For the better part of my life, I thought that wars, the vast majority that is, were caused by religion. Much of this opinionated clap-trap was undoubtedly due to my then dislike of organised religion. I still to this day see little point in organised anything especially religion but no longer have any angst with religious people or those of faith. I truly thought war was largely the fault of religion. How wrong was I?
Thanks to the informative book, “Encyclopedia of Wars” by authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod, we now have presented to us all the wars in the last 2,000 years, 1,763 of them in total, with only 123 being caused by religion. This fact can also be found with a little research of history books or via the internet. 1,763 wars with only 123 attributable to religion.Still, the myth persists that religion causes conflict.
Many of these so-called religions aren't religions at all but due to the sudden desire of those seeking to apportion blame where little blame can be apportioned, it makes a better argument, bogus to the point of being absurd, to have as many philosophies lumped in with religions the better to make the point.
How many wars has Buddhism, a philosophy, a science and a psychiatry, actually waged? Although Buddhism is not, as many people think, wholly pacifist, there are few wars in which Buddhism has fought as a 'faith.' This does not mean there have been no acts of violence as there has but this is debatable as to whether the violent acts where the actions of true Buddhist's or those claiming to be Buddhist. And of course, there are the Shaolin Monks whose mastery of Kung Fu has been used in self-defence which may be said to be an act of violence. For myself, I would suggest that the act of self-defence is as natural as breathing and is, therefore, a part of our animal nature. To defend oneself or one's children or loved ones from an attack is legitimate. Suicide isn't. Causing self-harm, even in protest, is wrong. Buddhists, so called, have been involved in wars. I find this very sad, sad beyond belief.
Jainism is said to be the gentlest, most peaceful of 'religions, although it too could be argued as not being a religion at all. Jain Dharma is co-joined with Sanatana or Hindu Dharma and Buddism. Even though Jains, unlike Buddhist's, have not engaged in wars they do believe in self-defence.
I am unclear if Taoism has ever been involved in wars but strongly suggest they never have. It really goes against their collective grain. However, Lao Tzu, the father figure of Taoism repeatedly said not to create a religion from his teachings. "The Tao that can be expressed is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be defined is not the unchanging name." As a philosophy, it works well and is highly regarded by Libertarians. Not the American, neo-libertarians but the original anarchists.
I could continue in a similar vein listing all religions and philosophies who have not been involved in wars but won't. For one reason it would only highlight those faiths who have been drawn into a war. I would humbly suggest that no true person or persons of faith have ever entered into war but rather have had their faiths name used as an excuse by the leaders of their respective churches. You do not need Priests, Popes, Bishops, Mullahs, Gurus or Llamas. By having leaders you run the risk of having another dictate matters. This is when crusades get started.
Of the 123 wars caused by religion, that is 7% of the total figure, 4% of those wars can be blamed on Muslim's. This too is an uncomfortable truth. I find a lot of the blame game pointless. There are those who repeatedly point the finger of blame regarding violent acts on Islam. This is not the truth yet all the same that 4% when the total figure is 123 then the wars caused by Muslims is 188.
Personally, I think the Dalai Lama has it right when he stated that there is no Buddhist, Christian or Islamic terrorist. A terrorist is a merely that - a terrorist. The same can be said of anyone who claims to be of a certain faith yet wages war, not in defence of themselves nor the homeland they live in but for the exercise of power over those they see, not the god they claim to follow, as being wrong. There are many paths to God. All paths are right.
In his book, "The End of Faith," Sam Harris suggests that faith, all faiths need to go the way of the dinosaur. I have no faith. I am of no particular group. Yet, the very idea that religions are going to accede to this simplistic view is juvenile. It is not the religion, it is not the faith that is at fault. It is the few who pervert others faith the better to suit their own ends. Religion has throughout its existence been the tool of those whose sole purpose has been to corrupt then control the faithful. The Roman Empire is a perfect example.
