• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Religions are Falsely accused.

Madmogwai

Madmogwai
Religions have often been wrongly accused of being the root cause of conflicts and wars throughout history. However, it is crucial to recognize that religions themselves do not initiate wars. Rather, it is the manipulation of religious beliefs by leaders and individuals that serves as a smokescreen to further their own ulterior motives, such as the acquisition of land and control over valuable resources.

It is important to approach this topic with a balanced and critical mindset, understanding that religion, at its core, is intended to foster peace, unity, and spiritual growth. Religions provide individuals with personal guidance, moral frameworks, and a sense of purpose. They offer a path towards enlightenment, compassion, and a harmonious existence with fellow human beings.

Nevertheless, throughout history, we have witnessed instances where leaders have exploited religious sentiments to achieve their political or economic goals. By manipulating religious doctrines and spreading divisive ideologies, these leaders have effectively masked their true intentions, diverting attention away from their aggressive territorial ambitions. In doing so, they have successfully rallied masses under the guise of religious fervor, thus justifying their actions in the eyes of their followers.

A prime example of this manipulation can be observed in various historical conflicts, where leaders have misused religion as a tool for territorial expansion. They have utilized religious rhetoric to mobilize armies, instilling a sense of righteousness and divine sanction in their followers. By harnessing the power of religious devotion, these leaders have not only justified their conquests but also ensured unwavering support from their followers.

However, it is essential to distinguish between the actions of these leaders and the teachings of the religions they claim to represent. Religions, when practiced genuinely, emphasize love, tolerance, and peace. They advocate for the well-being of all individuals, regardless of their faith or background. The notion that religion inherently promotes violence is an oversimplification and a misinterpretation of the true essence of these belief systems.

To avoid falling into the trap of blaming religions for conflicts, it is imperative that we critically examine the underlying motives behind wars. By doing so, we can separate the genuine teachings of religions from the manipulative tactics employed by leaders. This understanding will enable us to address the root causes of conflicts more effectively and strive towards a more peaceful and inclusive world.

By recognizing this distinction, we can focus on fostering understanding, empathy, and dialogue among different religious communities, rather than perpetuating stereotypes and misconceptions. Only through such efforts can we overcome the divisive forces that hinder global peace and harmony.
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
Religions have often been wrongly accused of being the root cause of conflicts and wars throughout history. However, it is crucial to recognize that religions themselves do not initiate wars. Rather, it is the manipulation of religious beliefs by leaders and individuals that serves as a smokescreen to further their own ulterior motives, such as the acquisition of land and control over valuable resources.

It is important to approach this topic with a balanced and critical mindset, understanding that religion, at its core, is intended to foster peace, unity, and spiritual growth. Religions provide individuals with personal guidance, moral frameworks, and a sense of purpose. They offer a path towards enlightenment, compassion, and a harmonious existence with fellow human beings.

Nevertheless, throughout history, we have witnessed instances where leaders have exploited religious sentiments to achieve their political or economic goals. By manipulating religious doctrines and spreading divisive ideologies, these leaders have effectively masked their true intentions, diverting attention away from their aggressive territorial ambitions. In doing so, they have successfully rallied masses under the guise of religious fervor, thus justifying their actions in the eyes of their followers.

A prime example of this manipulation can be observed in various historical conflicts, where leaders have misused religion as a tool for territorial expansion. They have utilized religious rhetoric to mobilize armies, instilling a sense of righteousness and divine sanction in their followers. By harnessing the power of religious devotion, these leaders have not only justified their conquests but also ensured unwavering support from their followers.

However, it is essential to distinguish between the actions of these leaders and the teachings of the religions they claim to represent. Religions, when practiced genuinely, emphasize love, tolerance, and peace. They advocate for the well-being of all individuals, regardless of their faith or background. The notion that religion inherently promotes violence is an oversimplification and a misinterpretation of the true essence of these belief systems.

To avoid falling into the trap of blaming religions for conflicts, it is imperative that we critically examine the underlying motives behind wars. By doing so, we can separate the genuine teachings of religions from the manipulative tactics employed by leaders. This understanding will enable us to address the root causes of conflicts more effectively and strive towards a more peaceful and inclusive world.

By recognizing this distinction, we can focus on fostering understanding, empathy, and dialogue among different religious communities, rather than perpetuating stereotypes and misconceptions. Only through such efforts can we overcome the divisive forces that hinder global peace and harmony.

The argument that religions are not the root cause of wars is flawed. It ignores the fact that religions are not fixed or neutral, but rather complex and real-time social constructs that reflect the values and power dynamics of their followers.

