RELIGION AND SYRIA

Akrasia

Along the lines of religion poisons everything, the conflict in Syria would be a whole lot less messed up without the pernicious influence of religion.

Over 100,000 people have already died in this conflict and Assad's regime is clearly a destructive one and the people of Syria need a new government.

Wouldn't it be great if the anti Assad rebels were motivated by human rights and democracy rather than religion?

We have a roughly 90% Muslim and 10% Christian split with the Muslims broken down to about 75% Sunni and 25% Shia.

Saudi Arabia are propping up Shia forces against the Sunni majority, The Sunni forces are controlled by extremists like the Muslim Brotherhood who have shown how sectarian they are in Egypt and if they take power the first thing they will do is start oppressing the Shia and Christian Minorities

No matter who wins this round of the conflict, the religious factions will carry on the civil war for generations..

Feckin Religion..

PopePalpatine

I find it strange that the Saudis (who I presume are Sunni) are propping up the Shias. What reasons would they have for doing so?

J C

Akrasia wrote: »

Along the lines of religion poisons everything, the conflict in Syria would be a whole lot less messed up without the pernicious influence of religion.

Over 100,000 people have already died in this conflict and Assad's regime is clearly a destructive one and the people of Syria need a new government.

Wouldn't it be great if the anti Assad rebels were motivated by human rights and democracy rather than religion?

We have a roughly 90% Muslim and 10% Christian split with the Muslims broken down to about 75% Sunni and 25% Shia.

Saudi Arabia are propping up Shia forces against the Sunni majority, The Sunni forces are controlled by extremists like the Muslim Brotherhood who have shown how sectarian they are in Egypt and if they take power the first thing they will do is start oppressing the Shia and Christian Minorities

No matter who wins this round of the conflict, the religious factions will carry on the civil war for generations..

Feckin Religion..

A more accurate analysis is that it is a proxy war that is exploiting tribal divisions within Syria.
Nearly all so-called 'religious wars' are just two (or more) tribes having a 'go at each other'.
It suits many people (often including the protagonists) to style these wars as 'religious wars' ... but what they actually come down to, are grubby fights over turf and resources, rather than any substantive issue over Theology or Philosophy. Indeed, if 5 minutes were actually spent considering the morality (or even the practicality in terms of death and destruction) of such wars they would never be fought in the first place.

smcgiff

Fully agree with the OP.

Assad is no saint, but a US backed overthrow will lead to even greater chaos.

Religious fundamentalist chaos.

If the west hadn't got involved this would have died down by now. Assad would still be in power for sure, but the alternative is worse in my opinion.

J C

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I find it strange that the Saudis (who I presume are Sunni) are propping up the Shias. What reasons would they have for doing so?

It is often difficult to know who is on what side in the Middle East.
I understand, but remain open to correction, that the Assad Regime is made up of Alawites who are alligned politically and religiously with the Shia in Iran. The majority of the Syrian population are Sunni and they make up the majority of conscripts in the Syrian Army ... but the officer corps is dominated by Alliwatis, in line with the government of Assad.
In this case it seems that the (majority Sunni) Saudis are actually backing the Syrian Sunnis who are opposing Assad - but the Saudis also had no problem backing the Shia opposition to Sadam Hussein's Sunni-led government in Iraq.
Like I have said, religion often has little to do with these wars ... although I do agree it can be a complicating factor amongst many other complicating factors.
Many of these Middle-eastern countries contain historically incompatible tribes that are also divided along linguistic and religious lines - and therein lies their instability - which probably suits many of the other players in this area.

Manach

The OP should also look into the historical Western intervention in this area in the early part of the last century in the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. Due to European politics and concepts of spheres of influences, was the key reasoning on how the region was divided - with various factions being supported by the Powers, depending on how malleable the ruling elites were. To blindly suppose this conflict has a core component of religion shows a somewhat naive historical weltbild.

J C

Akrasia wrote: »

IGNORANCE RULES

Quite true.
Unfortunately, ignorance often does rule ... but I find that knowledge and a truly objective assessment of the evidence overcomes it.

J C

smcgiff wrote: »

Fully agree with the OP.

Assad is no saint, but a US backed overthrow will lead to even greater chaos.

Religious fundamentalist chaos.

If the west hadn't got involved this would have died down by now. Assad would still be in power for sure, but the alternative is worse in my opinion.

All quite true ... but then perhaps some people may want a hopelessy fractured and seriously weakened Middle East in preference to a unified strong one.

Banbh

All quite true ... but then perhaps some people may want a hopelessy fractured and seriously weakened Middle East in preference to a unified strong one.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. The template is Iraq with never-ending civil unrest. This has been followed in Libya and now probably in Egypt and Yemen.

The West doesn't need states when it can carry on business with generals, dictators, kings and sheikhs.

The 'good' Arab states are those who allow the US military access, buy billions in Western armaments and sell their resources cheaply.

Has any Western politician ever mentioned democracy in the same breath as that most barbaric regime in Saudi Arabia? Or what about the 'Arab Spring' in Bahrain?

Iran is the next villainous state that the Western press wants us to hate. Not because it may soon have nuclear weapons - Israel and Pakistan were given them when it suited US foreign policy. Not because it is not democratic - it clearly is and even had its previous democracy overthrown by the US in favour of a Shah.

The villain in the Middle East is not religious division but the greed and ruthlessness of the West.

J C

Banbh wrote: »

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. The template is Iraq with never-ending civil unrest. This has been followed in Libya and now probably in Egypt and Yemen.

