|
sorry, this is old...my net died last night
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
...
Its all very subjective in your view, however I would argue religion was not the reason that caused these wars. It was other political, ethnic, economic, and social circumstances that are a detrement to war.
|
But, moreso in recent history the divisions of regimes, and ethnic groups has either come from religion or some sort of 'race' ethos. Of course, beyond the crusades there is little impetus for an ONLY religion based war. But if religion is the overarching motive, or the most discernable difference (see: post USSR, Caucasian confl) does that make it less lucid?
| quote: |
I would even boldy argue that aside perhaps from the Chinese occupation of Tibet, there is no religious war today (and the Chinese didn't really invade Tibet because they believed in a God.. although this was certainly a factor). Even this Western/Islamic war is a war of philosophy not of religion. It is not Christianity vs. Islam, it is the West vs. this philosophy of Islam, an Islamic fundamentalisim, or Isalmism.
|
I would perhaps argue that China, and much of Asia hasnt seen this kind of religious based conflict. China has for much of its history had multiple religions coexisting, minus Maoist China.
And although the Islamic/Western conflict of now is BOTH religious and philosophical i believe that religion is the decisive factor. The way these theocratic regimes/states are set up in the Mid East/Central Asia is what the West finds threatening. al-Qaeda and the Taliban are not the same thing. The Taliban brought law(Islamic) and order(no more opium) to Afghanistan. It was only when a rich Saudi came into a hospitable, fundamentalist climate with his own extreme fundamentalism that the US took notice.
| quote: |
Afterall lets look at the time before Monotheism, before "institutionalized religion"; The period before Emporer Constantine declared Christianity the religion of Rome. Thats 4000+ years of history, right? Now tell me.. do you know how many numerous and untold wars happened during this period? Thousands. Just think of the Greeks, or the Persians alone. Now in these cases it was not a fight for religion, of course their pagan Gods offered support and advice on wether to venture into battle, but rarely was it for religious sake (after all most were pagans who cared little about what river god one chose to believe over the other, paganism due to its acceptance of multiple gods is fairly tolerant in this regard). Now only was war quiet numerous during these times (as large unified states were few) but they were also more ruthless and savage.
|
Might this be the period of a certain amount of proselytation of 'barbarous savages' such as the pagan Vikings? I understand an Imperialist component but much conquering was done in the name of a God(or Gods), whether Greek/Roman/Moor/etc. Im sure there were squabbles and infighting, but here Im speaking more generally of the serious wars...but I admit this is a weak subject as im not a History major.
| quote: |
To argue then that religion is the primary factor of war is very ridicilous; war happened before our "modern" religion, the ancient viewed the reasons for war as varying (Plato simplisitcally put war's cause as the overpopulation and greed of neighbors), and today the several varying theories of war, Balance of Power, the NeoConservative, and Classical Liberal views do not even consider religion as a prime cause of war.
Today more wars are propgated to creation between ethnic lines rather than religion.
|
I understand that humans have fought for longer than 'modern' religion. But even so, religion, modern or premodern has been an organizing tool, and education tool. And even before 'classical' man there has been relgious paganism as a way to separate, join and fuel the conflict that is most likely inherent in man.
| quote: |
... Most of Asia never had strong institutionalized religions, and therefore always basically provided a supporting view to the rulers.
|
I agreed with you here.
| quote: |
True but compare apples with apples. And second, I am talking about the brutality of the state, a powerful state IMO is powerful as it has all the liberty in its hands, and deprives its citizens of liberty. Continuing...
Maosit, and Stalinists were basically facisit, right? Good.
Who else were facisits? Hitler and Mussolini.
|
But Mao and Stalin were authoritarian communists. Marxism eschews the use of religion, a key difference.
| quote: |
Both Mao and Stalin got away with slaughtering their very own ethnic countrymen by the hundreds of thousands if not millions. I would argue first that these slaughters were grossly unproportional to any necessity to instill their rule.
|
Well Mao created the greatest human genocide on the planet. Yet I would argue it wasnt for genocides sake. Starving 60 million of your peasant support base is largely an information issue in Maoist China, and as for sending bourgeoisie liberals to work camps, well I dont equate this exactly with Hitler or Mussolini (ie not apples to apples)
| quote: |
Now how come Hitler and Mussolini did not slaughter there people in similar capacity, I would argue that they simply couldn't. The Catholic Church which was very strong in both these countries would never allow it, it protected its people offering a protection against such brutality and deprivation of rights.
|
Perhaps, but then again they didnt have the population base, or country size (even with ~ half of Europe) to effectively compare. Hitler still managed to slaughter a good number, even with the Church.
| quote: |
Similarly one might even opine that if the Jews had such a strong institutionalized religion it might of afforded them more liberities and avoided their slaughter, something the Catholic Church was all to pleased to look the other way at.
... |
Dont follow you...you seem to be contradicting yourself with the Church preventing slaughter and then allowing it in the case of the Jews?
I dont know if thats what you mean. its just unclear to me|
___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'
|
). You can disagree with his opinion and points but - apart from calling the Quaran a "hoax" - I see nothing which should offend any rational person.
