Comments on: Is Religion the Cause of War? http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2007/02/05/is-religion-the-cause-of-war/ Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:27:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU hourly 1 By: Malcolm http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2007/02/05/is-religion-the-cause-of-war/#comment-2331 Malcolm Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:16:46 +0000 http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2007/02/05/is-religion-the-cause-of-war/#comment-2331 Hi, how are you? To be honest i didn't read the whole article...but i would like to comment on your headline "Is Religion the Cause of War?". I don't believe that 'religion' in it's self is the cause of war, it's the number of people that follow it, organised ignorance if you will....a large amount of people following one ideal....thats what really causes wars. but thats my opinion Hi,
how are you?

To be honest i didn’t read the whole article…but i would like to comment on your headline “Is Religion the Cause of War?”.

I don’t believe that ‘religion’ in it’s self is the cause of war,

it’s the number of people that follow it, organised ignorance if you will….a large amount of people following one ideal….thats what really causes wars.

but thats my opinion

]]> By: Paul Johnston http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2007/02/05/is-religion-the-cause-of-war/#comment-1653 Paul Johnston Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:17:47 +0000 http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2007/02/05/is-religion-the-cause-of-war/#comment-1653 With regard to human contention, are violent considerations inevitable, irrespective of the cause? With regard to human contention, are violent considerations inevitable, irrespective of the cause?

]]> By: Gil http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2007/02/05/is-religion-the-cause-of-war/#comment-1652 Gil Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:44:24 +0000 http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2007/02/05/is-religion-the-cause-of-war/#comment-1652 Well said. I especially appreciate the idea that learning to love one another might trump the pursuit of truth in certain seasons. Thanks for the needed reminder. Well said. I especially appreciate the idea that learning to love one another might trump the pursuit of truth in certain seasons. Thanks for the needed reminder.

]]> By: Kristin http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2007/02/05/is-religion-the-cause-of-war/#comment-1651 Kristin Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:34:45 +0000 http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2007/02/05/is-religion-the-cause-of-war/#comment-1651 Yes, you're so right. This is such a dilemma. To explore the "failure of nerve side" more, though, I think there are some situations where pragmatism is actually a form of love and respect. I know I have walked through a season with my family of all of us choosing to avoid talking about spiritual things very much. We’ve done this for the sake of us all learning how to find common ground in other ways, and also to give all of us the time we’ve needed to grow mature enough (read: less punchy) to actually engage each other around this difficult (for us) subject. This has felt like the best way to love each other, given that we’ve had enough experience with alternatives to know how wounding and alienating they can be.<br/><br/>So I wonder whether Ecclesiastes is spot-on with this one: there is a time for everything. In this case, a time to face into differences courageously, like you say, and also a time to let the differences be quiet long enough to hear each other’s love and respect come through. Maybe this doesn't have to come with the assumption that "we're all basically talking about the same thing" either, but rather an awareness that we're really NOT, and are simply doing our best to find common ground anyway. When put this way, there is a kind of honor in staying quiet about our deep convictions. Sounds strange to say it, but I think it may be true. Yes, you’re so right. This is such a dilemma. To explore the “failure of nerve side” more, though, I think there are some situations where pragmatism is actually a form of love and respect. I know I have walked through a season with my family of all of us choosing to avoid talking about spiritual things very much. We’ve done this for the sake of us all learning how to find common ground in other ways, and also to give all of us the time we’ve needed to grow mature enough (read: less punchy) to actually engage each other around this difficult (for us) subject. This has felt like the best way to love each other, given that we’ve had enough experience with alternatives to know how wounding and alienating they can be.

So I wonder whether Ecclesiastes is spot-on with this one: there is a time for everything. In this case, a time to face into differences courageously, like you say, and also a time to let the differences be quiet long enough to hear each other’s love and respect come through. Maybe this doesn’t have to come with the assumption that “we’re all basically talking about the same thing” either, but rather an awareness that we’re really NOT, and are simply doing our best to find common ground anyway. When put this way, there is a kind of honor in staying quiet about our deep convictions. Sounds strange to say it, but I think it may be true.

]]> By: Gil http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2007/02/05/is-religion-the-cause-of-war/#comment-1650 Gil Tue, 13 Feb 2007 05:28:36 +0000 http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2007/02/05/is-religion-the-cause-of-war/#comment-1650 I think you're probably right Kristin, sitting down and dealing honestly with our vision of God the world etc. will likely not produce some kind of previously unrecognized inner harmony. It may in fact reveal how real and deep the divide actually is. And you're right, the uncomfortable conclusion we may arrive at is that some beliefs actually DO lead to violence, or at least more violence than others. <br/><br/>The alternative seems equally dangerous to me. That we unite under the banner of some kind of pragmatic, pseudo-pluralism (we're all basically talking about the same thing) while leaving our most basic conceptions of human purpose and identity on the shelf. To me this seems like a failure of nerve, an unwillingness to talk about the things that matter the most. I think you’re probably right Kristin, sitting down and dealing honestly with our vision of God the world etc. will likely not produce some kind of previously unrecognized inner harmony. It may in fact reveal how real and deep the divide actually is. And you’re right, the uncomfortable conclusion we may arrive at is that some beliefs actually DO lead to violence, or at least more violence than others.