The West doesn't need states when it can carry on business with generals, dictators, kings and sheikhs.

The 'good' Arab states are those who allow the US military access, buy billions in Western armaments and sell their resources cheaply.

Has any Western politician ever mentioned democracy in the same breath as that most barbaric regime in Saudi Arabia? Or what about the 'Arab Spring' in Bahrain?

Iran is the next villainous state that the Western press wants us to hate. Not because it may soon have nuclear weapons - Israel and Pakistan were given them when it suited US foreign policy. Not because it is not democratic - it clearly is and even had its previous democracy overthrown by the US in favour of a Shah.

The villain in the Middle East is not religious division but the greed and ruthlessness of the West.

East and West are both active in the Middle East ... and they both have agendas to pursue ... and therein lies the danger ... that these proxy wars could spill over into a full-scale war.

Brian Shanahan

J C wrote: »

A more accurate analysis is that it is a proxy war that is exploiting tribal divisions within Syria.
Nearly all so-called 'religious wars' are just two (or more) tribes having a 'go at each other'.

No you'll find that all religious wars are for "proper" religious reasons. Usually these "reasons" are minute differences in theology, but the fact of the matter is that the religious differences are both the cause of and the accelerant in the conflict.

Banbh wrote: »

Iran is the next villainous state that the Western press wants us to hate. Not because it may soon have nuclear weapons - Israel and Pakistan were given them when it suited US foreign policy. Not because it is not democratic - it clearly is and even had its previous democracy overthrown by the US in favour of a Shah.

Unfortunately for those calling the shots in the US, Iran will be the graveyard for their power in much the same way as Afghanistan was for the Soviets. And the same dire consequences will result for the American people as did the Russians.

Peregrinus

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No you'll find that all religious wars are for "proper" religious reasons. Usually these "reasons" are minute differences in theology, but the fact of the matter is that the religious differences are both the cause of and the accelerant in the conflict.

“All religious wars are religious” is hardly an earth-shattering claim; more of a tautology. The real question is, what make a war a religious war? Is it enough that the competing groups can be, and are, identified by religious labels?

We are used to this question in Ireland, where competing groups in the Northern Ireland conflict could be, and frequently were, identified as “Protestant” and “Catholic”, and occasionally some members of one group or other would actively claim this label (e.g. the Protestant Unionist Party, a precursor to the DUP). And yet, as we all know, the more you understood about this conflict, the less was is helpful to see it as a conflict about religion.

Yes, the dominant polical group in Syria are Alawite Muslims. That doesn’t mean, though, that they run an Alawite Muslim government; they certainly don’t. The Syrian governmend is decidedly secular, and always has been since it came to power in 1963. Theocratic Iran is currently backing the Syrian government - propping it up, really - not because it is an Islamic or even theocratic government, but despite the fact that it isn’t. Their alliance is built on strategic factors; initially a shared hostility to Saddam Hussein, and more recently a shared antipathy to Israel, a distaste for US influence in the Middle East region and the willingness of Syria to be a corridor through which Iran can support its proxies in the Lebanon.

Yes, there are Islamist elements in the Syrian opposition, but there are also Islamist elements backing the Syrian government, too. This isn’t, basically, a conflict between Islamism and secularism, or a conflict between different traditions within Islam. Similarly, there are secularists on both sides. And Christians on both sides. And Kurds on both sides. This is a conflict which defies simplistic attempts to analyse it in one-dimensional terms that conform to preconceptions about religious wars. Most real-life wars do.

smacl

J C wrote: »

A more accurate analysis is that it is a proxy war that is exploiting tribal divisions within Syria.
Nearly all so-called 'religious wars' are just two (or more) tribes having a 'go at each other'.
It suits many people (often including the protagonists) to style these wars as 'religious wars' ... but what they actually come down to, are grubby fights over turf and resources, rather than any substantive issue over Theology or Philosophy. Indeed, if 5 minutes were actually spent considering the morality (or even the practicality in terms of death and destruction) of such wars they would never be fought in the first place.

Yes and no. While the conflict has divided factions along natural religious and tribal fault lines, the root causes may well lie elsewhere. Price of bread and a down trodden population being unable to feed starving families is thought by many to have been the flashpoint. Seems like there simply wasn't enough loaves and fishes to go around this time, which goes beyond tribalism or morality and on to simple survivalism. In the same circumstances I don't doubt that Christians would follow the same course of action, as would atheists for that matter.

smacl

J C wrote: »

East and West are both active in the Middle East ... and they both have agendas to pursue ... and therein lies the danger ... that these proxy wars could spill over into a full-scale war.

Wait until the problems in Egypt start to threaten passage through the suez canal, that usually wakes people up. Winter is coming, and all that.

Akrasia

The point of the OP was that the influence of religion on this conflict is making a bad situation worse. I never said that religion was the sole cause of the conflict or denied that there are other dividing factors and tribalism and colonial hangovers that are driving sectarianism and civil war

But, the fact that the divisions are largely along religious lines is certainly not helpfull.

In the Irish civil war there was a political divide between the pro-treaty partitionists and anti-treaty republicans. It was extremely bloody and horrible, but when the war was over, the two sides were able to integrate back into one society.

In the North, the civil war was between unionists and nationalists/republicans but the dividing line was drawn between protestants and catholics and look how that's going?

In Syria, if the conflict was purely political or resource based, while it might still be a violent war, at least when the war is over, there is some chance of re-integration into one society. Not when religious denominations are involved.

