Wars of Religion

[Naathi Prince]

I was defending his assertion less because I think 70% is accurate and more to deal with statements like this. I think this is terribly wrong and naive, not least because you contradict yourself almost immediately. War is exclusively about power yet some people wage it for religious purposes? That makes no sense. Some people do indeed fight because they feel they have some sort of religious or cultural superiority and claim if not outright duty, pretending otherwise is strange. True, power absolutely plays a part, but so does religion.

I dislike oversimplifications in the name of protecting the image of Group X. It's like claiming that crime is about lazy people, or economic factors. Nothing else. You may be right sometimes, but by oversimplifying you can also end up wrong.

I dislike oversimplifications in the name of slandering group X even more than. Besides, if you dislike oversimplification, why are you arguing with me? The one who oversimplified things is the one who stated that 70% of wars come down to religion.

[Chaircat Meow]

No, I'm sure noting that most of the world's most famous warriors didn't give two figs about religion and never did has nothing to do with whether religion starts 70% of the world's wars. fire eater is right, however. The 20th century is probably the bloodiest in history and the wars were fought over totalitarian ideas, no faith. While there were certainly wars of faith (the thirty years war comes to mind) they represent a small minority. after all, whats 30 years compared to 100 years (the war between england and france that had nothing to do with religion)

Even the Thirty Years War doesn't have that much to do with religion. Most of the Prot princes of Germany either supported the Emperor or stayed neutral at the start, on the basis of promised mediation by the Catholic king of France.

And Germany became a battlefield for the two Catholic superpowers that were slugging it out, namely the French and the Spanish Habsburgs. Very few people believe the Swedish intervention was based primarily on religion either.

[E-Ro]

its not as simple as you'd like it to be.

Why would I like it to be simple? What does this even mean?

[Naathi Prince]

Even the Thirty Years War doesn't have that much to do with religion. Most of the Prot princes of Germany either supported the Emperor or stayed neutral at the start, on the basis of promised mediation by the Catholic king of France.

And Germany became a battlefield for the two Catholic superpowers that were slugging it out, namely the French and the Spanish Habsburgs. Very few people believe the Swedish intervention was based primarily on religion either.

Very few people understand this, and thank you for pointing it out. yet another "war blamed on religion" that would have happened anyway despite any religious change in society. Its a power game at the core when it comes down to it, and people like Stannis who are rigid in their belief are the deep minority. But I guess not many people are paying attention to the lessons of the series.

Why would I like it to be simple? What does this even mean?

you'd like it to be the simple usual lie about religion and war that supports your own religious position when its simply not the truth.

[Castel]

I dislike oversimplifications in the name of slandering group X even more than. Besides, if you dislike oversimplification, why are you arguing with me? The one who oversimplified things is the one who stated that 70% of wars come down to religion.

You're right, I didn't call him out on his number, which cannot be proven because you can never quite seperate the mix of realpolitik and faith and personal issues that lead to conflict, but I still think that the point stands. I clearly wasn't balanced though, mea culpa.

I'm arguing with you because you made a statement that I believe to also be wrong and an oversimplification in it's own right as well. Taking away all the blame is just as bad as handing it all imo.

[Naathi Prince]

You're right, I didn't call him out on his number, which cannot be proven because you can never quite seperate the mix of realpolitik and faith and personal issues that lead to conflict, but I still think that the point stands. I clearly wasn't balanced though, mea culpa.

I'm arguing with you because you made a statement that I believe to also be wrong and an oversimplification in it's own right as well. Taking away all the blame is just as bad as handing it all imo.

Lets see a war that's primary motivation (not "excuse to rile up peasants" ) is religion.

[E-Ro]

you'd like it to be the simple usual lie about religion and war that supports your own religious position when its simply not the truth.

So you have heard this before, from others? Interesting, anyway I really dont care what anyone beleives in just dont bother me, the moment your beleif affects me is when I have a problem. Anyway back on topic before this gets ugly, no one in westeros cares much about religion, so the faith only has power now in a difficult time. The moment things get better things will go back to the way they were.

[Associate Maester]

This right here is the problem, religion condones rape, torture and killing, opression of women and other ridiculous things. It gives people a reason to do horrible things without feeling bad.

Religion also helps empower people to work to do something about very said issues. And last I checked, you don't need religion to do any of those things. Is religion something that can cause incredible harm, violence, and oppression--yes. Can it also be a tool for incredible good, justice, and fighting said oppression--yes.

[E-Ro]

Lets see a war that's primary motivation (not "excuse to rile up peasants" ) is religion.

Ok, I just want to respond to this then ill stop: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war

[Naathi Prince]

So you have heard this before, from others? Interesting, anyway I really dont care what anyone beleives in just dont bother me, the moment your beleif affects me is when I have a problem. Anyway back on topic before this gets ugly, no one in westeros cares much about religion, so the faith only has power now in a difficult time. The moment things get better things will go back to the way they were.

sure, I've heard the "religion is the root cause of all wars" lie before. if that's your view on faith, then fine. In general I don't believe in bothering people about religion but I'm going to forcefully defend faith against comments like "it causes all wars".

[Associate Maester]

I can see things getting incredibly ugly in Westeros if you have Dany coming over with dragons and supported by the Red Lot.

