Difficulties with the Other and War

One of the biggest complaints/arguments against the various world religions is that they are the cause of a lot of wars and violence, and that without religion the world would be much better off. There are two things that I believe to be wrong with this argument: first, is that this statement is a fallacy because it cannot be properly tested; and second, is that this is a simplified look at the causation of war and violence throughout history. 

The statement that the world would be better off without religion is a fallacy because there is no philosophical or scientific way to test this. Unless, one went back in time and eliminated all religious thoughts, or groups that gathered because of their shared belief system, it is impossible to know; even if the whole world a some point in the future eliminate religions, this would not be adequate proof because of the route that history has taken through the various religions. Another option to test the theory would be if parallel universes could be enter to determine if structured religion ever took place, then one could judge the state of that world in terms of violence perpetrated. However, neither of these things, going back in time or investigated other universes, has happened, as far as I know, so currently no one is able to determine if the world would be less violent without religion.

                Second, for people to say that religion is the main contributor to wars and violence throughout human history is a simplified approach to the study war and its causes. In fact, I would argue that if you look at all the wars throughout human history, the main cause of the vast majority was something other than religion. Granted differences in religion is used more often as a secondary argument for war in order to drum up zeal, as it is something that can easily be used to cast your opponent as the “other”. You look at the Middle Ages, arguably the most “religious” time in Western history, and only one war of the hundreds that occurred in that 1000 year period can be properly deemed religious; although there were a few genocides like the Albigensian Crusade (the more aggressive form of the Inquisition happened largely in the Renaissance). This war, the Crusades, which was really a series of nine different invasions of the Middle East by the European nations, and I don't believe it was not even the most deadliest war in the Middle Ages. As well, a quick look at Wikipedia’s list of the most deadliest wars shows that only 4 out of 27 deadliest wars are classified as religious wars, and at least one of those, the French Wars of Religion, could just as easily be classified as a political war (If you want my reasoning for this I will gladly give it but that would be a paper in itself). Even with the Crusades, which were the only outright religious wars in the Middle Ages, there are other motivating factors behind them and for some religion was used on as a sugar coating for war. For example, the leaders of the Fourth Crusade quickly forgot all religious reason for the crusade and adopted more secular notions. Originally set up in order to defend Constantinople from the Muslim Turks, and it used the religion statements of the day in its propaganda, but it quite quickly, and obviously, became more influenced by Byzantine politics and Venetian greed. Now before I get to ahead of myself and people accuse me of supporting the Crusades, I must state that I think that they were a horrible idea and the preaching that went on during the Crusades was a gross misinterpretation of the Bible. To say though, that they are only religious and caused solely by religion with no other influences is making their history to be black and white when really it is a shade of grey. So to sum up, the that reasons why people/countries go to war is complicated and people can often oversimplify them, and as historians we must be cautious not to paint events with single brush and colour.  (Again I can provide more in-depth reasoning for the causation of the Crusades being not entirely religious but I wanted to try and limited the length of this post)

                Another thing that I want to mention but don’t want to spend too much time on, because I don’t know a lot about them, is genocides. Again referring to Wikipedia, I know it is not great but in this instance it is useful, 3 of the deadliest genocides in history were perpetrated by atheist governments, or at the very least agnostic in the case of Nazi Germany. Now the reason I bring this up is not to say that atheist governments are always evil because, God knows, that there has been enough genocides committed in the name of religion; which sometimes I think are worse because of the messages of tolerance and peace that a lot of religions proclaim. As well, the point of this piece is not to argue against atheist governments but rather to point out the complicated nature of people’s actions. What this three genocides show is that governments will abuse and kill the people they are suppose to represent in the name of no god, just as easily as in the name of God. 

              For another example of needing to give more than a cursory glance at events in history in order to understand them better I will return to a time period of history that I am more comfortable with, the Middle Ages. The event in that I want to bring up is really a motif that exist throughout the Middle Ages, and that is anti-Semitism. Throughout the Middle Ages, Western kings would expel, tax, or steal from the Jews within their kingdoms, claiming it as revenge for crucify Christ. This was done under religious arguments because the Jews were not Catholic and were distinct from the average European in the ways they lived their lives. They, thus, made a convenient group for the kings to attack in that they were a minority and other. I believe, however, that the kings would have found any reason to steal the money from the Jews if the religious reasons did not exist. The Jews throughout the Middle Ages were often the richest group in the various cities taking on the role of bankers as they, unlike the Christians, could lend money at interest; which the king could then tax. As well, royal families were at many points throughout the Middle Ages broke, or near enough, and so would try everything to come up the money to wage their next war, or host their next extravagant party. Therefore, the kings would often attack the Jews to come up with the money they needed without trying to force more taxes on the rest of the population which would stir up ideas of revolt (not that this made it right, it only goes to show in that time period most secular leaders believed Might was Right). So, the point I am trying to make it that whether people/governments are atheist, theist, or agnostic there can be many reasons why they desire to kill other people/governments and unfortunately religion is something that is often used as an excuse.

                In conclusion, I think it is important to note that religion is just one of the many excuses that people use for war or violence. It boils down to is that we are all different and groups try to accentuate those differences in order to justify their actions to themselves and others. I believe then that a kind of familial love is the most important trait that humanity needs to develop. One that accepts where other people are coming from and tries to find areas of commonalities rather then focusing on our differences. While difficult I think at least on an individual level this can work, and while arguments may occur we must learn to resist the feelings within us to do violence and, as well, those that would do violence just because someone thought or acted different from us. You may say “I’ll change once they do” (which I have heard some people say) but this is a response that leads nowhere, and I think it is important to be the first to offer a hand of peace, and show that while I may not agree with you, violence is not answer.