Religion is a very useful tool used by the powerful to get the impoverished to die for your own ends. You don't need to justify your cause. All you need to do is set yourself up as the leader of the religious faction or manipulate those leaders to fight on your side, and you have an army.

In the spanish civil war as another example, the socialists and anarchists were fighting for freedom and a better life. If it wasn't for the Catholic church being able to mobilise their army of supporters, The Monarchists/Nationalists/Fascists would have been overwhelmed, and if it wasn't for the Monarchists having their army, the socialists wouldn't have had to rely on support from the CCCP which was as corrupt an organisation as the church was.
In the early parts of the war, the various socialist factions had been holding their ground, but the bottomless resources of the Catholic church meant that they had to rely more and more on military aid from other Communist countries which resulted in the takeover of the Left by the communist party and the ultimate fracturing of the socialist forces in the civil war.

In all of the fascist movements in the 20th century in Europe, the army of christians on the side of the fascists were a major force to contend with.

smacl

Akrasia wrote: »

But, the fact that the divisions are largely along religious lines is certainly not helpful.

Conflict depends on factions, whether they are tribal, racial, religious or socio-economic. What defines the factions doesn't matter so much as they can readily identify each other.

In all of the fascist movements in the 20th century in Europe, the army of christians on the side of the fascists were a major force to contend with.

Except Stalinist Russia perhaps.

Atrocities carried out in the name of one religion or another are scattered like confetti throughout history. They go hand in hand with religious intolerance, which is a simple case of factionalism or manipulating xenophobic tendencies in others. You have to ask yourself how many people who kill genuinely believe they're doing it for their god, and how many have ulterior motives or more commonly, are simply doing what they're told. Rather than pointing the finger at one group of people or another and labelling them as dangerous religious fanatics, I think it makes more sense to choose religious tolerance and look for root causes underlying conflict. Anything else is just lumping atheism into its own faction and setting it up for conflict against everyone else.

It's also sticking one to the zealots to rise above their anachronistic notions of morality and seek solutions that are genuinely pluralist

Manach

smacl wrote: »

It's also sticking one to the zealots to rise above their anachronistic notions of morality and seek solutions that are genuinely pluralist

As per the French revolution of 1789?

smacl

Manach wrote: »

As per the French revolution of 1789?

While it certainly gave rise to a modern secular France and ousted the church from power, I wouldn't exactly describe it as an exercise in religious tolerance. More recently, the Portugeuse revolution was probably one of the first in recent history to mandate the notion of religious tolerance, while still remaining a largely Catholic state. Salazar's regime up until that time being more strictly Catholic with intolerance of all other faiths enshrined in law.

BuilderPlumber

Getting rid of religion/taking religion out of a conflict probably does not really end it. Afterall, religion is a the end of the day an ideology and all ideologies can be used for good or bad. With religion gone, the ideology could be capitalism, communism, atheism, race superiorityism, etc. ALL every bit as bad as religion when used wrong.

Any form of extremism be it religious or otherwise is intolerant and fanatics will go to great lengths to hurt the perceived enemy. Syria has all of this in spades and is religion based in this case. Other conflicts like the rise of the awful Khmer Rouge, an atheist regime that makes even the worst religious dictatorships like the Afghan Taliban seem good by comparison, showed fanatic secular forces in action. Others like North Korea and Stalin replaced the traditional god and religion with themselves and a personality cult.

BuilderPlumber

I think as well that religion often goes off track and needs reform. Today's Middle East mirrors Europe from medieval times up to 1945. Look at all the wars fought in Europe like the 30 years war, the English civil war/Cromwellian wars and indeed Northern Ireland. All caused by religion and these religious wars in turn lead directly to the Napoleonic wars, WW1, WW2, the cold war and all the rest. Reform of religion in Europe lead to the errosion of hardline, intolerant Christianity as made infamous by Spanish inquisition and burning women at the stake and all that evil.

Today's intolerant Islam is similar. More often than not, today's hardliners in Islam are like their European equivalents often tied to the political establishment of their country or have desires to replace a regime with a one they control. The dictator who says he is gods rep on earth in other words. Throughout history, we have had these types of leaders who ruled with an iron fist and had their 'mission'.

Like Europe had to reinvent its socio-political-religious identity, the Middle East needs to reinvent its political, religious and social values and norms. It needs to take violence out of religion and get rid of 'martyr culture' where death and war is glorified and seen as the norm. The Middle East is not unique in its social, artistic, musical, political and religious appreciation of and celebration of the martyr: Ireland has it too - just think of the 100s of Irish folk songs written about martyrs?

I listened to Iranian folk music recorded and written by Iranians in post 1979 Iran. When asked what the songs were about, every one of them was celebrating a martyr who died in the Iran-Iraq war. Most Iranians want to forget this and think the regime was wrong to use child soldiers and so on at the time. Again, the regime used a depressed, not too well man (Khomeini) as a symbol and also the current regime uses living martyrs as heroes (that is those who were injured in that war).

When a country defines itself in terms of a war, that is wrong and something we see in all countries. Iran's republic sees itself as coming of age in the war with Saddam, whereas modern Europe sees itself as the product of Hitler's defeat. The US and Russia the same. Al Qaeda and Taliban see themselves as products of the Soviet invasion.

When religion and the gun mix, then you have gun-toting thugs who are implementing gods government on earth! Thus the Taliban and so on can do what they like. Religion is defined then as a cruel and unloving way to keep people down. Regimes use it as a tool to take out their enemies and define those against a state religion as threats.

