Religions are Falsely accused.

[Madmogwai]

Not all religious leaders have good intentions. That was one of the main points in your OP that you formulated it so as if all religions only ever have good intentions and the main point of my answer.
Do I interpret this post right when I say we agree that religions (represented by their leaders and followers) don't have always good intentions?

The whole point of my post has been exactly that.
It’s the people not the Religion, and the Religions are not the true cause of conflict, it’s used as a smokescreen by shady individuals.
They use the Religion.

 

[Madmogwai]

What does this question have to do with the subject matter?

It’s proves that the spread of Religion is not always the objective, particularly if they obviously don’t follow the Religion themselves, obviously.

 

[ChristineM]

The whole point of my post has been exactly that.
It’s the people not the Religion, and the Religions are not the true cause of conflict, it’s used as a smokescreen by shady individuals.
They use the Religion.

Have you ever read the bible?

 

[Madmogwai]

Wrong. One more time. Religion was not the only reason. It never is. It is still a very very big part of many of the examples given to you.


Please quit using a black and white fallacy.

That’s a matter of opinion

 

[Polymath257]

Religions cannot "struggle", or dominate a territory. Only people can do that. This was people struggling to dominate territory. The religious factionalism was just the rallying cry they used to identify themselves from the "other" Christians.

Precisely. They chose to go to war for religious reasons. That religious factionalism *is* a difference of religion.

Exactly. "Under the heading (flag) of religion", but not caused by. And not for the sake of the religion, either. Caused by the human desire to subjugate and control those they fear or see as tyrants or competitors, and for the sake of gaining control over that imagined "threat". It's a story as old as humanity itself. And you know it. The religious aspect is just a way of avoiding the true nature and reason for the attack. Just as every war ever fought throughout history was started by people lying to themselves and to each other about why they think they need to attack their fellow humans.

But religion supports and encourages this desire to subjugate (the non-believers and heretics) and to control (usually called saving their soul).

These *are* religious motives!

They are the true reasons for war. They are rarely the actual battle cry, however, as humans don't like to see themselves as such stupid, blood-thirsty barbarians. Some do, but not most.

And religion, in spite of its propaganda, encourages precisely this sort of tribalism. Those with different beliefs are seen as worthy of the horrors of war.

Or in the name of our racial superiority. Or in the name of economic "justice". Or in the name of historical justice. Or in the name of revenge for some perceived iniquity perpetrated against us, or in the name of manifest destiny, or in the name of ... all of these and more. When the truth is always the same. The alphas among us just want to because they are programmed to conquer and subjugate. It's in their DNA. And everyone else gets bamboozled into following their lust for destruction because we're too stupid or frightened or weak to tell them no.

And they are programmed, in many cases, by their religious upbringing. The 'alphas' often also believe the religious propaganda and so are often motivated by religious beliefs (as well as political, economic, etc).

 

[Polymath257]

It’s proves that the spread of Religion is not always the objective, particularly if they obviously don’t follow the Religion themselves, obviously.

Well, the popes are the leaders of a particular religion, whether or not they actually believed the tenets. They were also, often, secular rulers of territories in Italy. As such, they probably didn't often make the distinction between going to war for religious reasons or for other reasons.

But to say that religion isn't guilty of motivating wars just seems silly to me. is it the *only* motivation in most? No, of course not. But is it a significant motivation in many? Yes, of course. To say that the crusades were *only* for a land grab is to ignore who called for them, why people joined them, and the goals for undergoing them. In fact, the 'land grab' aspect was mostly a later add-on rather than a prime motivator.

 

[Revoltingest]

It’s the people not the Religion, and the Religions are not the true cause of conflict, it’s used as a smokescreen by shady individuals.
They use the Religion.

When people interpret their religion, their
acts based upon it are caused by that religion.
If they get their religion wrong (according to
some) the ambiguity is a causative factor.

 

[PureX]

Precisely. They chose to go to war for religious reasons. That religious factionalism *is* a difference of religion.