The alternative seems equally dangerous to me. That we unite under the banner of some kind of pragmatic, pseudo-pluralism (we’re all basically talking about the same thing) while leaving our most basic conceptions of human purpose and identity on the shelf. To me this seems like a failure of nerve, an unwillingness to talk about the things that matter the most.

]]> By: Kristin http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2007/02/05/is-religion-the-cause-of-war/#comment-1649 Kristin Sat, 10 Feb 2007 05:32:48 +0000 http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2007/02/05/is-religion-the-cause-of-war/#comment-1649 I'm drawn to the last paragraph of your post. I wonder whether the need to live peacably together, as people of diverse faiths and visions of who God is, who we are, etc, is actually, ironically, the very reason why we can't talk comfortably together about our visions (in a sense, why on a deeper level, we stay divided); if we do, we might be shown how different we actually are, and face an impasse when it comes to navigating, as a collective, questions of "how then shall we live". It's much easier to just avoid talking rationally about specifics, while keeping our sense that the "other" is wrong and misguided nebulous, and to ourselves. If we DON'T avoid specifics, the risk is discovering that certain beliefs really do lead to more violence than others. How can I live peaceably with my neighbors if I know clearly that they condone and contribute to violence? How can I live with myself? It's so much easier not to know and not to be challenged, in cases where we discover our own violence, to change. I’m drawn to the last paragraph of your post. I wonder whether the need to live peacably together, as people of diverse faiths and visions of who God is, who we are, etc, is actually, ironically, the very reason why we can’t talk comfortably together about our visions (in a sense, why on a deeper level, we stay divided); if we do, we might be shown how different we actually are, and face an impasse when it comes to navigating, as a collective, questions of “how then shall we live”. It’s much easier to just avoid talking rationally about specifics, while keeping our sense that the “other” is wrong and misguided nebulous, and to ourselves. If we DON’T avoid specifics, the risk is discovering that certain beliefs really do lead to more violence than others. How can I live peaceably with my neighbors if I know clearly that they condone and contribute to violence? How can I live with myself? It’s so much easier not to know and not to be challenged, in cases where we discover our own violence, to change.

]]> By: ryan http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2007/02/05/is-religion-the-cause-of-war/#comment-1031 ryan Wed, 07 Feb 2007 20:48:00 +0000 http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2007/02/05/is-religion-the-cause-of-war/#comment-1031 I think that the reason Pearce brings this up is because often religion is seen as the EXCLUSIVE cause of a given conflict when in fact this is clearly not the case. We've just been reading about the Thirty Years' War - a war which is often presented simply as a 'religious war' - in a history class here. Religion certainly played a prominent role, but the social, economic, and political dimensions are often ignored. If it was just a 'religious war' how do we account for some Protestant rulers siding with Catholics against other Protestants at one point of the war, then going back to exclusive antagonism toward Catholics, then uniting with Protestants AND Catholics against the emperor... It all gets very messy, and resists easy categorization. I'm just using this example to point out what I think Pearce is getting at. I think that the reason Pearce brings this up is because often religion is seen as the EXCLUSIVE cause of a given conflict when in fact this is clearly not the case. We’ve just been reading about the Thirty Years’ War - a war which is often presented simply as a ‘religious war’ - in a history class here. Religion certainly played a prominent role, but the social, economic, and political dimensions are often ignored. If it was just a ‘religious war’ how do we account for some Protestant rulers siding with Catholics against other Protestants at one point of the war, then going back to exclusive antagonism toward Catholics, then uniting with Protestants AND Catholics against the emperor… It all gets very messy, and resists easy categorization. I’m just using this example to point out what I think Pearce is getting at.

]]> By: Incoming... http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2007/02/05/is-religion-the-cause-of-war/#comment-1030 Incoming... Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:29:10 +0000 http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2007/02/05/is-religion-the-cause-of-war/#comment-1030 That's why argument #3 is weak for me. It sounds like we are saying we don't have to hold religious values responsible becuase they are enmeshed with cultural realities. In my mind becuase the two are so inseperable religioun has to 'own' its responsibility in violent behavior.<br />As for the issue founding narratives what do we understand about the nature of God's activity as recorded in the Old Testament for instance? Is coercion a recognizable in those narratives? That’s why argument #3 is weak for me. It sounds like we are saying we don’t have to hold religious values responsible becuase they are enmeshed with cultural realities. In my mind becuase the two are so inseperable religioun has to ‘own’ its responsibility in violent behavior.
As for the issue founding narratives what do we understand about the nature of God’s activity as recorded in the Old Testament for instance? Is coercion a recognizable in those narratives?