Like Christianity had its bitter divide between Catholics and Protestants, Islam has its bitterness between Sunni and Shia. Syria, Iraq, the Iran-Iraq war, Lebanon, etc. are all products of this divide. Despite the Assad and Saddam regimes being secular, neither liked each other and the reason why Saddam and his predecessor and Assad and his father fell out was a lot to do with one (Assad) being Shia and the other (Saddam) being Sunni. Their Ba'ath party origins could not save their poor relations and Assad backed Shia-led Iran against Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war.

Religion and nationalism become often one and the same. Ireland's very identity as being 'different' to Britain was based on the Catholic faith and not a Celtic identity or cultural difference. Indeed, many Irish rebel movements did not even want Irish independence: they did not mind being ruled by England but wanted to be ruled by an English Catholic king or queen. The Middle East is also seeing the use of religion as identity. It is a given in many countries that you are an Arab but what matters is whether you are Muslim or Christian and what type of Islam or Christianity you follow!

Thus, we can see the various countries and their values: Iran wants to be seen as a Shia state, Saudi Arabia want to be seen as a Wahabist Sunni state, regimes like Saddam's and Assad's emphasise secular states but secular Sunni and Shia respectively! Others like Gaddafi's Libya tied Islam into a much greater ideology where the cult of the ruling dictator and Islam were one and the same!

Peregrinus

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Getting rid of religion/taking religion out of a conflict probably does not really end it. Afterall, religion is a the end of the day an ideology and all ideologies can be used for good or bad. With religion gone, the ideology could be capitalism, communism, atheism, race superiorityism, etc. ALL every bit as bad as religion when used wrong.

Any form of extremism be it religious or otherwise is intolerant and fanatics will go to great lengths to hurt the perceived enemy. Syria has all of this in spades and is religion based in this case. Other conflicts like the rise of the awful Khmer Rouge, an atheist regime that makes even the worst religious dictatorships like the Afghan Taliban seem good by comparison, showed fanatic secular forces in action. Others like North Korea and Stalin replaced the traditional god and religion with themselves and a personality cult.

It’s pretty common for people to claim a religious basis for their convictions, prejudices, gripes, etc, but for this to be a <i>post facto</i> rationalisation.

For example, look at American gun nuts. Not all the time, but quite a lot of the time, they will advance religious arguments in support of their views about gun control. Same goes for their views about state-provided healthcare. Yet we find their co-religionists in other countries do not share their views, and the arguments they advance find no traction with their co-religionists.

It would be a mistake, then, to think that, for an American Christianist gun-nut, his gun-nuttery comes from his Christianity. It seems more likely that his gun-nuttery comes from some other source, but because he is a Christian he constructs Christianist rationalisations/explanations for it. Were he to cease to be a Christian, he would probably still be a gun nut.

And this cuts both ways. I’m strongly critical of US gun-nuttery. I’m a Christian, and I don’t hesitate to advance arguments against gun-nuttery which are rooted in Christian beliefs and values. But if I ceased to be a Christian, I’m pretty sure I’d still be strongly critical of gun-nuttery; my views on that would not change simply because I abandoned my Christian faith. I’d just stop advancing Christian arguments against gun-nuttery. (Except, possibly, for the sake of annoying Christianist gun nuts.)

The point is, both myself and the gun-nut appeal to our respective religious positions to justify our views on firearms, but the truth is that the difference between us is not religiously-driven at all.

Right. I think there’s a parallel when it comes to religion-linked communal identity, which we have in abundance in the Middle East, and which is not unknown closer to home. Religion becomes a marker which identifies the communities which may be (and, in Syria, are) in conflict, but that doesn’t necessarily make the conflict between them a religious one. Note that there is no link at all between the teachings of the various religions and the enmity between their communities; we commonly find enmity between communities whose religions emphasise respect and toleration. Note also that there is no correlation between the degree to which the two religions differ and the degree of enmity between them; it’s hard to find two strands of religious belief which have more in common than Anglicanism and Catholicism, yet in the Northern Ireland context these are markers of membership of two confronting communities. Finally, note that we find abundant examples of entrenched and enduring community distinction, and of intercommunal enmities, where religious belief and identities are not a point of difference at all.

The corollary of all this is that, even if an intercommunal conflict is between two communities characterised by a difference in religious identity, that’s not enough to show that this is a religious conflict, or even that this is a conflict intensified or embittered by religion. I’m not seeing any evidence at all that the conflict in Syria is a religious conflict, or that it would be one whit less bitter if the parties were all of the same religion, or of no religion. It may be so, but I’d need to see some evidence before I could make a judgment about whether it is, or about the extent to which it is.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

I’m not seeing any evidence at all that the conflict in Syria is a religious conflict, or that it would be one whit less bitter if the parties were all of the same religion, or of no religion. It may be so, but I’d need to see some evidence before I could make a judgment about whether it is, or about the extent to which it is.

I'd agree that the conflict in Syria is not a religious one, however I would contend that religions that espouse martyrdom and promise life everlasting, e.g. any Abrahamic religion, are more prone to sustaining violent conflict. You don't get many atheist suicide bombers or kamikaze pilots; awareness of ones own very limited mortality tends to install a much higher value on ones own life and the lives of others. While many conflicts that appear as religious at face value are actually plays for territory or power when more closely examined, once a church gives it's imprimatur to the conflict, they need to be held responsible to some extent for the outcome.

BuilderPlumber

Peregrinus wrote: »

It’s pretty common for people to claim a religious basis for their convictions, prejudices, gripes, etc, but for this to be a <i>post facto</i> rationalisation.