One, most people don't choose to go to war. They are forced to go. And two, they are not being forced to go by their religious beliefs. They are being forced to go by the alphas within and among them that seek conquest according to their (genetic) nature. Or by the necessity to fight to stay alive. Religion is not convincing anyone to go to war with anyone else.

But religion supports and encourages this desire to subjugate (the non-believers and heretics) and to control (usually called saving their soul).

Anything and everything can be used to do that. And they commonly are.

These *are* religious motives!

They're just excuses used by the alphas to justify their innate lust for conquest and subjugation. And then excuses used by the betas to ignore their cowardice in following the alphas.

And religion, in spite of its propaganda, encourages precisely this sort of tribalism.

Lots of things encourage tribalism. Been to a football game, lately?

Those with different beliefs are seen as worthy of the horrors of war.

Anything (anyone) that's different inspires fear, and therefor often inspires violence. We humans tend to react to fear by running from it, or fighting with it. And the alphas among us know how to use both of these to their advantage simultaneously. What is their go-to punishment for refusing to fight their wars for them?

And they are programmed, in many cases, by their religious upbringing.

No one is programmed by their upbringing or their religion or by anything else. Humans are not programmable machines. We all have free will. We simply choose to follow the dictates of our alphas because we are short-sighted cowards hoping that doing so won't lead to the disaster that we all know it will lead to.

The 'alphas' often also believe the religious propaganda and so are often motivated by religious beliefs (as well as political, economic, etc).

The alphas don't believe in anything but themselves and their desire for conquest and subjugation. That's why they are alphas and we are not.

 

[LuisDantas]

It’s proves that the spread of Religion is not always the objective, particularly if they obviously don’t follow the Religion themselves, obviously.

Uh, no. It does not. At all.

 

[Quintessence]

@Madmogwai - to bring this into a more contemporary context, let's apply this line of thinking to the anti-abortion movement. It is well-established that this is rooted in specific Christian religious traditions. Do you mean to suggest that the Christian traditions pushing anti-abortion are not doing so in the name of their religion, but have some other non-religious reasons for their agenda? If so, what is that agenda and what are its reasons?

 

[Madmogwai]

@Madmogwai - to bring this into a more contemporary context, let's apply this line of thinking to the anti-abortion movement. It is well-established that this is rooted in specific Christian religious traditions. Do you mean to suggest that the Christian traditions pushing anti-abortion are not doing so in the name of their religion, but have some other non-religious reasons for their agenda? If so, what is that agenda and what are its reasons?

You cannot compare the two, not at all.

 

[ChristineM]

You cannot compare the two, not at all.

He can and he did​

 

[Madmogwai]

Uh, no. It does not. At all.

If a Man is breaking every rule of his Religion, do you think he cares about spreading his Religion for righteous reasons.
Obviously a Pope who is engaging in Satanic rituals is not interested in spreading his faith for good.
It still amazes me that people think Wars like the crusades were to spread their Religion for the good of the people.

 

[ChristineM]

It still amazes me that people think Wars like the crusades were to spread their Religion for the good of the people.

And it still amazes me that apologists still continue to whitewash the part that religion has played in causing conflict and war throughout history

 

[LuisDantas]

If a Man is breaking every rule of his Religion, do you think he cares about spreading his Religion for righteous reasons.
Obviously a Pope who is engaging in Satanic rituals is not interested in spreading his faith for good.
It still amazes me that people think Wars like the crusades were to spread their Religion for the good of the people.

I have to assume you are unfamiliarized with what is considered religious people in some circles.

 

[Heyo]

The whole point of my post has been exactly that.
It’s the people not the Religion, and the Religions are not the true cause of conflict, it’s used as a smokescreen by shady individuals.
They use the Religion.

What is a religion in your mind? Does it include the people who practise the religion? Then, obviously, religious people doing violence makes it a violent religion.
If it doesn't include the people, do religions without establishing documents even exist? And when the documents depict or call for violence, isn't that a violent religion?