]]> By: Gil http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2007/02/05/is-religion-the-cause-of-war/#comment-1029 Gil Tue, 06 Feb 2007 14:42:52 +0000 http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2007/02/05/is-religion-the-cause-of-war/#comment-1029 Dale,<br />The history of the Christian church is littered with examples that would disprove the quote about Christianity providing a non-coercive worldview. Christians are regularly chastised for the coercive 'sins of the fathers' as if we would have made all of those disastrous choices if we were given the opportunity. I'm not trying to justify any of those. They were horrible misunderstandings of what, in my opinion, is at the heart of the Christian message: a God that offers himself on behalf of the world so that it and its citizens might be restored to their original goodness.<br /><br />The fact that some Christians have failed to understand the implications of this message doesn't change the nature of it. I have a suspicion that there are many more Christians who DO understand the implications of this message but their stories don't make it into the history books.<br /><br />Regarding point #3 I think that you're making the same point that Pearse makes in different words. Yes, cultural and religious values are nearly impossible to separate. That's why it's overly simplistic to point toward 'religion' as the cause of conflict. Dale,
The history of the Christian church is littered with examples that would disprove the quote about Christianity providing a non-coercive worldview. Christians are regularly chastised for the coercive ’sins of the fathers’ as if we would have made all of those disastrous choices if we were given the opportunity. I’m not trying to justify any of those. They were horrible misunderstandings of what, in my opinion, is at the heart of the Christian message: a God that offers himself on behalf of the world so that it and its citizens might be restored to their original goodness.

The fact that some Christians have failed to understand the implications of this message doesn’t change the nature of it. I have a suspicion that there are many more Christians who DO understand the implications of this message but their stories don’t make it into the history books.

Regarding point #3 I think that you’re making the same point that Pearse makes in different words. Yes, cultural and religious values are nearly impossible to separate. That’s why it’s overly simplistic to point toward ‘religion’ as the cause of conflict.

]]> By: Incoming... http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2007/02/05/is-religion-the-cause-of-war/#comment-1028 Incoming... Tue, 06 Feb 2007 05:56:06 +0000 http://hepburnmusings.wordpress.com/2007/02/05/is-religion-the-cause-of-war/#comment-1028 Gil, I think I can see his overall point here but frankly I am unconvinced by his arguments.<br />“Christianity, understood in terms of its own founding narratives, provides a 'non-coercive' worldview that will neither impose itself on others nor fight for itself.” Is this really accurate? What do we include in the ‘founding narratives’? It is hard for me to say that the picture of God’s activity in establishing the heritage of faith that has been passed down to us is complete or in any way mostly non-coercive. I just don’t think it is the strongest argument for this question. I think it is legitimate to say that generally speaking Christianity advocates peace and non-violence in its teaching. <br />#3 bothers me a little. It feels as though he is trying to force a false dichotomy between religious and cultural values. It is hard for me to see how we can compartmentalize these dynamics so distinctly. I am clear that the two are not synonymous but cultural and religious values are at times so intertwined there is no clear functional distinction. George Bush’s belief that he is acting on God’s behalf hold very little credibility yet for whatever credibility his claim does solicit there are religious and cultural dynamics that support it in the minds of some individuals. Even if we say that Bush’s statements are delusional or coercive propaganda, we must still recognize that they have found legitimacy in the minds of some individuals. And that legitimacy is conceived and reinforced because of a cultural and religious climate that was ripe for this type of claim.<br />I suppose that there is some perceived challenge here regarding pluralism. If it can be proven that all religious beliefs lead to violence pluralistic secularism could some out smelling like roses by positioning itself as a non religion – which it logically cannot be. <br />I agree with overall positions – just not sure about the road Pierce has taken to get there. Is there more light you can shed on his ideas or my ignorance? Gil, I think I can see his overall point here but frankly I am unconvinced by his arguments.
“Christianity, understood in terms of its own founding narratives, provides a ‘non-coercive’ worldview that will neither impose itself on others nor fight for itself.” Is this really accurate? What do we include in the ‘founding narratives’? It is hard for me to say that the picture of God’s activity in establishing the heritage of faith that has been passed down to us is complete or in any way mostly non-coercive. I just don’t think it is the strongest argument for this question. I think it is legitimate to say that generally speaking Christianity advocates peace and non-violence in its teaching.
#3 bothers me a little. It feels as though he is trying to force a false dichotomy between religious and cultural values. It is hard for me to see how we can compartmentalize these dynamics so distinctly. I am clear that the two are not synonymous but cultural and religious values are at times so intertwined there is no clear functional distinction. George Bush’s belief that he is acting on God’s behalf hold very little credibility yet for whatever credibility his claim does solicit there are religious and cultural dynamics that support it in the minds of some individuals. Even if we say that Bush’s statements are delusional or coercive propaganda, we must still recognize that they have found legitimacy in the minds of some individuals. And that legitimacy is conceived and reinforced because of a cultural and religious climate that was ripe for this type of claim.
I suppose that there is some perceived challenge here regarding pluralism. If it can be proven that all religious beliefs lead to violence pluralistic secularism could some out smelling like roses by positioning itself as a non religion – which it logically cannot be.
I agree with overall positions – just not sure about the road Pierce has taken to get there. Is there more light you can shed on his ideas or my ignorance?

]]>