The role of religion in world conflicts

[Art]

Is religion the source of conflicts or is it merely a convenient way of identifying the combatants?
For example the 'Troubles' in Ireland are often characterized as catholics vs protestants where actually many would argue that the root of the conflict lies not in religion but in the fact that there are two distinct peoples with two distinct lineages competing for power on a fairly small island. The fact they happen to be different religions is incidental.

 

[SOS2008]

In looking at history over all IMO religion certainly has been the root of much conflict. Currently in the U.S., I feel it has been a major, polarizing factor. The recent Washington Post - ABC poll showed a majority of Americans believe Bush has been a divider, not a uniter, and I feel this is largely due to the mixing of his religious beliefs into politics, such as the Terri Schiavo situation. It's inappropriate--along with a list of other items on the religious-right agenda.

 

[selfAdjoint]

In looking at history over all IMO religion certainly has been the root of much conflict. Currently in the U.S., I feel it has been a major, polarizing factor. The recent Washington Post - ABC poll showed a majority of Americans believe Bush has been a divider, not a uniter, and I feel this is largely due to the mixing of his religious beliefs into politics, such as the Terri Schiavo situation. It's inappropriate--along with a list of other items on the religious-right agenda.

Too true! I believe if the Dems were sharp enough (not likely!) they could build a winning majority out of religious people who believe the ultra agenda is impious or offensive to honest religion.

 

[loseyourname]

Is religion the source of conflicts or is it merely a convenient way of identifying the combatants?
For example the 'Troubles' in Ireland are often characterized as catholics vs protestants where actually many would argue that the root of the conflict lies not in religion but in the fact that there are two distinct peoples with two distinct lineages competing for power on a fairly small island. The fact they happen to be different religions is incidental.

I'd argue that the conflict between Ireland and England is about the same as the trouble England had with all the parts of its empire. The Irish don't like that the English have so long controlled their lands and their fates. Religion just serves as a point of distinction by which each group can justify its hatred for the other. If they were both Catholic or both Protestant, they'd find something else. Then again, I'm half-Irish and not religious, so I probably just said exactly what I would be expected to say. That doesn't mean I'm wrong, but I do wonder sometimes.

 

[Azimuth]

the root of the conflict lies not in religion but in the fact that there are two distinct peoples with two distinct lineages

i would say this is true for almost any conflict...i mean i know its cliche but look a Rwanda. Two different groups fighting for power, the same thing was going on in Sudan (not Darfur, but the Sudanese civil war) On a smaller bases take into account The Basque rebels in Spain or the Acheh province in Indnesia (pity that they gave up, they really did have a chance). As you mentioned before, Ireland. Almost every conflict is you have two different backgrounds who just want their own corner to live in without being "bothered". Religion just happens to be an identifing factor, and a propaganda tool for those who like to have uneducated opinions...

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think that while religious sentiments can create tension, arrogance, and devisivness they aren't necessarily the problem. It seems to me that religion and religious differances have mostly been used as a tool by politicians to rally people behind them in a common goal, war and conflict being among the most common. I'm sure that conflicts have sparked between people over issues of religion but I would say most of the conflicts, especially the larger scale, have been due to/part of political mechinations.

 

[SOS2008]

...It seems to me that religion and religious differances have mostly been used as a tool by politicians to rally people behind them in a common goal, war and conflict being among the most common.

Exactly--so well said. Religion is a very emotional, deep conviction, so when it is used in this way, is it a dangerous tactic to be abhorred.

 

[Astronuc]

Is religion the source of conflicts or is it merely a convenient way of identifying the combatants?

Religion is not the source, people are the source of conflict.

All religions preclude the kind of violent behavior we see in all religious conflicts - plain and simple.

However, there are those who 'interpret' their religion in any way to justify behavior that contradicts that religion.

And then there is just plain hypocrisy.

Differences in culture (ethnicity) are also cited as reasons for conflict - and religion may be a part of that.

 

[BobG]

Is religion the source of conflicts or is it merely a convenient way of identifying the combatants?

More a convenient way of motivating the combatants. The difference in religion emphasizes the differences between 'your' group and the 'other' group and keeps your own group unified.