Religions can have multiple and contradictory aspects that can be used for both constructive and destructive purposes.

Religions can also shape the worldviews and actions of their followers, inspiring or compelling them to engage in wars and for various reasons.

So, to me, it is murky and misleading to remove from religion any responsibility for the atrocities committed in its name, while shifting the blame to the leaders who manipulate religious beliefs for their own motives. Religions are not passive or innocent bystanders in history, but active and accountable agents that can initiate or contribute to wars for various motives and outcomes.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
There are definitely movements that claim to be religions and promote violence, conflict and, yes, even war.

I'm all for pointing out that they should not be considered religions. But it is definitely not a trivial task. There is a lot of emotional manipulation clouding perceptions of the matter.

Even after satisfying ourselves that we reached proper criteria, there are still thorny follow-up matters. Who and how can detect unfair judgements? What to do about this vice once it is detected? Very few people are receptive to such questioning, let alone groups.
 

Ella S.

*temp banned*
I disagree.

Conflict arises among people because they disagree and physical limitations means that only one of the members in that conflict can have what they want.

Sure, that can be for selfish reasons like greed, vanity, or a desire for power. It can also be for noble reasons, though. Someone might come into conflict with slave traders because they want to end slavery, for instance, and if they start a war to do so, is that really because they're corrupting their religious teachings?

Often, wars are fought between people when they all think they're in the right. Look at the mess that is the Israeli-Palestine conflict.

The only way that religion can't lead to war is if the religion explicitly forbids war or has no values whatsoever, because it's the differences in values that lead to these conflicts. The only religion that I know of that could be reasonably said to explicitly forbid war is Jainism, and I say that while being familiar with a long list of ethnic religions and New Religious Movements that most people have probably never heard of. That's not to say it's the only one, just that religions by-and-large aren't against war.

In fact, both Vedic literature and the Bible have canonical war heroes who are praised for going to war, with war being divinely mandated. That's not getting into the numerous pagan myths about virtuous warriors.

I just don't buy the idea that religion only leads to war when its ideals are corrupted. I don't think that makes any sense with the way the world works. Wherever there's the potential for a disagreement that can't be solved through compromise, you have war. It doesn't mean the people who disagree are mustache twirling, Machiavellian psychopaths. Real life isn't normally that black and white.

However, if you want to defend religion from this criticism, I think you should go in the opposite direction and point out that virtually all value systems beget war except radical pacifism. Most political ideologies, philosophies, religions, legal systems, cultures, and societies do not promote radical pacifism, and it's not a corruption of them to not be a radical pacifist.

Violence is inherent in these systems. The only question is whether that violence is justifiable or not. Obviously, the people within those systems tend to be likely to believe that said violence is justified, and they aren't necessarily being dishonest or misunderstanding scripture or anything when they do so. It's just that conflict is inevitable whenever you stand for anything, and sometimes even when you don't.
 

Madmogwai

Madmogwai
The argument that religions are not the root cause of wars is flawed. It ignores the fact that religions are not fixed or neutral, but rather complex and real-time social constructs that reflect the values and power dynamics of their followers.

Religions can have multiple and contradictory aspects that can be used for both constructive and destructive purposes.

Religions can also shape the worldviews and actions of their followers, inspiring or compelling them to engage in wars and for various reasons.

So, to me, it is murky and misleading to remove from religion any responsibility for the atrocities committed in its name, while shifting the blame to the leaders who manipulate religious beliefs for their own motives. Religions are not passive or innocent bystanders in history, but active and accountable agents that can initiate or contribute to wars for various motives and outcomes.
Yes for various motives and outcomes, but is the Religion to blame or mankind.
 

Madmogwai

Madmogwai
I disagree.

Conflict arises among people because they disagree and physical limitations means that only one of the members in that conflict can have what they want.

Sure, that can be for selfish reasons like greed, vanity, or a desire for power. It can also be for noble reasons, though. Someone might come into conflict with slave traders because they want to end slavery, for instance, and if they start a war to do so, is that really because they're corrupting their religious teachings?

Often, wars are fought between people when they all think they're in the right. Look at the mess that is the Israeli-Palestine conflict.

The only way that religion can't lead to war is if the religion explicitly forbids war or has no values whatsoever, because it's the differences in values that lead to these conflicts. The only religion that I know of that could be reasonably said to explicitly forbid war is Jainism, and I say that while being familiar with a long list of ethnic religions and New Religious Movements that most people have probably never heard of. That's not to say it's the only one, just that religions by-and-large aren't against war.