For example, look at American gun nuts. Not all the time, but quite a lot of the time, they will advance religious arguments in support of their views about gun control. Same goes for their views about state-provided healthcare. Yet we find their co-religionists in other countries do not share their views, and the arguments they advance find no traction with their co-religionists.

It would be a mistake, then, to think that, for an American Christianist gun-nut, his gun-nuttery comes from his Christianity. It seems more likely that his gun-nuttery comes from some other source, but because he is a Christian he constructs Christianist rationalisations/explanations for it. Were he to cease to be a Christian, he would probably still be a gun nut.

And this cuts both ways. I’m strongly critical of US gun-nuttery. I’m a Christian, and I don’t hesitate to advance arguments against gun-nuttery which are rooted in Christian beliefs and values. But if I ceased to be a Christian, I’m pretty sure I’d still be strongly critical of gun-nuttery; my views on that would not change simply because I abandoned my Christian faith. I’d just stop advancing Christian arguments against gun-nuttery. (Except, possibly, for the sake of annoying Christianist gun nuts.)

The point is, both myself and the gun-nut appeal to our respective religious positions to justify our views on firearms, but the truth is that the difference between us is not religiously-driven at all.

Right. I think there’s a parallel when it comes to religion-linked communal identity, which we have in abundance in the Middle East, and which is not unknown closer to home. Religion becomes a marker which identifies the communities which may be (and, in Syria, are) in conflict, but that doesn’t necessarily make the conflict between them a religious one. Note that there is no link at all between the teachings of the various religions and the enmity between their communities; we commonly find enmity between communities whose religions emphasise respect and toleration. Note also that there is no correlation between the degree to which the two religions differ and the degree of enmity between them; it’s hard to find two strands of religious belief which have more in common than Anglicanism and Catholicism, yet in the Northern Ireland context these are markers of membership of two confronting communities. Finally, note that we find abundant examples of entrenched and enduring community distinction, and of intercommunal enmities, where religious belief and identities are not a point of difference at all.

The corollary of all this is that, even if an intercommunal conflict is between two communities characterised by a difference in religious identity, that’s not enough to show that this is a religious conflict, or even that this is a conflict intensified or embittered by religion. I’m not seeing any evidence at all that the conflict in Syria is a religious conflict, or that it would be one whit less bitter if the parties were all of the same religion, or of no religion. It may be so, but I’d need to see some evidence before I could make a judgment about whether it is, or about the extent to which it is.

That is very true too. As well as actual religion, we have other beliefs that are likened to and actually are a personal religion for some groups.

Gun nuts really have their own religion: that of gun appreciation. Similarly in Ireland, GAA is often a religion. Soccer is also a religion with many. And the list goes on and on ..

So, while religion is in the mix in Syria, it is not the only issue. A lot of it has to do with a perception of inequality as well as perhaps insecurities about what is an artificially created state. Israel and the West, and the perceived wrongs both do to the Middle East, of course is originated in Arab nationalism but borrowed by so-called Islamists.

It seems that indeed the more similar religions are, the more they disagree! Judaism, Christianity and Islam are from the same religious sources and 80% of their belief systems are identical. Catholicism and Anglicanism are indeed very very similar as are Sunni and Shia Islam, yet both of these see sectarian divides with Christians killing Christians and Muslims killing Muslims.

BuilderPlumber

smacl wrote: »

I'd agree that the conflict in Syria is not a religious one, however I would contend that religions that espouse martyrdom and promise life everlasting, e.g. any Abrahamic religion, are more prone to sustaining violent conflict. You don't get many atheist suicide bombers or kamikaze pilots; awareness of ones own very limited mortality tends to install a much higher value on ones own life and the lives of others. While many conflicts that appear as religious at face value are actually plays for territory or power when more closely examined, once a church gives it's imprimatur to the conflict, they need to be held responsible to some extent for the outcome.

Religion is a way to get people onboard often. OF COURSE, the rulers of countries use religion not to promote god but to promote and legitimise themselves. Easy then to justify: unless we take over X's country and convert them, they are going to hell. European colonialism was born out of that mentality. The medieval Spanish of course were not going to South America for the gold but to convert the natives to Catholicism!

Martyrdom is indeed celebrated in song and in story in most Western and Middle Eastern countries. Jesus as mentioned in Christianity is perhaps the ultimate martyr. Although Mohammed died of natural causes, Islam has down the years also had important martyrs. As had Judaism.

Bring that into politics, and anyone from William Wallace and Robert Emmett to JFK and Abraham Lincoln to Che Guevara to Bobby Sands to Saddam to even bin Laden are all martyrs for a cause. Ex Iranian president Mohammed Rajai (who was killed in a bomb assassination) is a major martyr for his political party and followers. But how many of any of these's followers are actually doing things in the name of their martyr they celebrate that their dead 'idol' would not approve of? I'm pretty sure the majority of them (apart from bin Laden's followers that is).

jank

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

. The medieval Spanish of course were not going to South America for the gold but to convert the natives to Catholicism!

Eh, the primary motive for Christopher Colombus to sail westward was for wealth, fame and glory for the Spanish Empire. To bring back the Easts valuable spices quicker than by going around the African Cape Horn. Conversions came much later of course in an attempt to pacify the natives and make them learn the economic and agricultural ways of the west. Never underestimate the self interests of humans. Saving souls was very much an after thought to the primary aim, making money.

smacl

jank wrote: »

Saving souls was very much an after thought to the primary aim, making money.