Even Christopher Hitchens, a man sadly missed and who I am enamoured with, certainly his razor-sharp intellect, got it wrong when he published his book, "God Is Not Great." First, you'd need to define God. Not the word which is man-made, not the deity which is the personification of a thing man can not easily describe let alone understand. Surely, Thich Nhat Hanh's beautiful description best describes God. God is everything. God is all around us. God is within and without us. What Christopher Hitchens takes an axe to is merely the Abrahamic view of God, of a deity.
Even Richard Dawkins book, "The God Delusion," in its attack on the Old Testament, only succeeds in destroying the myths and fables found with a book riddled with symbolism. It does not, cannot even scratch the surface of what man has selected to designate as God for the actuality is beyond attack.
All these estimable gentlemen can do is disprove the magical, supernatural nature of the faiths and religions that worship a deity. They can show how many of these faiths practises are questionable in light of a world, its people, whose morals are far older than those religions and who see religious morals, as presented in Holy Books, as immoral. There is nothing supernatural about God. God is us and we are God.
Religious wars have become an excuse for latecomers, born-again Humanists, who have turned against a thing they want to see as bad because some of its texts are vaguely silly. They need to rationalise their own brand of anti-religion, which in itself is a religion, the better to berate a thing they dislike. Therefore they blame ALL wars, or at least the great many of them, on religion. This is false. This enables those in power, the George W Bush's, the Donald Trump's, the Tony Blair's, to take up arms, to wage war against those they fear for political ends. Religion is not the cause of all wars. Man is.
Of the 123 wars caused by religion, that is 7% of the total figure, 4% of those wars can be blamed on Muslim's. This too is an uncomfortable truth. I find a lot of the blame game pointless. There are those who repeatedly point the finger of blame regarding violent acts on Islam. This is not the truth yet all the same that 4% when the total figure is 123 then the wars caused by Muslims is 188.
Personally, I think the Dalai Lama has it right when he stated that there is no Buddhist, Christian or Islamic terrorist. A terrorist is a merely that - a terrorist. The same can be said of anyone who claims to be of a certain faith yet wages war, not in defence of themselves nor the homeland they live in but for the exercise of power over those they see, not the god they claim to follow, as being wrong. There are many paths to God. All paths are right.
In his book, "The End of Faith," Sam Harris suggests that faith, all faiths need to go the way of the dinosaur. I have no faith. I am of no particular group. Yet, the very idea that religions are going to accede to this simplistic view is juvenile. It is not the religion, it is not the faith that is at fault. It is the few who pervert others faith the better to suit their own ends. Religion has throughout its existence been the tool of those whose sole purpose has been to corrupt then control the faithful. The Roman Empire is a perfect example.
Even Christopher Hitchens, a man sadly missed and who I am enamoured with, certainly his razor-sharp intellect, got it wrong when he published his book, "God Is Not Great." First, you'd need to define God. Not the word which is man-made, not the deity which is the personification of a thing man can not easily describe let alone understand. Surely, Thich Nhat Hanh's beautiful description best describes God. God is everything. God is all around us. God is within and without us. What Christopher Hitchens takes an axe to is merely the Abrahamic view of God, of a deity.
Even Richard Dawkins book, "The God Delusion," in its attack on the Old Testament, only succeeds in destroying the myths and fables found with a book riddled with symbolism. It does not, cannot even scratch the surface of what man has selected to designate as God for the actuality is beyond attack.
All these estimable gentlemen can do is disprove the magical, supernatural nature of the faiths and religions that worship a deity. They can show how many of these faiths practises are questionable in light of a world, its people, whose morals are far older than those religions and who see religious morals, as presented in Holy Books, as immoral. There is nothing supernatural about God. God is us and we are God.
Religious wars have become an excuse for latecomers, born-again Humanists, who have turned against a thing they want to see as bad because some of its texts are vaguely silly. They need to rationalise their own brand of anti-religion, which in itself is a religion, the better to berate a thing they dislike. Therefore they blame ALL wars, or at least the great many of them, on religion. This is false. This enables those in power, the George W Bush's, the Donald Trump's, the Tony Blair's, to take up arms, to wage war against those they fear for political ends. Religion is not the cause of all wars. Man is.