In fact, both Vedic literature and the Bible have canonical war heroes who are praised for going to war, with war being divinely mandated. That's not getting into the numerous pagan myths about virtuous warriors.

I just don't buy the idea that religion only leads to war when its ideals are corrupted. I don't think that makes any sense with the way the world works. Wherever there's the potential for a disagreement that can't be solved through compromise, you have war. It doesn't mean the people who disagree are mustache twirling, Machiavellian psychopaths. Real life isn't normally that black and white.

However, if you want to defend religion from this criticism, I think you should go in the opposite direction and point out that virtually all value systems beget war except radical pacifism. Most political ideologies, philosophies, religions, legal systems, cultures, and societies do not promote radical pacifism, and it's not a corruption of them to not be a radical pacifist.

Violence is inherent in these systems. The only question is whether that violence is justifiable or not. Obviously, the people within those systems tend to be likely to believe that said violence is justified, and they aren't necessarily being dishonest or misunderstanding scripture or anything when they do so. It's just that conflict is inevitable whenever you stand for anything, and sometimes even when you don't.
Can you tell me a War that at its core was a result of the Religion.
A Fight to end slavery is a fight to end slavery, I’m referring to wars that were blamed on religion, not all Wars have been but many are.
As for Israel and Palestine that is clearly a land grab.
 

SalixIncendium

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि
Staff member
Premium Member
It is important to approach this topic with a balanced and critical mindset, understanding that religion, at its core, is intended to foster peace, unity, and spiritual growth. Religions provide individuals with personal guidance, moral frameworks, and a sense of purpose. They offer a path towards enlightenment, compassion, and a harmonious existence with fellow human beings.
It's also important to understand that while this may generally be the case, there are also those regions that in addition to this, at their core, are a means of control. These religions coupled with personal interpretations and ego, are, as I see it the reason for "the root cause of conflicts and wars throughout history."
 

Madmogwai

Madmogwai
It's also important to understand that while this may generally be the case, there are also those regions that in addition to this, at their core, are a means of control. These religions coupled with personal interpretations and ego, are, as I see it the reason for "the root cause of conflicts and wars throughout history."
Ok, can you give an example of one of these Wars.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Religions have often been wrongly accused of being the root cause of conflicts and wars throughout history. However, it is crucial to recognize that religions themselves do not initiate wars. Rather, it is the manipulation of religious beliefs by leaders and individuals that serves as a smokescreen to further their own ulterior motives, such as the acquisition of land and control over valuable resources.

It is important to approach this topic with a balanced and critical mindset, understanding that religion, at its core, is intended to foster peace, unity, and spiritual growth. Religions provide individuals with personal guidance, moral frameworks, and a sense of purpose. They offer a path towards enlightenment, compassion, and a harmonious existence with fellow human beings.

Nevertheless, throughout history, we have witnessed instances where leaders have exploited religious sentiments to achieve their political or economic goals. By manipulating religious doctrines and spreading divisive ideologies, these leaders have effectively masked their true intentions, diverting attention away from their aggressive territorial ambitions. In doing so, they have successfully rallied masses under the guise of religious fervor, thus justifying their actions in the eyes of their followers.

A prime example of this manipulation can be observed in various historical conflicts, where leaders have misused religion as a tool for territorial expansion. They have utilized religious rhetoric to mobilize armies, instilling a sense of righteousness and divine sanction in their followers. By harnessing the power of religious devotion, these leaders have not only justified their conquests but also ensured unwavering support from their followers.

However, it is essential to distinguish between the actions of these leaders and the teachings of the religions they claim to represent. Religions, when practiced genuinely, emphasize love, tolerance, and peace. They advocate for the well-being of all individuals, regardless of their faith or background. The notion that religion inherently promotes violence is an oversimplification and a misinterpretation of the true essence of these belief systems.

To avoid falling into the trap of blaming religions for conflicts, it is imperative that we critically examine the underlying motives behind wars. By doing so, we can separate the genuine teachings of religions from the manipulative tactics employed by leaders. This understanding will enable us to address the root causes of conflicts more effectively and strive towards a more peaceful and inclusive world.

By recognizing this distinction, we can focus on fostering understanding, empathy, and dialogue among different religious communities, rather than perpetuating stereotypes and misconceptions. Only through such efforts can we overcome the divisive forces that hinder global peace and harmony.
Not when religion turns into a runaway theocracy.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Religions have often been wrongly accused of being the root cause of conflicts and wars throughout history. However, it is crucial to recognize that religions themselves do not initiate wars. Rather, it is the manipulation of religious beliefs by leaders and individuals that serves as a smokescreen to further their own ulterior motives, such as the acquisition of land and control over valuable resources.

