Does Religion Cause Violence?

[blan]

Zen at War and Hindu extremism is a completely modern phenomenon. Historically you will not find significant holy wars. The latter is a reaction to one thousand years of aggression from Muslims and Christians. The genocide and pillaging carried out by Muhammad of Ghazni (over 1,000,000 Hindus murdered, destruction of the temple at Somnath etc.) and the destruction carried out by Francis Xavier makes any isolated historical anomaly in the Buddhist and Hindu domains seem like Mr. Roger's neighborhood.

To the ancient Greeks and Romans, there was no such thing as heresy. It remains that the origins of religious intolerance begin with monotheism.

Muslims and Christians have been raping India, destroying temples and forcibly converting Hindus for centuries, and then in 1992 one mosque gets pulled down by angry Hindus, and so everyone points their finger and says, "Look! Hindu holy war!"

You cannot compare Abrahamism's ocean of historical intolerance to a few droplets of Hindu and Buddhist rainwater.

Doesn't seem fair to me.

you made a false statement and said there have been no wars within the eastern/asian faiths and that is false they have had violence or wars buddhist Abbots have been none to carry out executions.
and more recently there was a case of hindus who shot up a christian church during a ceremony, there have been waring hindu fractions in recent times and in old times. it does not matter that it has only happened more frequently in history as you claim and it does not matter that it does not happen as often the fact is that violence happens and has happened in there faith. by your logic i can say that christian violence is a
phenomenon of the past and that there is no longer room to judge all christians by the mistakes of the past christians.
there are many articles on buddhist violence and war as i have posted below if you look for them
as for the romans not being responsible for violence based on religion that is false, regarless they were very violent anyways

Thus, there have been, and will again be, "Buddhist wars," and Buddhism's superiority in this regard is entirely relative. Yet, on the whole, it remains more tolerant than the other great religions and ideologies—which is no small matter, at a moment when the world seems threatened once more by fundamentalisms. In every age, the Buddhist clergy's will to power has been balanced by the ideal of compassion. But Buddhist doctrine, in order not to remain a dead letter, must take account of the violence inherent in the human heart, in society, and in Buddhism itself.

translated by David Jacobson

Source: A shorter version of this article appeared in Le Monde, October 12, 2001.

An International Review of Culture & Society, Issue No. 9, Spring 2002.

[Psychonaut]

Thus, there have been, and will again be, "Buddhist wars," and Buddhism's superiority in this regard is entirely relative.

Wait, are there actually any instances of Buddhist wars that were formulated either by the aggressors or defenders as religious conflicts? I mean, the Crusades and such were clearly so, but the case made by Zen at War seems more to be on the influence of Buddhism on Japanese militarism, not in defense of the thesis that WWII was a Buddhist war in the same way that the Crusades were Christian wars. The difference seems to be tied up with conversion. A religion makes a people more warlike, like Zen might, is very different than a religion that makes war upon people in order to convert them.

[blan]

Wait, are there actually any instances of Buddhist wars that were formulated either by the aggressors or defenders as religious conflicts? I mean, the Crusades and such were clearly so, but the case made by Zen at War seems more to be on the influence of Buddhism on Japanese militarism, not in defense of the thesis that WWII was a Buddhist war in the same way that the Crusades were Christian wars. The difference seems to be tied up with conversion. A religion makes a people more warlike, like Zen might, is very different than a religion that makes war upon people in order to convert them.

my argument to that is that the crusades were not a christian war.
these were all political moves and at the time the church and the state were heavily mixed, so of course if you have a fundamental based government rooted in religion they are going to sanction ((holy wars)). if the buddhist religion was more part of the governments of china and other asian nations buddhism would be ((the reason)) for so many of there conflicts, many of the dynasties in places like china were more wedded to confuism, and other forms of philosophy. again people will use any excuse for violence.
christs teaching had much in common with buddhist teaching.
perhaps you should look at the culture of the people instead of the religion.
buddhism in the hands of one culture can be a calm gentle ideal while in the hands of overly agressive cultures it could be a twisted into an excuse to commit genocide, the the politic based churches of the middle ages or even today are not an example of real christianity,
but yes you are right the Buddhists were not interested in converting the masses and forcing them into there religion at the end of a rifle.

[Psychonaut]

my argument to that is that the crusades were not a christian war.

A war sanctioned (more or less ordered) by the Pope to Christianize land considered sacred to them that was in the hands of Muslims is not a Christian war?

