http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/25/-sp-karen-armstrong-religious-violence-myth-secular

A long, densely argued article which well repays the effort!

Briefly, it suggests that the idea of individual personalised religion dates from Luther, and that many so-called religious wars were nothing of the sort.

Interesting article, thanks IB.

I can't help thinking of New Zealand, a proudly secular state that makes a point of separating religion and state, where atheism is on the rise and where when fundamentalists try to rebel (Christian political parties in particular) are virtually laughed out of existence.

Secularism works when the majority are not religious, and where tolerance is sacred. You see, having tolerance as sacred means that the intolerance of fundamentalism is, ironically, not tolerated, while minorities (religious, cultural, whatever) live in harmony...as long as they don't try to impose their way on the majority.

The article makes the argument that most wars were not actually religious wars. I think the author made her point, however she did not recognise that had there been no religions in the world, many of those wars (and certainly the current ISIS crisis) would not have occurred. She makes the point that much of the Islamic slaughter has come about in reaction to over-zealous secularism...again, had there been no religions in the world, there would be no reaction to secularism.

Abolish religions, abolish war.

For a time. Until over-population causes war.

In a way, religious or quasi-religious wars are simply a way of forestalling other wars. Wars for territory and resources.

The article also makes the point that in the Western world before the Reformation, your religion and your nationality were linked, just as in the modern world, Islam and nationality are linked. In many Islamic countries, your nationality defines your religion (the minorities are usually small enough to be disregarded). Where Islam and Christianity met, religion may have been the rallying cry, but territorial ambitions were the rationale (e.g. the Crusades). I'm not sure that IS doesn't meet the same criterion.

I posted the link because it is so common nowadays to say that religion is the cause of most wars; this is simplistic, and generally not even true.

I suppose we have the religion-nationality link with Jew-Israel.

It does seem to cause problems when a citizen finds it hard to distance himself from nationalism if he finds it distasteful, but the rest of the world still sees him as a national of that country by dint of his religion, and the rest of his countrymen call him "self-hating". It puts a lot of pressure on each man to maintain a nationalistic stance.

There is a friction line between Islamic countries and Western post-Christian countries, but it's as much cultural as religious.

The Israelis get caught both ways here. They're a Semitic people like the Islamic Arabs, but their culture is nearer the West.

The article also makes the point that in the Western world before the Reformation, your religion and your nationality were linked, just as in the modern world, Islam and nationality are linked. In many Islamic countries, your nationality defines your religion (the minorities are usually small enough to be disregarded). Where Islam and Christianity met, religion may have been the rallying cry, but territorial ambitions were the rationale (e.g. the Crusades). I'm not sure that IS doesn't meet the same criterion.

I posted the link because it is so common nowadays to say that religion is the cause of most wars; this is simplistic, and generally not even true.

I would have thought that the Crusades were the one conflict were territory as such was not the primary object.

Yes, one of the objectives was to occupy the Holy Land, but that was done in order to deny it to the Muslims (and Jews) rather than to attach it to the dominions of any of the sponsors of the Crusades. The main aim of the Crusades was surely to free the fount of Christendom (as was then believed) from occupation by the infidel.

Later Christian conquests, such as that of the Americas, were made in the name of religion, but were merely for pecuniary gain, either gold or territory - or both.

Debatable, I think, HB. Many of the people who went on the Crusades were mainly interested in carving out fiefdoms for themselves.

Only a passing mention of the Roman empire which is not surprising because it would seriously undermine the conclusions. The frame of reference (timeframe) is way too short to draw any meaningful conclusions I think. Imagine trying to paint a picture of the impact of agriculture or the effect of the discovery of the wheel but only using the last 2000 years as data.

The article on reading came across as rather a mish mash so I was glad to see that it came from a book on the subject. One can only hope that it was not a direct passage but rather poor editing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kc4u9l7Mj9s

These people have no concept of truth nor any concept of honesty so you bloody well get used to it but don't do it in my name because I'm having none of it. If you wish to capitulate to abject stupidity then you are both my enemy and an enemy to the civilized world.