It is important to approach this topic with a balanced and critical mindset, understanding that religion, at its core, is intended to foster peace, unity, and spiritual growth. Religions provide individuals with personal guidance, moral frameworks, and a sense of purpose. They offer a path towards enlightenment, compassion, and a harmonious existence with fellow human beings.

Nevertheless, throughout history, we have witnessed instances where leaders have exploited religious sentiments to achieve their political or economic goals. By manipulating religious doctrines and spreading divisive ideologies, these leaders have effectively masked their true intentions, diverting attention away from their aggressive territorial ambitions. In doing so, they have successfully rallied masses under the guise of religious fervor, thus justifying their actions in the eyes of their followers.

A prime example of this manipulation can be observed in various historical conflicts, where leaders have misused religion as a tool for territorial expansion. They have utilized religious rhetoric to mobilize armies, instilling a sense of righteousness and divine sanction in their followers. By harnessing the power of religious devotion, these leaders have not only justified their conquests but also ensured unwavering support from their followers.

However, it is essential to distinguish between the actions of these leaders and the teachings of the religions they claim to represent. Religions, when practiced genuinely, emphasize love, tolerance, and peace. They advocate for the well-being of all individuals, regardless of their faith or background. The notion that religion inherently promotes violence is an oversimplification and a misinterpretation of the true essence of these belief systems.

To avoid falling into the trap of blaming religions for conflicts, it is imperative that we critically examine the underlying motives behind wars. By doing so, we can separate the genuine teachings of religions from the manipulative tactics employed by leaders. This understanding will enable us to address the root causes of conflicts more effectively and strive towards a more peaceful and inclusive world.

By recognizing this distinction, we can focus on fostering understanding, empathy, and dialogue among different religious communities, rather than perpetuating stereotypes and misconceptions. Only through such efforts can we overcome the divisive forces that hinder global peace and harmony.
You paint with a very broad brush here. Religions are diverse in their basis and praxis. Some of them are (were) violent. Don't tell me that the Maya didn't start wars to get prisoners to sacrifice to their gods. Those were religious wars.

And those wars that had political reasons and used religion as an excuse? What use is a religion if it so easily lends itself to be manipulated?

Voltair was right when he said
6cc756ab13c37addbd4a1f15c856f484.jpg
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Can you tell me a War that at its core was a result of the Religion.

The french wars of religion
The English civil war
Crusades
Want more, i have quite an extensive list where either one side or both were fighting to impose their religious beliefs
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Yes for various motives and outcomes, but is the Religion to blame or mankind.
People created the religions to serve
various purposes.
Justification for whatever the group does is
one handy use.

From among all religions one
may be " true". Only one.

Who is to say which is the One is quite the debate.

What is righteous in the One True
is unsettled.

Religion motivated the boys of 911.

The distinction between " cause" and
"motivation" is pretty thin.
 
Last edited:

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Yes for various motives and outcomes, but is the Religion to blame or mankind.
You could ask much the same about "crime", "conspiration", etc instead of "religion".

For much the same reasons even.

The main problem is that there is usually a nasty coexistence of three undesirable traits.

1. Religions and pseudo-religions are usually very bad at questioning their own validity.
2. The social environments around them usually has even bigger taboos against questioning them as well.
3. As it turns out, they are _not_ beyond losing their ways or being misguided in the first place.
 
Last edited:

Madmogwai

Madmogwai
I can try.

The Crusades: Crusades - Wikipedia

The Thirty Years War: Thirty Years' War - Wikipedia

The French Wars of Religion: French Wars of Religion - Wikipedia
That is so funny, you still believe their intentions were to spread Religion with a murderous crusade.
Or perhaps by spreading their tentacles they could acquire more land and have more residents to pay taxes.

The french wars of religion
The English civil war
Crusades
Want more, i have quite an extensive list where either one side or both were fighting to impose their religious beliefs
pay taxes
 

Madmogwai

Madmogwai
People created the religions to serve
various purposes.
Justification for whatever the group does is
one handy use.

From among all religions one
may be " true". Only one.

Who is to say which is the One is quite the debate.

What is righteous in the One True
is unsettled.

Religion motivated the boys of 911.

The distinction between " cause" and
"motivation" is pretty thin.
Religion was used as a recruitment tool by people with non Religious motives.
Look deeper.
 
Top