Repeated for colonialism throughout history; explorers followed by military followed by colonists, where the church piggy backs in with the colonists. The carving up of the Chinese melon would be another good example of multiple churches expanding their flocks on the back of colonialism.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Repeated for colonialism throughout history; explorers followed by military followed by colonists, where the church piggy backs in with the colonists. The carving up of the Chinese melon would be another good example of multiple churches expanding their flocks on the back of colonialism.

Actually, not a great example, since Christianity made very little inroads in China or in East Asia generally. Africa would be a much better example.

But the main point stands. Attempts to portray European colonialism as religiously-inspired don't really stand up to scrutiny. European missionary endeavours follow colonialism, certainly, but they rarely drive it.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, not a great example, since Christianity made very little inroads in China or in East Asia generally. Africa would be a much better example.

No shortage of christians in hong kong last time I was over, with many of my chinese friends raised christian. Not that it stopped them being buddhists at the same time, with scatterings of shrines to other minor deities knocking around the house.

But the main point stands. Attempts to portray European colonialism as religiously-inspired don't really stand up to scrutiny. European missionary endeavours follow colonialism, certainly, but they rarely drive it.

But Christian missionaries actively endeavour to convert heathens where ever they can, in a manner than could be considered expansionist and culturally invasive. It is still empire building, however you care to dress it up.

Banbh

"When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land.
They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes.
When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land."
- Desmond Tutu

seamus

From the point of view of any abrahamic religions, since God intentionally scattered humanity across the globe made them speak different languages, then God's will was for humanity to destroy eachother. Therefore engaging in holy wars and knocking seven shades of ****e out of eachother is simply doing exactly what God has wanted all along. He's a sadistic prick.

Religion really is a cover here. There are rarely any truly "holy wars". At the top of the pyramid you have a handful of individuals whose primary motivation is power. They wave the banner of religion to assemble their troops, but at the core of it their aim is to extend their own personal sphere of influence, not that of their religion's. Though in religion's case when you have a dictatorship there's functionally no difference between the dictator's sphere of influence and the religion's.

And in many cases they may have genuine religious motivations; the belief that they've been "called". But at the end of the day it's still all ego-stroking for the individual.

Remove religion from the equation, and people can be easily called to arms under some other equally vacuous and invented tribal banner, whether that be the notion of racial purity, or a Manchester United logo.

Religion is an extension of man's need to gather in communities, not a cause of it. It came about as a consequence of needing to identify whether you were from this place or t'other place 100m down the road that we hate for no particular reason that they're "not us".

robindch

jank wrote: »

Saving souls was very much an after thought to the primary aim, making money.

Eyewitnesses disagree:

Pizarro and Friends wrote:

The prudence, fortitude, military discipline, labors, perilous navigations, and battles of the Spaniards-vassals of the most invincible Emperor of the Roman Catholic Empire, our natural King and Lord-will cause joy to the faithful and terror to the infidels. For this reason, and for the glory of God our Lord and for the service of the Catholic Imperial Majesty, it has seemed good to me to write this narrative, and to send it to Your Majesty, that all may have a knowledge of what is here related. It will be to the glory of God, because they have conquered and brought to our holy Catholic Faith so vast a number of heathens, aided by His holy guidance. It will be to the honor of our Emperor because, by reason of his great power and good fortune, such events happened in his time. It will give joy to the faithful that such battles have been won, such provinces discovered and conquered, such riches brought home for the King and for themselves; and that such terror has been spread among the infidels, such admiration excited in all mankind.

[...]

"If night had not come on, few out of the more than 40,000 Indian troops would have been left alive. Six or seven thousand Indians lay dead, and many more had their arms cut off and other wounds. Atahuallpa himself admitted that we had killed 7,000 of his men in that battle. [...] The lord of Cajamarca was also killed, and others, but their numbers were so great that they could not be counted, for all who came in attendance on Atahuallpa were great lords. It was extraordinary to see so powerful a ruler captured in so short a time, when he had come with such a mighty army. Truly, it was not accomplished by our own forces, for there were so few of us. It was by the grace of God, which is great.

[...]

"Atahuallpa's robes had been torn off when the Spaniards pulled him out of his litter. The Governor ordered clothes to be brought to him, and when Atahuallpa was dressed, the Governor ordered Atahuallpa to sit near him and soothed his rage and agitation at finding himself so quickly fallen from his high estate. The Governor said to Atahuallpa, 'Do not take it as an insult that you have been defeated and taken prisoner, for with the Christians who come with me, though so few in number, I have conquered greater kingdoms than yours, and have defeated other more powerful lords than you, imposing upon them the dominion of the Emperor, whose vassal I am, and who is King of Spain and of the universal world. We come to conquer this land by his command, that all may come to a knowledge of God and of His Holy Catholic Faith; and by reason of our good mission, God, the Creator of heaven and earth and of all things in them, permits this, in order that you may know Him and come out from the bestial and diabolical life that you lead. It is for this reason that we, being so few in number, subjugate that vast host. When you have seen the errors in which you live, you will understand the good that we have done you by coming to your land by order of his Majesty the King of Spain. Our Lord permitted that your pride should be brought low and that no Indian should be able to offend a Christian.'

robindch

Syrian islamic opposition fighters are as murderous as government forces, posing a dilemma for any states considering intervention in Syria:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/brutality-of-syrian-rebels-pose-dilemma-in-west.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0&pagewanted=all

jank

robindch wrote: »

Eyewitnesses disagree:

Shock. Man uses the 'blessings of god' as a pretext to gain material wealth, power and influence. Really nothing new there. Pizzaro was not there to spread the faith, he was there to conquer the rivers of gold that was thought to be in Peru. After all he was the most famous of the Conquistadors. Religion was an after thought not the primary motive.

