I've come to a conclusion based on some of my recent reading.
I believe that in general, a lack of resources start wars and religion picks sides in those wars.
Do you agree or disagree on a large scale? (I am aware of examples where this is not the case, but I am talking not about specific conflicts but the majority of them.)
2007-10-22 11:47:22 · 5 answers · asked by Sal 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
In modern times -- I'd agree.
In medieval and earlier times -- when religions were more directly controlling of populations and govts -- very often it was the religions that decided when the next war would be -- and the resources (or lack) that determined how it would be fought.
2007-10-22 11:57:00 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, I find religion usually starts wars and then the worshipers just steal the resources after it's over.
2007-10-22 12:01:03 · answer #2 · answered by God 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Disagree. Cases in point: Iraq / Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, Civil War, Revolutionary War.
2007-10-22 12:20:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hey, that sounds like a pretty good idea. That might make for a decent Masters thesis.
2007-10-22 11:55:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I disagree.I think the greed for money comes before Religion.
2007-10-22 11:56:31 · answer #5 · answered by ♥ Mel 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