 

[Polymath257]

The alphas don't believe in anything but themselves and their desire for conquest and subjugation. That's why they are alphas and we are not.

This is why I see you as being wrong here. Those in power (your 'alphas') are just as superstitious and subject to emotion as anyone else. They make decisions based on religion, or ego, or glory, or economics, or because they were insulted, or any number of other things. The only real difference is that more people listen to them, either because they have money, land, knowledge, or some other source of influence (which might include religion or tradition).

The 'alphas' are human. They make decisions based on human goals and assumptions. And those assumptions include religion.

 

[Polymath257]

One, most people don't choose to go to war. They are forced to go. And two, they are not being forced to go by their religious beliefs. They are being forced to go by the alphas within and among them that seek conquest according to their (genetic) nature.

The 'alphas' are no more genetically determined to seek conquest than anyone else. The main difference is that, because of money or tradition or religion, more people listen to them and so they can force others to do their bidding.

Or by the necessity to fight to stay alive. Religion is not convincing anyone to go to war with anyone else.

Clearly false. It often convinces leaders (your alphas) to go to war. Remember that they are just as superstitious as anyone else.

Anything and everything can be used to do that. And they commonly are.

And religion is one of the main ways to do it.

They're just excuses used by the alphas to justify their innate lust for conquest and subjugation. And then excuses used by the betas to ignore their cowardice in following the alphas.

Sorry, but this seems like garbage to me. Those in power are human, not super-human or sub-human. They are human. They are no more 'innately' violent than anyone else. In most cases, their violence is learned from others in their social class, which can include religious leaders. To say that their decisions are not made, in part, because of religion is simply to ignore the fact of history.

Lots of things encourage tribalism. Been to a football game, lately?

Nope. I try to avoid such things.

Anything (anyone) that's different inspires fear, and therefor often inspires violence. We humans tend to react to fear by running from it, or fighting with it. And the alphas among us know how to use both of these to their advantage simultaneously. What is their go-to punishment for refusing to fight their wars for them?

What you fail to see is that the 'alphas' are just as subject to conditioning and fear as anyone else.

No one is programmed by their upbringing or their religion or by anything else. Humans are not programmable machines. We all have free will. We simply choose to follow the dictates of our alphas because we are short-sighted cowards hoping that doing so won't lead to the disaster that we all know it will lead to.

Again, clearly false in most particulars. people learn patterns of behavior from their environment (usually, parents, teachers, etc). This is just as true for those in power as it is for those not in power. The main difference is that those in power have people that listen to them so they get their way more often (which is precisely what it means to be in power).

 

[Polymath257]

If a Man is breaking every rule of his Religion, do you think he cares about spreading his Religion for righteous reasons.

I think that people, including popes, are complex and have a variety of motives.

Obviously a Pope who is engaging in Satanic rituals is not interested in spreading his faith for good.

That depends on what he labels as 'good', doesn't it?

It still amazes me that people think Wars like the crusades were to spread their Religion for the good of the people.

Maybe not for the 'good of the people', but perhaps for the 'glory of God' or to 'destroy the infidels'.

 

[Quintessence]

You cannot compare the two, not at all.

While this is perhaps pointing out the obvious, I just did. The first line of your opening post reads:

"Religions have often been wrongly accused of being the root cause of conflicts and wars throughout history."

The conflict between women's rights and the rights of the unborn is a very significant one in my country right now. So much so I'm a bit surprised you are so dismissive of it. Blood has been spilled over this issue, terrorism has been committed over this issue, lives have been ruined over this issue, and it goes without saying it is a major culture war issue.

Keep in mind that I am deeply religious and dislike how routinely "religion" is scapegoated for human conflicts. I am not someone who is overly against to the point you are trying to make. I am, however, cautious about diminishing the role of one's deeply held ways of life (aka, religion) in human behavior worldwide and throughout history.