Atahuallpa asked for the Book, that he might look at it, and the Friar gave it to him closed. Atahuallpa did not know how to open the Book, and the Friar was extending his arm to do so, when Atahuallpa, in great anger, gave him a blow on the arm, not wishing that it should be opened. Then he opened it himself, and, without any astonishment at the letters and paper he threw it away from him five or six paces, his face a deep crimson.

The Friar returned to Pizarro, shouting, “Come out! Come out, Christians! Come at these enemy dogs who reject the things of God. That tyrant has thrown my book of holy law to the ground! Did you not see what happened? Why remain polite and servile toward this over-proud dog when the plains are full of Indians? March out against him, for I absolve you!”

The governor then gave the signal to Candia, who began to fire off the guns. At the same time the trumpets were sounded, and the armored Spanish troops, both cavalry and infantry, sallied forth out of their hiding places straight into the mass of unarmed Indians crowding the square, giving the Spanish battle cry, “Santiago!”

robindch

jank wrote: »

Shock. Man uses the 'blessings of god' as a pretext to gain material wealth, power and influence.

Uh, yes. That was the point I was making -- glad you agree with me now

jank

Banbh wrote: »

"When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land.
They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes.
When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land."
- Desmond Tutu

The missionaries didn't arrive into Africa in large numbers until well into the 19th centuries, ironically during the period of enlightenment. Many were there to stamp out slavery in Africa itself but lets muddy the waters too much eh?

The most famous of all colonists Cecil Rhodes was not religious at all for example, dare I say it he was more a secularist.

Faith in religion is dwindling, faith in race is taking its place - it is the only faith left. I believe in race, I believe in my people.'

dublinbhoy88

Akrasia wrote: »

Along the lines of religion poisons everything, the conflict in Syria would be a whole lot less messed up without the pernicious influence of religion.

Over 100,000 people have already died in this conflict and Assad's regime is clearly a destructive one and the people of Syria need a new government.

Wouldn't it be great if the anti Assad rebels were motivated by human rights and democracy rather than religion?

We have a roughly 90% Muslim and 10% Christian split with the Muslims broken down to about 75% Sunni and 25% Shia.

Saudi Arabia are propping up Shia forces against the Sunni majority, The Sunni forces are controlled by extremists like the Muslim Brotherhood who have shown how sectarian they are in Egypt and if they take power the first thing they will do is start oppressing the Shia and Christian Minorities

No matter who wins this round of the conflict, the religious factions will carry on the civil war for generations..

Feckin Religion..

Syrian 'rebels'?

jank

robindch wrote: »

Uh, yes. That was the point I was making -- glad you agree with me now

Um, what? I said that religion is secondary to the self interest of humans to conquer for their own selfish reasons and you agree with me. Good. Not sure why then post the "Eyewitness Disagrees" Preamble then. It should be Eyewitness AGREES!!

jank

seamus wrote: »

Remove religion from the equation, and people can be easily called to arms under some other equally vacuous and invented tribal banner, whether that be the notion of racial purity, or a Manchester United logo.

.

Agree. As I have said many a time, religion is a proxy of man. If its flawed then its because we 'humans' are flawed, just like wider society, economics and politics is so flawed. If people are to criticise and blame religion as the reason for not living in Utopia then they have to look deeper and see why man is so ****ed up sometimes. It's a much harder question to answer but what we should be doing rather than having a perpetual circle jerk about this holy book or that god.

Syria is a case in point here by the way.

Weathering

Religions don't kill people, people do. No Mainstream religion in the modern era promotes the killing of others. Crazy subsects etc do but they are just mental cult freaks

smacl

jank wrote: »

Shock. Man uses the 'blessings of god' as a pretext to gain material wealth, power and influence. Really nothing new there.

It doesn't really excuse it either though, does it? Man commits heinous crimes in the namer of the lord, the church turns a blind eye and even profits from the outcome, then the church is complicit. Organised religions have truly mastered the skill of disassociating themselves from the crimes committed by their members in the name of their organisation, while at the same time avoiding taking any negative disciplinary action against those involved. Churches wield significant power which they repeated fail to use for the greater good. Surely a religion such as Christianity that says 'thou shalt not kill' should be excommunicating any members using lethal weapons to kill others? As for Syria, one would expect senior clerics to let it be known that anyone involved in killing is more likely to end up in hell than the express queue to heaven.

The whole 'it wasn't really our fault' line is simply not good enough from those that declare themselves to be humanities moral guardians, if indeed that's what they are. I think the morally brave are significantly outnumbered by the self serving cowards, and have no more faith in modern churches than the deities they supposedly represent.

jank

Where am I excusing it? The point is instead of pointing the finger at a priest point the finger at the man. Otherwise its just another "boo religion" circle jerk.

smacl

jank wrote: »

Where am I excusing it? The point is instead of pointing the finger at a priest point the finger at the man.

I think you're missing my point, I'm not pointing the finger at anyone. If the man commits a crime in the name of the priest, it is the priest that should be pointing the finger at the man. If the priest profits from the result of the mans actions, even if he is not the sole benefactor, he is every bit as guilty as the man, whether he or she be soldier or ruler. If the priest, or the religious texts, are an incitement to violence or hatred, they are at fault and hence part of the problem that needs rectifying.

