As I've mentioned over the last few years, religion is not the sole source or root of war. It's usually the scapegoat.
Too often we hear the statement, "religion is the root of all wars" or replace wars with "evil."
Many times, the people who assert this are fond of citing the Crusades. While Popes and other men of spirituality no doubt partook, the root of the Crusades (Wind Rose Hotel discusses here) was not in religion. It was a mix of convoluted and complex issues and events that led to it. The Middle Ages, while dark to some, was far more revolutionary than we think. It was, the West in its puberty stage if you will.
Apparently, only religion (and to leftists, Christianity in particular) can cause war. But I wonder about pre-religious times. Ancient society was by no means religious but yet war existed. More proof that war is a natural condition of man? Fear, greed, economics, security all play a role in the dimension of war's dementia.
In the 20th century, the Great Wars were not religious but imperialist in orientation.
Atheists should also sit down. The greatest crimes against humanity came by the hands of communists and socialists - who often claimed to be atheists.
Terrorist groups are madmen cloaking as men of God. In reality, they're murderous bandits seeking to consolidate power and gain access to cold hard cash. They're cold, callous and calculating, unelected politicians without borders.
So let us tone down the anti-religion rhetoric.
After all, it was Christendom that allowed the proper conditions for the West to explode into the age of the Renaissance, Exploration, Reformation, Scientific and Industrial Revolutions and the Enlightenment. Each having a massive and incalculable impact on world history.
Note: I write these periods knowing and acknowledging debates exist for each. Was there a scientific revolution? Did the Renaissance ever end? Blah, blah, bling.
Well, they do say that the main divorce cause is mariage. And I agree that greedy politics hidden behind religion is the cause of war.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I don't think it's always just greedy politics.
ReplyDeleteI'll soon comment here. It is a stimulating topic, though complex. I have to think about it. Let me finish my new post first.
ReplyDeleteLefty, you're speaking of truisms here. What/when were the "pre-religious times"? Some leftists consider religion to be just carefully structured superstition. And superstition has always been with us, right?
ReplyDeleteWell, by pre-religious I mean pagan therefore Ancient culture.
ReplyDeleteAs for, superstition, yes, it's always been a part of our condition. But it doesn't mean our spiritual heritage through religion is necessarily bad.
Like I point out, Christendom was the foundation for our progress and responsible for, ironically, our secularism.
My post has been too long to write, so I’ll just react to your words randomly.
ReplyDeleteThe Middle Ages, while dark to some, was far more revolutionary than we think. It was, the West in its puberty stage if you will.
Well, it is recognized by the majority of historians that at least *a part* of the West has been shaped before the Middle Ages, by the Greco-Romans when they were still Pagan.
I do also believe that Christendom is responsible for a lot of progress, in ethics, in society etc. I am agnostic, but not atheist. There is a difference.
Although yes, sometimes I am anticlerical. My wife – who is agnostic as much as I do – reproaches me for that. Well, if you had lived, as much as I did, all your life with the Pope living 3-4 km from your home, I think you’d be like me. You like liberty. Well, the Catholic Church interferes too much into Italian political life in my view.
Being agnostic I don't condemn any religion but only fanaticism. In Christianity there are balanced people and fanatics, like everywhere. Also most communists were/are fanatics.
In this respect one can say behind many wars there can be greed of power and wealth *but also* fanaticism. Wars of religion in Europe (after Reformation, for example) were motivated by greed, conquest, power etc. but also by fanaticism.
My grandma’s brother’s father was noble though very poor. He was a Roman count, he was very religious and he was working as ‘noble guard’ (guardia nobile) at the Vatican (the job offered by the Church to poor nobles). He lived with the pope almost every day and the pope loved him (and helped him financially to feed his huge family) because he was a witty man.
ReplyDeleteWhen Piedmont unified Italy and conquered Rome to make it the capital of Italy, this man, this pious Roman who loved the pope said in Roman dialect:
"Hanno finito da comanda’ sti pretacci!".
His son, my grandma’s brother, has written a private book of memoirs. I might decide to publish some pages in my blog, as a testimony of Roman life between the 800-900.
I think much confusion arises if we think about history in terms of left and right. History and civilizations cannot be judged in terms of immediate politics. I liked Rob’s post on crusades. I liked less that fact that the post was inserted in the context of today’s petty Italian political (and ideological) battle, where the Church is a centre of faith, yes, but also of political power trying to influence the laws of a free state.
ReplyDeleteMight it also be because of Muslim fanatics' influence (many moderate Muslims though exist) that here in Italy we risk bits of theocracy?
Hanno finito da comanda? sti pretacci
ReplyDeleteMy Roman dialect is rusty. I get the first part, the second?
It would be fabulous to read those pages.
Your comments about agnosticism reminds me of a film I recently saw called 'Religulous.' A somewhat simplistic film about a heavy subject: faith and religion.
I have a review written; just have to refine it and then decide if I want to post it.
Roman dialect: "Hanno finito da comanda' sti pretacci"
ReplyDeleteItalian: "Hanno finito di comandare questi pretacci"
English: "They have finished their rule, these bad priests"
-accio is pejorative. Bambinaccio is a bad bambino or child. Although in the Roman dialect it can be used with some affection, it is still pejorative. Malgrado tutto, he was tired of the priests' rule.