A Definitive no however it is an excuse most if not all the time it's all about power or prejudice or just some maniac like saddam h or the Korean guy or even the china leader
2007-01-29 06:44:28
·
answer #1
·
answered by roger m 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Obviously men fight wars & men kill people, but your question of the reason for war being religion is sound. But while religion influences the decision for war, most wars are started when one group attempts to control another. This can be religion controls as in Middle East, but most are one of the reasons like the War of Independence - control of religion & unfair taxes, War of 1812 was over unfair tariffs mostly, WWI was pay back for murder but religion entered the picture too, WWII had Hitler trying to extinguish a religion, Korea & Vietnam had one country trying to over take the other (religious overtones), & etc.etc.
Religion counts & interest the people but economy seals the deal. None had the support of the American people esp. Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, & Iraq. The people have rarely agreed until we won.
2007-01-29 06:45:01
·
answer #2
·
answered by Wolfpacker 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is not religion that causes wars, it is differences. Now these differences may be dressed up as religion, economics, race, ethnicity, culture, or any other man made label that separates us from each other.
However when a spiritual leader tells you that it is your spiritual duty to kill another person, it does carry a bit more weight than some one else might (which is why religions like radical Islam or christian cults are so dangerous)
The reason we fight is because it is easier to kill some one than it is to understand why our differences are complimentary, instead of contradictory.
2007-01-29 06:24:50
·
answer #3
·
answered by jdm6235 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Some say yes. It may be so if it's the most important thing in the world. Love can cause suicides, Quantum Physics is already for sale and being hijacked to enslave more people. Where does it all end. With you, I suspect. One person standing up has always changed the course of history, but now we know how to do it more effectively and with thousands of soldiers dedicated to 'no more.' 'This is not for me anymore.' 'I want the life for me and you, not just me.' We'll do it too. I gotta have it and won't give up 'til death do us part.'
2007-01-29 22:49:05
·
answer #4
·
answered by hb12 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, but it is the main excuse.
War is almost always about 3 things
Land, Power and Money.
New farm lands for your people, expand your sphere of influence and make your self more secure in your place of power. its almost always the same song and dance.
There are exceptions to the rule, but primarily these things will prove true.
Religion is like anything, it can be used for good, it can be used for evil. it can be corrupted and misused or it can be pure and represent the best of humanity.
A king in the dark ages would not say "I am going to attack my neighbor so i can take his crops, more often than not he would say more along the lines of "He is evil, God wants me to take this land from him!"
No matter what war, from the crusades to WWII to Somalia, it will almost always be about land, power and money, religion is a convenient and sadly abused excuse for it. but it is still used.
i wish people would look deeper than the surface of history, you will find there is so much more to the past than what their bias tells them. look past the use of Religion as an excuse for war, If you look at the people, the events and the end results you will find what appears on the surface is almost never what is really going on.
2007-01-29 06:46:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by Stone K 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Religion in not necessarily the cause of war, but it is mighty difficult to get troops who would fight without religion. If there were no promise of some kind of reward in an afterlife, there would be very few who would be willing to risk their all for their country.
A man would fight for his family, maybe to defend his tribe, but mass armies marching on another nation would be a rare thing. The exception to this rule is conscription and fear of death from refusal to fight.
2007-01-29 06:22:02
·
answer #6
·
answered by John H 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
No. In fact, the worst wars and worst atrocities were started and committed by the irreligious.
In WW2, the Imperial Japanese and the Nazis were not religious, and they were responsible for the worst atrocities of the war.
Throughout the 20th century, the worst atrocities were committed by the anti-religious communists and socialists. Up to 70,000,000 Chinese were killed under Mao. Up to 50,000,000 people were murdered by Stalin. Pol Pot killed 2,000,000 - a significant portion of Cambodia's population.
I would say there is more danger in the non-religious.
2007-01-29 06:32:22
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I believe that the reason we have wars is because we have nineteen year old girls who know nothing about war or history posting derogatory posting regarding Jane Fonda and her right to free speech. Free speech, freedom to practice religion and freedom to choose whether or not we support our troops going off to be slaughtered in a war that is about greed. You really need to read up and stop trying to impress others with subjects you know absolutely nothing about. I would love to see you have pit bulls tear Jane apart. If anyone is wondering what this is about check out flyface's others answers.
2007-01-29 13:47:17
·
answer #8
·
answered by Deirdre O 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
if you look most reasons for wars starting since the begining of time have been food not religion.
2007-01-29 19:49:45
·
answer #9
·
answered by firetdriver_99 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, I believe that differences in BELIEFS cause wars.
Yes religion is a system of beliefs, but it is not just religion that causes wars. Think about how the wording of your question makes you sound prejudice against religion and religious people. It is insulting, and it misses the truth.
2007-01-29 06:21:29
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