Religion Responsible for the Majority of the Worlds Problems

I promise you if the native Americans had been Christians the only difference in the out come is that we "may" have given them Christian burials. War is always about profit. It could be resources, land, or slaves but it will always be one of those three. Religion is just a nice way of packaging the greed of humanity.

 

Judging from the OP's premise, I'd say Ignorance is the cause of Majority of the World's Problems.

 

It is extremely naive to believe that without religion there would be no conflict. As long as there is a finite number of resources (water, food, energy...) there will always be conflict.

 

Let's extend the fast food comparison. Like fast food, Religions offer you processed spiritual food with lots of man made additives that may taste good but are not good for you in the long run. But it's convenient especially if you are overwhelmed with a stressful busy life. Just throw some cash in the plate, sit down, and consume. Some additives are intended to make you crave more. The product is often cheapened by the management to increase profits. Advertising is intended to get more people to try the product by showing a mouthwatering image that is rarely what the actual product looks like. Life long consumers of spiritual fast food are noted by their growing health problems. Some people reject spiritual fast food, preferring to take the extra time and effort to prepare their own natural food at home from wholesome natural products. But it takes effort.

 

+1..
I'd say ignorance, greed, & prejudice..

..and the op's (and a great number of posters here & everywhere!) apparent abundance of these qualities shows the world will continue as it always has..

 

What a cheap philosophy.

Men fight for any reason.

In 1969 Honduras and El Salvador went to war because a soccer game.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2007/feb/21/theknowledge.sport

The 'Football War' was fought by Central American countries El Salvador and Honduras in 1969. In fact, it also went by the name of the '100 Hours' War', and in reality there were a host of issues at the root of the troubles. Migration, trade and simmering land disputes on the border all conspired to spark social unrest between the two, but it wasn't until the best-of-three World Cup qualifiers in 1969 that the tipping point was reached.

The first game - a 1-0 win for Honduras - in Tegucigalpa witnessed disturbances but things deteriorated significantly come the second in San Salvador: visiting Honduran players, according to Ryszard Kapuściński's 1978 book Wojna Futbolowa, endured a sleepless night before the game, with rotten eggs, dead rats and stinking rags all tossed through the broken windows of their hotel; Honduran fans were brutalised at the game, and the country's flag and national anthem were also mocked. "Under such conditions the players from Tegucigalpa did not, understandably, have their minds on the game," admitted the Honduras coach Mario Griffin after his team lost 3-0. "They had their minds on getting out alive. We're awfully lucky that we lost."

Tension continued to increase before the decisive third match in Mexico, with the press stoking the frenzy. And on June 27 - the day of the play-off - Honduras broke off diplomatic relations with their neighbour. El Salvador eventually triumphed 3-2 after extra-time, booking their place in the 1970 World Cup (where they would lose all three of their group games without scoring). By July 14, El Salvador had invaded Honduras.

When the Organisation of American States negotiated a ceasefire on July 20, approximately 1,000 to 2,000 people had lost their lives and 100,000 more had become refugees. Troops from El Salvador were withdrawn in August, but it wasn't until 11 years later that a peace treaty between the nations was agreed. A civil war in El Salvador ensued between 1980 until 1992, when the International Court of Justice awarded much of the originally disputed territory to Honduras.

Your point is invalid.

 

Good analogy, but it should be pointed out that (like religions) both McDonalds and Burger King might result in your death, but (unlike religions) followers of these entities rarely kill each other.

 

Actually, given that a lot of political conflict and injustice stems from religious belief, "it's all down to religion" is not a totally invalid perspective.

 

Not sure that's the only example of a government that isn't based on theological values or trying to push an ideological agenda based on "scriptures" of some flavor... Straw man much?

 

I suggest you guys watch southpark series 10, episode 12 and 13 one day

"In the year 2546, the entire world is atheistic and dedicated to rationality and science. Atheism is divided into several denominations. These factions are at war with each other over who has the right answer to the Great Question. Cartman is told that their inspiring leader from the past, Richard Dawkins, showed them the way, but it was his "beautiful wife", Mrs. Garrison, who showed how one must be a dick to people they don't agree with. The UAL explains what happened to him and that his family and friends have been dead for over 500 years, but he does not care about it. However, Cartman is horrified to learn that no one in the future plays video games, including the Wii." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_God_Go

 

Nonsense. Not only do you overlook that the line between different religions is mostly also the line between different ethnic groups and social classes and that religious people can live happily side by side with people from other religions until other factors enter as for example in Palestine, you also overlook that religious conflict is mostly stirred out of political interest. It would be naive to assume that the 30 years war for example was ever about religion and not about political power politics.But if you want to view history through the lense of your very own religious prejudices, don't let me trouble you.

 

Yes, some conflicts are started out of political interest, but religion provides the justification for wars continuing and escalating.

For example, there are many factions in the middle east that are angry at the US primarily due to our support of Israel, even when Israel acts like a playground bully. This is a political issue which provides the spark, but religion provides the fuel for such a political issue to become a drawn-out conflict.

 

But isn't that making 'religions' a bit of a simplistic scapegoat for all the world's problems? Obviously, there are multiple factors in the dynamic of human aggression & competition. If it is all 'religions', then why do those with the same religion kill each other? Why do those with NO religion kill people? No, the premise of the OP is faulty, with no evidence from history, & no way to logically prove or even validate.

