Religious vs. non-religious wars

There is often a myth that religion is the source of war and conflict and if we can imagine a world without religion we could finally have peace. Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod in their three volume "Encyclopedia of Wars" do a good job of debunking this false idea. Feeling like Paco I'm including a couple of graphs that illustrate the point.

The number of wars is kind of meaningless. More relevant would be "war-years" and "number of casualties" with the same graph. I think the results might be markedly different.

Quote: boymimbo

The number of wars is kind of meaningless. More relevant would be "war-years" and "number of casualties" with the same graph. I think the results might be markedly different.

Plus which wars are included where.

Religion per se as a casus belli is hardly confined to what most people would recognize as religion. Ideological wars are of the same character, more so when war is used as a test of an ideology. WWII in Europe was, in effect, largely a religious war over two ideologies: nazism and communism. The war as fought in France and Britain, as bad as it was, had a mcuh different character as the war fought against the Soviet Union.

In any case, according to current standards NO wars should be fought over religion at all. I'll give Christians this much: they haven't fought a major religious war in over a century.

Were the wars against the Barbary states religious wars?

Were the crusades religious wars or spice trade wars?

Quote: Fleastiff

Were the wars against the Barbary states religious wars?

Were the crusades religious wars or spice trade wars?

Barbary Wars were non-religious wars against a religious enemy. We were not attempting to convert anyone, nor were they. It was about tribute being taken on international waters.

What I would add is that there is a good deal of Muslim violence that may not be called a "war" yet it really is. Lots of people killed internally but never shows up as a "war."

Power struggles cause wars and anything else is just secondary and probably just used as an excuse, justification, or motivator.

Quote: boymimbo

The number of wars is kind of meaningless. More relevant would be "war-years" and "number of casualties" with the same graph. I think the results might be markedly different.

Actually, especially in the casualties department, the number caused by non-religious wars and leaders is quite sickening and nothing compares to it.

Non-Religious Dictator Lives Lost
•Joseph Stalin - 42,672,000
•Mao Zedong - 37,828,000
•Adolf Hitler - 20,946,000
•Chiang Kai-shek - 10,214,000
•Vladimir Lenin - 4,017,000
•Hideki Tojo - 3,990,000
•Pol Pot - 2,397,000

Isn't it a bit unseemly to use war and suffering to gain points in what is essentially a meaningless discussion?

And,
If someone uses the existence of religious wars against religion, religionists are quick to point out that the source of the conflict is the people, not the ethos, not the belief. But if that is the case, then using it in the other direction means that you abandon that stance, accept that it is the belief and the ethos that causes war, and make the point that anyhow it isn't as bad when religion is the cause!

You're better off simply saying that you believe what you believe, and let's use our shared goodness (regardless of our stance on God or god) to make the world a better place.

Quote: Mosca

Isn't it a bit unseemly to use war and suffering to gain points in what is essentially a meaningless discussion?

Not if you want to point out that religion makes for better wars?

Quote: Mosca

Isn't it a bit unseemly to use war and suffering to gain points in what is essentially a meaningless discussion?

And,
If someone uses the existence of religious wars against religion, religionists are quick to point out that the source of the conflict is the people, not the ethos, not the belief. But if that is the case, then using it in the other direction means that you abandon that stance, accept that it is the belief and the ethos that causes war, and make the point that anyhow it isn't as bad when religion is the cause!

You're better off simply saying that you believe what you believe, and let's use our shared goodness (regardless of our stance on God or god) to make the world a better place.

I agree with you Mosca and it feels like being dragged into the mud using this argument. However, when I came across these statistics even I was startled because it is a widely held secular belief that religion is the source of the vast majority of wars and that is absolutely false. I'm hoping we can all spread the word that this myth is untrue and but to bed that critique concerning religion that I have heard many people including Sam Harris, George Carlin, and Bill Maher make.