[blan]

A war sanctioned (more or less ordered) by the Pope to Christianize land considered sacred to them that was in the hands of Muslims is not a Christian war?

do you really think they conquered muslim lands purely based on religion if at all? the popes of those days were political icons, though in the face of the populace the paraded as spiritual figures, there are so many books about the crusades that explain the agendas the european empires had in conquering the middle east, was it a holy war because some political puppet of a pope sanctioned a war on the east? no it was not it was a political move under the cloak of religion to help convince the masses into dieing for there self interest cause, the same as it is now and the same as it will most likely always be.
is Christianity a peaceful religion? yes if you base it on how the quakers live or how the amish live or the Mennonite german communities, or many other old and contemporary sects of christians, if you want to deem christianity as a violent horrible religion then based on the actions of the catholic inquisition church of the middle ages and the crusades then i will tell you that that was corrupt sect of the church in that day in age. the actions and life of christ as described in the bible do not reflect a violent person or a violent religion.
are anarchists violent because some anarchists in history have bombed places and killed people? are all Germans violent because hitler was? are all japaneese violent and evil because of pearl harbor? i can go on and on and on, the problem we are facing are humans who want to control others for there own interest. many of the masses will blindly follow and the hostile nature and evil within our race is revealed. again they will find any excuse to unleash like at a sports rally does this make sports bad?
like another user on this forum said before me it is like a weapon it can be used for great good or great evil the christian religion and its teachings often are used for good and more than once((to put it mildly)) in western history have been used for evil but this never reflects on the teachings and ways of christ and the example and religion he set out before the world.

[Nodens]

but this never reflects on the teachings and ways of christ and the example and religion he set out before the world.

Quite right, had Charles Martel, Vlad III Tepes and Jan III Sobieski followed the example of Jesus of Nazareth, there would be no debate over Sharia law in Europe today.

[blan]

Quite right, had Charles Martel, Vlad III Tepes and Jan III Sobieski followed the example of Jesus of Natereth, there would be no debate over Sharia law in Europe today.

Christ never taught against self defense, not defending yourself is not a Christian teaching though many neo christians or even people who are opposed to christianity may think that, the sermon on the mount spoke of turn the other cheek if you take it in context about insult not physical attack, the sermon on the mount was about proper virtues and conduct. did all of the crusaders act with virtues and conduct or the inquisition for that matter was that played out with true christian virtues or conduct? obviously not. there is no commandment telling you to be a non combatant extremist pacifist but there are clear doctrines that teach against evil, unjust violence.

[Psychonaut]

do you really think they conquered muslim lands purely based on religion if at all? the popes of those days were political icons, though in the face of the populace the paraded as spiritual figures, there are so many books about the crusades that explain the agendas the european empires had in conquering the middle east, was it a holy war because some political puppet of a pope sanctioned a war on the east? no it was not it was a political move under the cloak of religion to help convince the masses into dieing for there self interest cause, the same as it is now and the same as it will most likely always be.

So, to distill the argument: since religion was heavily intertwined with politics in the Middle Ages, we can't call the Crusades a religious war, because there were underlying political motivations. If that's where you're going, then the twin argument can be made that at that time there were no political wars, since all conflicts were informed by religious under or overtones. Assuredly, the Crusades, like any war, were complex in motivation, but to deny that the religious component was key is like denying that slavery was a main component in the American Civil War. In both cases, the roots of conflict were manifold, but there are clear dominant issues that characterize each—Christian imperialism for the Crusades and abolitionism for the Civil War.

is Christianity a peaceful religion?

Are there peaceful Christian communities? Sure. However, history seems to show that Christianity and its siblings Judaism and Islam lend themselves to religiously themed violence far more easily than any non-monotheistic religion. That there are more of these conflicts associated with these three than any other grouping of religions does not in itself determine causation, but it looks pretty damning.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Psychonaut
That there are more of these conflicts associated with these three than any other grouping of religions does not in itself determine causation, but it looks pretty damning.

Is this not just as likely to be because between them Christianity and Islam command well over 50% of the global population (and probably a far higher percentage in past centuries)? The majority of conflict zones are Islamic border areas, which also happen to be regions of increasing populations. Obviously other factors cannot be denied, but the use of a religious meme in the tendency of cultures to develop in certain ways shouldn’t be discounted.

Conflict is often the consequence of increased complexity, increased population, and consuming of resources, it is pretty hard to deny that both Christianity and Islam have led to greater centralisation, increased bureaucracy and more complex societies as a result.

Similar complexity could be found in the Aztec Empire (polytheistic), where wars were fought for religious reasons and sacrifices carried out daily to appease the Aztec Gods.

Is it a tendency of monotheistic (by this religious word I don’t actually just mean religious this could be applied to political or economic ideas just as well) to lead to greater complexity, of which conflict in its imposition and expansion is an inevitable, and perhaps even desirable, outcome?

[Psychonaut]

Is this not just as likely to be because between them Christianity and Islam command well over 50% of the global population (and probably a far higher percentage in past centuries)?

That surely can't be all of the answer though, right? Let's look at the other two population centers: the Indus and Yellow rivers. India and China have had large population centers just as long as the Middle East has and has just as long of a a history of warfare. Why then, do we not see any of the hundreds of wars of conquest that East Asians took part in justified in religious terms like the Crusades or Islamic conquests were? Chinese has served as just as much of a tribal battle ground as the Middle East has, but none of these conquerings of the Middle Kingdom were phrased as religious conquests.