Religion is responsible for SOME of the world's problems, but the premise that, 'Differences in religious beliefs are responsible for the vast majority of the conflict that exists in the world today and throughout history', does not stand up to logical scrutiny, imo. I'm no fan of religion, but i am of logic.

 

Some Muslims do ?? There are many Muslim countries that had laws against converting from Islam to Christianity for goodness sakes.

 

Religion is not always a factor but often it is. There are countless numbers of conflicts, wars, genocide, hate and so on that happened over the centuries where religion was the primary factor.

 

The US and Israel act like playground bullies in such horrible ways that you don’t need any more fuel to keep the conflict going. But yes, when you deeply humiliate people they are more likely to seek self-worth and assurance in religion and oftentimes in aggressive forms of religion. That doesn’t make religion the cause of the problem, the politically motivated bullying is. On the other hand religion can also be part of the solution, for example with organizations such as this, to name just one of many: http://www.icpj.net/about/

 

I agree with you 100%. I have no use for any of them, and they've brought more damage and hate to this world and all in the name of God. It's a source for irrational behavior and a lot of misery. A true believer will fly a jet into a building. A skeptic would never do that.

 

You mean a religious skeptic like stalin? Or were you thinking of pol pot? Lenin? No misery there, & nothing but 'rational' behavior.

 

Yes surely religion is what makes men bad and violent... i remember it was the opposite though, and were violent men using religion as a casus belli. Be rational, if it wasn't religion, they could have used a ton of other ways to justify their wars. This topic is nonsense.

 

Religion causes people to divide themselves from each other, and always has done. Take Northern Ireland for example, where trouble is brewing up again, where protestants are perceived by catholics to be the descendants of foreign settlers. Supposing they were all either protestants or catholics, or of no religion; how would they tell the difference from each other?

Then there is the belief in supernatural evil forces, which people who believe in them associate with other people. People who perceive themselves as representing the forces of good, are more likely to be violent towards those who they believe represent the forces of evil, than they would be if they lacked any such belief.

Would suicide bombers be so quick to kill themselves if they didn't think they would receive a divine reward for doing so?

Would Jewish settlers be so quick to force Palestinians from their land if they didn't believe their God had given it to them?

It's debatable as to whether religion is responsible for the majority of the world's problems, but it's nonsense to claim that it doesn't cause violence.

 

Nope. I don't mean that at all. Their atheism had nothing to do with the atrocity's they committed. They weren't killing in the name of atheism. Big difference. They didn't appeal to atheism as a justification for killing people. It's not an ideology.

 

But if they had, it would be a result of investing the same dogmatic belief in whatever cause that justified their brutality. If it wasn't their commitment to a religion then was commitment to another cause or ideology that replaced the religion, whether it was communism, Nazism, fascism, or whatever required blind allegiance to an ideology.

 

So basically you say that every kind of ideology makes a good casus belli. You compare Christianism, Islamism to Nazism, Communism and Fascism as they were no more than an excuse to wage war, expand economy at the expense of others.

This happens because over time religions were manipulated so to match with expansionism and economical advantages, distorting the original teachings. And this is the proof that it is nonsense to attack religions as something that leads to war and makes people divide, since everything can be used as a justification for war, no matter if it's religion, communism or fascism, violent men will always find a way to wage war, even a kid can undestand this.

To make an example, Americans wage prehemptive wars, justifying them with the need to " preserve peace in the world " and so bombs are falling down over foreign countries, marines are sent to fight and kill, and they make sure people are divided so to better control them.

" Divide et impera " is not something recent, it was the motto of the mighty roman empire to mantain their power. You can divide them using religions, or whatever else you want, people will always be easy prey to ideologic manipulation. So it comes plain easy, that attacking religions is silly, it makes much more sense to attack the greed of men and the violent nature of some leaders.

Nor Christianism, neither Islamism were meant to conquer lands or kill people, i really don't think Jesus Christ, nor Muhammad were happy to see people killing each other in the name of their teachings... actually, they would be really ashamed to see what use people are making of their once good and peaceful faith.

 

Divide et impera refers to dividing large powerful states into smaller less powerful states, not dividing people by religion. On the contrary, the ''mighty Roman Empire'' established Christianity as it's sole state religion, and banned all other religions, for the most part.

So who do you think is manipulating all these protestants and catholics in Northern Ireland? The Pope and the Queen? The British government?

Leaders of protestant and catholic terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland are generally charismatic people, who become leaders because of the support of like-minded people. But just like in the middle east, the people in Northern Ireland were already divided by religion, before these organisations and their leaders existed.

You're putting the cart before the horse.

Sectarian violence is often a big part of power struggles. But the rulers of any country or empire want the people they rule over to be unified with them as much as possible. Not divided.

 

I doubt that Jesus had anything in mind that is represented in his name. Mohammed had a number of issues that seem to justify jihad in the minds of the fundamentalists.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that Christianity should be compared to Nazism or the others, in what it was intended. I'm sure that even the monsters of the past, began with what they thought were pure intentions. However the same committed "belief" and dogmatic adherence is common to all ideology. You can even see it in the Tea Party right here today. None of them, including any of the revealed religions have any basis to support their claims. Ideologies are like that. They all have that same fatal flaw.