. Jonathan Z. Smith writes: Religion is solely the creation of the scholars study . At this point, the religion-and-violence theorist might try to salvage the argument by saying something like this: Surely secular ideologies such as nationalism can get out of hand, but religion has a much greater tendency toward fanaticism because the object of its truth claims is absolute in ways that secular claims are not. But the number of war victims varies hugely between different wars: whereas 1,200,000 died during the the Korean War (19501953), other wars had just 1,000 victims. Now that we do have a separate concept of religion, though, is the concept a coherent one? The price of consistency, however, is that he evacuates his own argument of explanatory force or usefulness. The problem is that humans are constantly tempted toward idolatry, to putting what is merely relative in the place of God. Of those wars, the authors categorize 123 as being religious in nature, an astonishingly low 6.98 percent of all wars. In a chapter entitled The Problem with Islam, Harris writes: In our dialogue with the Muslim world, we are confronted by people who hold beliefs for which there is no rational justification and which therefore cannot even be discussed, and yet these are the very beliefs that underlie many of the demands they are likely to make upon us. This is especially a problem if such people gain access to nuclear weapons. Other forms of large-scale violence The same thing that triggers all crime, cruelty, loss of life, and other such things. Charles Kimballs book When Religion Becomes Evil begins with the following claim: It is somewhat trite, but nevertheless sadly true, to say that more wars have been waged, more people killed, and these days more evil perpetrated in the name of religion than by any other institutional force in human history.1 Kimball apparently considers this claim too trite to need proving, for he makes no attempt to reinforce it with evidence. However, when one subtracts wars waged in the name of Islam (66), the percentage falls to 3.23 percent. Which is it? While indirect deaths represent a substantial proportion of the social costs of conflict, there is a conceptual difficulty in drawing a consistent boundary between indirect deaths attributable to the conflict and those due to other factors. War suggests an all-or-nothing struggle against an enemy whom one assumes to be determined to destroy. It is difficult to classify the Taiping Rebellion as a religious conflict, much less a Christian one. All other material, including data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data, is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. Much of what I have said about religious terrorism in this book may be applied to other forms of political violenceespecially those that are ideological and ethnic in nature.14 In Juergensmeyers earlier book, The New Cold War? In the second place, it may be the case that the Crusader has misappropriated the true message of Christ, but one cannot therefore excuse Christianity of all responsibility. Religion was not a primary or secondary cause in the following wars: American Revolution - 1775-81 Napoleonic Wars - 1800-1815 Mexican American War 1846-48 American Civil War 1861-65 Franco Prussian War 1870-71 World War I 1914-1918 World War II 1939-1945 So, for example, Juergensmeyer attempts to explain the animosity of the religious Other toward America: Why is America the enemy? . One would think that he would draw the obvious conclusion that zealous nationalism can cause violence. This becomes most apparent when the authors in question attempt to explain why religion is so prone to violence. All the software and code that we write is open source and made available via GitHub under the permissive MIT license. by Max Roser, Joe Hasell, Bastian Herre and Bobbie Macdonald, World conflict deaths since 1989: Notes on five sources. The same cannot be said of atheist communist or nationalist governments in just the last century. If religion was and is truly a holy entity, it would stand for the freedom of people and not the suppression. Kimball, for example, says in passing that blind religious zealotry is similar to unfettered nationalism, and, indeed, nationalism would seem to fitat timesall five of Kimballs warning signs for when religion turns evil: absolute truth claims, blind obedience, establishment of ideal times, ends justifying means, and the declaration of holy war. In most instances, the region attributed to the conflict will be the same region as where the fighting took place. "Religion has been the cause of the most wars." It is clear that for most of its existence that Inquisition was far from being a juggernaut of death either in intention or in capability. Religion requires followers to behave in certain ways, and [p]olitics and governments also demand certain behaviors. In offering five defining features of religion, and showing how politics fits all five, he is trying to show how closely intertwined religion and politics are, but he ends up demolishing any theoretical basis for separating the two. Other theorists of religion and violence make similar admissions. On the other hand, those who reject the notion that religion is the cause of most wars can quite handily point to the Encyclopedia of Wars (assuming one accepts the categorization of scholars Phillips and