Suggesting that religion is not part of the problem because it is just a proxy for man is a cop out in much the same way as saying lethal weapons are not the problem it's the people that use them. While there may be some truth in the statement, you remove the weapons and the level of damage collapses. Similarly, if you remove religion as an excuse for violence, hatred and any other inhumane behaviour, you make that behaviour significantly less acceptable.

Otherwise its just another "boo religion" circle jerk.

And that progresses the dialog how exactly? Comes across as rather hateful. Why is that?

Hotblack Desiato

jank wrote: »

The point is instead of pointing the finger at a priest point the finger at the man.

That would be all very well if priests, bishops, imams and all the rest didn't set themselves up as self-appointed moral guardians on behalf of society. If they didn't constantly preach to their followers and everyone else about their supposed failings for not obeying a disputed interpretation of a disputed translation of a disputed transcription of a thousands-of-years-old book. If they didn't imagine that they should have the right to shape the legislation by which everyone in society must live, according to their own specific dogma. It suits them to pretend that their corruption and immorality are merely down to the failings of individuals in their organisations.

Geomy

I think I heard on the radio, the rebels captured a predominately Christian town.

I hope the population be it muslim or christian don't get the same treatment those christians got when they were captured a few months ago.

dublinbhoy88

Geomy wrote: »

I think I heard on the radio, the rebels captured a predominately Christian town.

I hope the population be it muslim or christian don't get the same treatment those christians got when they were captured a few months ago.

The town is called Maalouja,a Christian town were the people speak the language Jesus spoke in,it was sacked by the U.S.A.'s al qaeda ally the so called rebels,dread to think what happened to the locals

recedite

One thing about war is that it makes religion stronger. When all the fighting finally dies down, Syria and its people will be so messed up that a lot of them, probably a majority of them, will think only Allah can fix things, and they are quite likely to choose an Islamic government.
That is pretty much what happened in Egypt.

The whole thing could be sorted out very quickly by the UN going in with an overwhelming international force of peace enforcers, and seizing control for a year or two. That won't happen of course, because the UN Security Council never agrees within itself to anything. Who are they anyway? The winners of WW2? Not quite. The nuclear powers? Only some of them.
I'd pull Ireland out of the UN altogether until the Security Council is abolished. As long as it's there paralyzing all action, the US will see itself as Team America, world policeman.

Cork boy 55

The primary factor is a fifty year racist sectarian utterly corrupt military police state
which when confronted with peaceful protests conducted a primeval collective
utterly barbaric total war against the population in protests/revolt zones.

Another major factor is that the country is seriously overcrowded as a result of population boom combined with some severe long-term recent droughts possibly aggravated by climate change This was a resulted in
a large rural population in poverty and a large "slum" dwelling previously rural population Mainly in North and east. This "peasant" demographic is primary highly correlated with Sunni Arab and Sunni Kurd( the protest demographic)
So basically when you strip out the religiously and ethnic dimension
Its a good old fashioned peasant revolt against a corrupt Tyrant

The Sectarian and Islamist dimension which has increased rapidly in recent months
Is there of course and the history goes back centuries.
Its been driven by a number of factors
1: the religions divisions themselves and the long history
2: the sheer brutality and savagery the Loyalist forces displayed from DAY ONE
3: Lack of support from democracies
4: plenty of support form Islamist charities, Islamist donors, Gulf countries for rebs
5: Divide and conquer tactics and propaganda by the State and their allies
The Syrian people in the protest/revolt zones have fallen back on their religion and Islamism in the face of brutal democide. In a secular country the rebel movement would no doubt have become communist in the face of such brutalization or become radicalized in another fashion look at the some of the Kurdish Marxist secular militias in Syria and there red stars banners for example

IMO the conflict is driven by
a corrupt Fascist government
overpopulation combined by drought(climate change)
rich versus poor
Urban versus Rural
Ethnic differences
religious differences
Tribal and clan differences

dublinbhoy88

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

The primary factor is a fifty year racist sectarian utterly corrupt military police state
which when confronted with peaceful protests conducted a primeval collective
utterly barbaric total war against the population in protests/revolt zones.

Another major factor is that the country is seriously overcrowded as a result of population boom combined with some severe long-term recent droughts possibly aggravated by climate change This was a resulted in
a large rural population in poverty and a large "slum" dwelling previously rural population Mainly in North and east. This "peasant" demographic is primary highly correlated with Sunni Arab and Sunni Kurd( the protest demographic)
So basically when you strip out the religiously and ethnic dimension
Its a good old fashioned peasant revolt against a corrupt Tyrant

The Sectarian and Islamist dimension which has increased rapidly in recent months
Is there of course and the history goes back centuries.
Its been driven by a number of factors
1: the religions divisions themselves and the long history
2: the sheer brutality and savagery the Loyalist forces displayed from DAY ONE
3: Lack of support from democracies
4: plenty of support form Islamist charities, Islamist donors, Gulf countries for rebs
5: Divide and conquer tactics and propaganda by the State and their allies
The Syrian people in the protest/revolt zones have fallen back on their religion and Islamism in the face of brutal democide. In a secular country the rebel movement would no doubt have become communist in the face of such brutalization or become radicalized in another fashion look at the some of the Kurdish Marxist secular militias in Syria and there red stars banners for example

IMO the conflict is driven by
a corrupt Fascist government
overpopulation combined by drought(climate change)
rich versus poor
Urban versus Rural
Ethnic differences
religious differences
Tribal and clan differences

Not forgeting the U.S. Backed jihadist so called rebels