[Naathi Prince]

Ok, I just want to respond to this then ill stop: http://en.wikipedia....i/Religious_war

"non-riling up the peasants reasons" is a pretty big disclaimed. Bran the Cute already pointed out that the thirty years war had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the French-Spanish royal family fight. The others are dubious as well. I can make a longer response here, but then we're no longer talking ASOIAF.

and the crusades....ww1, britain fought germany because it saw germany uniting europe under its banner. Is it really ought of the range of possibility that the European nobles in the middle ages saw the muslims in the same fashion? They were expanding constantly and deposing local power structures, they saw themselves as next and launched a counter offensive under the banner of the only person who could command the loyalty of all of them, the Pope.

[E-Ro]

defend faith against comments like "it causes all wars".

Did anyone at any point say this? Or are you making things up in your head?

[Castel]

Lets see a war that's primary motivation (not "excuse to rile up peasants" ) is religion.

Why not an excuse to rile up the peasants? That is a huge part of fighting any war. Manpower considerations are very important. Pretext is very important. If religion allows people to do that with ease then there's a problem. To say that most of the religiously affiliated armies of today don't use religion and misplaced nationalism is just strange.

Take the Crusades, the Byzantines wanted their land back, but everyone also wanted Jerusalem, and went about to get it because it was of religious significance and to avoid persecution, also based on religion (which seems highly irrational to me since pilgrims bring in money).

[Naathi Prince]

Did anyone at any point say this? Or are you making things up in your head?

the person in the thread said 70%, and yes, people do say all wars.

[Naathi Prince]

Why not an excuse to rile up the peasants? That is a huge part of fighting any war. Manpower considerations are very important. Pretext is very important. If religion allows people to do that with ease then there's a problem. To say that most of the religiously affiliated armies of today don't use religion and misplaced nationalism is just strange.

Take the Crusades, the Byzantines wanted their land back, but everyone also wanted Jerusalem, and went about to get it because it was of religious significance and to avoid persecution, also based on religion (which seems highly irrational to me since pilgrims bring in money).

because in the end, the pretext doesn't matter to the actual decision makers. If your lord says "hey sonny you're coming with me" you are going, whether or not there is a pretext. The propaganda aspect of it comes down to just tactics. Plenty of people throughout history have found pretext for war without using religion at all. As for the crusades, it was a balance of power decision. a united muslim empire was destroying local power structures closer and closer to home.

[E-Ro]

the person in the thread said 70%, and yes, people do say all wars.

The person said 70% you said all. Nice strawman.

"non-riling up the peasants reasons" is a pretty big disclaimed. Bran the Cute already pointed out that the thirty years war had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the French-Spanish royal family fight. The others are dubious as well. I can make a longer response here, but then we're no longer talking ASOIAF.

and the crusades....ww1, britain fought germany because it saw germany uniting europe under its banner. Is it really ought of the range of possibility that the European nobles in the middle ages saw the muslims in the same fashion? They were expanding constantly and deposing local power structures, they saw themselves as next and launched a counter offensive under the banner of the only person who could command the loyalty of all of them, the Pope.

Obviously every war will have numerous causes, the point is religion is often one of them, might not be the biggest but it often is one.

[Castel]

because in the end, the pretext doesn't matter to the actual decision makers. If your lord says "hey sonny you're coming with me" you are going, whether or not there is a pretext. The propaganda aspect of it comes down to just tactics. Plenty of people throughout history have found pretext for war without using religion at all. As for the crusades, it was a balance of power decision. a united muslim empire was destroying local power structures closer and closer to home.

Indeed. But plenty of times religion allowed a conflict to start and bloom where it would not have before, simply because it's so tied to the power structures, if I could pick an example I would go with Mohammed and his battles against Makkah

You seem to be making a weird argument to me that you shouldn't be making. I never claimed that there are not other reasons for war, in fact I retracted my unconditional defense of the 70% figure and apologised. I think that claiming that religion is not a factor in war and that "people kill people" is just wrong.

[Naathi Prince]

The person said 70% you said all. Nice strawman.

Obviously every war will have numerous causes, the point is religion is often one of them, might not be the biggest but it often is one.

the 70% thing was a clear qualification to defend against the first line of skepticism of his bullshit theory. he even put down Hitler (yea, I'm sure he invaded Denmark because of their difference in religion!) as a religious warrior. Its a blatant lie against religion whether you use the 70% figure or even a 50% figure. Actual rigidly religious people are typically too narrowly focused to ever become powerful enough to cause a war simply based on their religious leanings. Religion in warfare is a propaganda tool, nothing more. Its not like peasants in germany were listening to doctrinal arguments between catholic and protestants theologians, some Lord showed up and said "he wants to take a dump on our pews and piss on our cross because they worship satan now'. That I blame on a lack of information and stupidity, not religion.

[Naathi Prince]

Indeed. But plenty of times religion allowed a conflict to start and bloom where it would not have before, simply because it's so tied to the power structures, if I could pick an example I would go with Mohammed and his battles against Makkah

You seem to be making a weird argument to me that you shouldn't be making. I never claimed that there are not other reasons for war, in fact I retracted my unconditional defense of the 70% figure and apologised. I think that claiming that religion is not a factor in war and that "people kill people" is just wrong.

I'll say it this way then, very rarely is religion "the spark" that lights a war. Do some people who want to create a big roaring war fire dump religion on to use it as fuel? undoubtably. I'll certainly give you that.