 

[Art]

Was there a religious divide in the American civil war?

 

[loseyourname]

More of a cultural divide, although even that wasn't true universally. There were many instances of brothers fighting brothers (often because they were simply drafted by the state they happened to be in at the time). It's mostly that back then colonial times still had a huge influence and people were more loyal to their states than to their country. Robert E. Lee, the brilliant leader of the confederate armies, was a genteel man educated at West Point who had freed his family slaves long before the war began and supported freeing slaves to fight in the confederate army. He probably had a more northern attitude than many northerners. He just couldn't bring himself to fight against his native Virginia, and he felt he had no choice but to defend it from invasion, even by his own friends and pupils.

 

[Art]

I'd argue that the conflict between Ireland and England is about the same as the trouble England had with all the parts of its empire. The Irish don't like that the English have so long controlled their lands and their fates. Religion just serves as a point of distinction by which each group can justify its hatred for the other. If they were both Catholic or both Protestant, they'd find something else. Then again, I'm half-Irish and not religious, so I probably just said exactly what I would be expected to say. That doesn't mean I'm wrong, but I do wonder sometimes.

Was the campaign the Irish Republican Army waged against the British forces terrorism or a just war against an occupying army?

 

[loseyourname]

Was the campaign the Irish Republican Army waged against the British forces terrorism or a just war against an occupying army?

I don't know enough details (actually, I know little to nothing about the specifics of this campaign) to make such an evaluation. I think it's difficult to justify waging a campaign against civilians, however. In the case of the American Civil War, Sherman justified his infamous march and the razing of Atlanta and Savannah by his belief that it was necessary to break the resolve of the confederacy. He may have been right. Given the stubborness that both the confederate soldiers and generals showed, they may very well have continued to fight as long as they had something to fight for. Burning their homes to the ground and destroying their land took away that something. Another issue was the confederate draft - all men of adequate age were potential soldiers, and anyone still living as a civilian almost certainly would have joined the fight. The land was also what provided food to the armies. It should be noted, however, that Sherman's army, though certainly brutal in many aspects, did not wage a campaign of murder; they waged a campaign of property destruction. When you actually target civilians and kill them, that's damn near impossible to justify, even if you are doing it in an attempt to oust an occupying force.

But like I said, I don't know much about the modern conflict involving the IRA in Northern Ireland. I was speaking more generally of the longstanding historical hatred between the Irish and the English, which I believe has arisen not from religious differences, but from the fact that the English historically ruled, sometimes tyrannically, Irish lands and always treated the Irish as second-class citizens to be looked down upon. This was occurring before the Church of England even formed, and both nations were still Roman Catholic.

 

[ray b]

the GOD is on OUR side factor is a big one in most wars
kill a commie for christ was one example in resent wars like Viet-nam
but it is not limited to only being used against athiests
sub-cults of the same basic belife systems have no problem useing GOD to rally the troops to their side
heirtics are allways open to being victoms of orthodox religions who get to deside who is on gods side [theirs] and who god wants them to beat

the modern moslem bomber beliveing GOD sancions his action may well be a desiding fact in those that chose that course of warfare

then you had religions that demand victoms to insure the sunrize or crops ect
thankfully they are in the past now BUT
I wonder how well modern PC types would defend Aztex freedom of religion
as they were a bloody bunch

 

[vanesch]

Is religion the source of conflicts or is it merely a convenient way of identifying the combatants?

Sometimes it was the source, but I think most of the time, it was a convenient catalyzer and justification. After all, religion is the perfect stop of any rational argument: you don't argue with the gods, you obey. That's exactly what's needed to get others to go to war for you.
Rational argument would, most of the time, have led people NOT to go to war: so it is the first thing to eliminate if your desire is to do so.
The other great advantage religion has as a catalizer to go to war is its inherent xenophobia. Almost all successful religions prone up to a certain part xenophobia: the believers versus the heathens. Sometimes this is the cause for conflict. It also helps to demonise the enemi and glorify the own camp.
Great ingredients to make the fireworks go up.

 

[Rev Prez]

There's enough literature on identity motives for conflict to say there's little or no evidence of a chief cause of conflict. That why theories of conflict are highly conditional in variable and variation.

Rev Prez