religious conflict involves an irreconcilable row over principles and beliefs (as opposed to material riches) - had the *perfecti *been quacking about dualism while still somehow handing over the dough, they probably wouldn’t have registered on the Pope’s radar.
You want a more definite example of a for-religion Crusade, look to the north, and the Teutonic Order’s subjugation of Prussia, Livonia and Lithuania. The region was dirt poor, and while the Teutonics were particularly brutal towards the Pagans up there, they didn’t really profit all that much from their conquests, except in terms of influence and growing military might. They did conquer quite a bit of real estate, but again those were crummy lands. In fact, my guess would be the reason it had held so long as a bastion of Paganism was mostly because nobody had really cared enough to conquer it :p.
No, I didn’t say that. What I said is that people cause things by their actions, and that cultural aspects play a role in their decision-making process.
Not so much a defense of religion, as a critique of shoddy thinking.
Where did anyone say religion doesn’t affect people? The fact of the matter is very few people kill gays for God. I can tell a paranoid schizophrenic to kill gays for God, but would that be an example of religion causing it or an example of a psychopath manipulating a schizophrenic?
Um could you provide a shred of evidence to support this assertion.
Why ? Evil doesn’t necessarily equate with *chaotic *evil.
And of course, there are different degrees of human worthlessness. Not everyone has the flair to be a sociopathic mass torturer - some of us have to content ourselves with petty malevolence and workaday soul crushing, like working the counter at the DMV or filming Episode I.
YOU did, in the very passage I quoted. You insisted that saying that it affected people was “absurd”.