Axelrod) as statistical evidence that such critics of religious warfare are wrong. Such people will sometimes argue that the real motivation behind so-called religious violence is in fact economic and political, not religious. . The chart above refers only to battle deaths occurring in conflicts that involved at least one state on one of the opposing sides. Antony Loewenstein (Judaism) Alain de Botton, philosopher and author of Religion for Atheists, is worried about fundamentalism. Its partisans massacred a Huguenot congregation at Vassy (1562), causing an uprising in the provinces. If the definition is expanded to include such belief systems, then all sorts of practices, including many that are usually labeled secular, fall under the definition of religion. Conflicts and deaths in Europe are often documented well, while this sometimes is less the case for conflicts in other regions, especially in Africa and Asia. Involving God as part of a war campaign does not make a war a holy war - for a war to be a holy war, religion has to be the driving force. The problem is precisely the opposite. Regrettably, because of their stubborn fanaticism, it is sometimes necessary to bomb them into liberal democracy. In other words, the myth of religious violence establishes a reassuring dichotomy between their violencewhich is absolutist, divisive, and irrationaland our violencewhich is modest, unitive, and rational. The myth of religious violence marks the clash of civilizations worldview that attributes Muslims animosity toward the West to their inability to learn the lessons of history and remove the baneful influence of religion from politics. We must conclude that there is no coherent way to isolate religious ideologies with a peculiar tendency toward violence from their tamer secular counterparts. The previous two graphs showed absolute numbers, but as the world has seen rapid population growth (see our entry onglobal population growth), it is more appropriate to look at relative numbers. So I have no intention of excusing Christianity or Islam or any other faith system from careful analysis. That 7% of wars represents the bloodiest of all wars, right? An adequate approach to the problem would be resolutely empirical: under what conditions do certain beliefs and practicesjihad, the invisible hand of the market, the sacrificial atonement of Christ, the role of the United States as worldwide liberatorturn violent? Statistics. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the worlds population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosophers stone, and unicorns., In other words, if we have to slaughter millions through a nuclear first strike, it will be the fault of the Muslims and their crazy religious beliefs. Where do the Crusades rank among the deadliest wars in history? I will do so in two steps. Religious causes. In addition to those deaths caused directly by violence for instance those from gunshot or explosions a significant proportion of lives lost in conflict are indirect: due to disease, starvation or exposure. - Leaving aside that it isnt 7% but 35% - THAT WASNT THE QUESTION !! Consider the case of the preeminent historian Martin Marty. For instance, roughly two-thirds of military fatalities in the American Civil War were due to disease, according to Sartin, 1993. If you look closely, youll see that there are large relative differences between the series over the entire period as well, though they are understated by the 1994 peak. Rather, Juergensmeyer turns our attention to the tendency of such religious actors to misunderstand such historical events, to blow them out of proportion. This is one of history's greatest misconceptions. Licenses: All visualizations, data, and articles produced by Our World in Data are open access under the Creative Commons BY license. But the messy history of their. Just because someone used something doesnt mean its what its intended for. We focus on the main points. Behind the common question lies a morass of unclear thinking. Your email address will not be published. This is particularly true where conflicts lead to famine or outbreaks of disease among the civilian population. This seems to have caught at least one academic blogger unaware, as they falsely claim in a Fact Check that There is no section of the book where Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod explicitly categorize wars as religious or non-religious. In this case, the Fact Checker is wrong, as one only needs to check the index for the category. Suppose we apply an empirical test to the question of absolutism. We see three marked peaks in war deaths since the end of World War II: the Korean War (early 1950s), the Vietnam War (around 1970), and the Iran-Iraq and Afghanistan wars (1980s). Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod in their 3-volume. Clinical Infectious Diseases Vol. In this essay, I am going to challenge that conventional wisdom, but not in the ways it is usually challenged by people who identify themselves as religious. Talking Points This claim is historically inaccurateAsk: "That's a strong statement, how did you come to that conclusion?" According to one reputable source, only 7% of the 1763 recorded wars in history were fought on religious grounds (Encyclopedia of Wars). OA Statistics Statistics by Country Statistics by Department. What makes religious violence particularly savage and relentless is that it puts worldly conflicts in a larger than life context of cosmic war. Secular political conflictsthat is, more rational conflicts, such as those over landare of a fundamentally different character than those in which the stakes have been raised by religious absolutism to cosmic proportions. That's a lot of wars, come to think of it. Nevertheless, here are some more sources on the topic of Jihad, including Robert Spencer's and Raymond Ibrahim's new books on the subject: [1] Charles Phillips, Alan Axelrod, editors, ars and armed conflicts with highest estimated death tolls, Christian, Pro-Life Coffee Alternatives to Starbucks, Powerful Novena to St. Joseph for Work, Family, Job, Employment, to Sell House, 7 Reasons to Keep a Prayer Journal Infographic: How to Keep a Catholic Prayer Journal. According to Juergensmeyer, war itself is a worldview; indeed, The concept of war provides cosmology, history, and eschatology and offers the reins of political control. Like the rituals provided by religious traditions, warfare is a participatory drama that exemplifiesand thus explainsthe most profound aspects of life. Here, war itself is a kind of religious practice. Answer (applying pro rata for unknown deaths) AROUND 16.5%. Wentz is compelled to conclude, rather lamely, Perhaps all of us do bad things in the name of (or as a representative of) religion.19. Arab-Israeli wars, series of military conflicts between Israeli forces and various Arab forces, most notably in 1948-49, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982, and 2006. Indeed, Harriss logic is little different in practice from the Bush Doctrine, which says that America has access to liberal values that are right and true for every person, in every society, that we must use our power to promote such values on every continent, and that America will take preemptive military action if necessary to promote such values.32 Today, the U.S. military is attempting, through the massive use of violence, to liberate Iraq from religious violence. The Correlates of Warseries aims to include only deaths of military personnel, whereas the other sources capture at least to some extent civilian deaths too. However, keeping the notion of cosmic war separate from secular political war is impossible on Juergensmeyers own terms. This topic page can be cited as: All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license. The liberal nation-state is essentially a peacemaker. Conflicts related to the expansion or defence of colonial empires ended with decolonisation. Religious violence differs from secular violence in that it is symbolic, absolutist, and unrestrained by historical time.12. For example, what he says about cosmic war is virtually indistinguishable from what he says about war in general: Looking closely at the notion of war, one is confronted with the idea of dichotomous opposition on an absolute scale. Pope John Paul II. Whether we attempt to answer these questions by survey or by observing American Christians behavior in wartime, it seems clear that, at least among American Christians, the nation-state is subject to far more absolutist fervor than Christianity. [] It would seem that during the 16th and 17th centuries fewer than three people a year were executed in the whole of the Spanish monarchy from Sicily to Peru, certainly a lower rate than in any provincial court of justice in Spain or anywhere else in Europe. The former group carries on as if the latter did not exist. Harris condemns the irrational religious torture of witches, but provides his own argument for torturing terrorists. It is for this reason that they do not show the jump in 1994 that marks the Rwandan genocide. It's a black mark, for sure. The Crusader is not really a Christian, for example, because he doesnt really understand the meaning of Christianity. Nevertheless, as we would expect, the death rates reported in the Conflict Catalog do come out the highest. That is true for instance of the UCDP all series in the charts shown above. In particular, as mentioned above, the UCDP classification system has a requirement that non-state actors must have a certain degree of institutional organisation for an event to be included in its dataset. ArcGIS StoryMaps has everything you need to create remarkable stories that give your maps meaning. The real question is, what god is actually being worshiped? . Less than 2 percent of all people killed in warfare. On the other hand, those who reject the notion that religion is the cause of most wars can quite handily point to the Encyclopedia of Wars (assuming one accepts the categorization of scholars Phillips and Axelrod) as statistical evidence that such critics of religious warfare are wrong. There are three marked peaks in war deaths since then: the Korean War (early 1950s), the Vietnam War (around 1970), and the Iran-Iraq and Afghanistan wars (1980s). People create absolutes out of fear of their own limitations. It pitted medieval Iberia's Muslim and Christian states. This appears to be a commonsense response, but it misses the point rather completely. Sapinksy Religionwhile it has its origin in peace, the roots of spiritual practice have often dabbled in war. In fact, it is estimated that only 6,000-8,000 people were executed during the 350 years of the Inquisition. The Conflict Catalog series (running to 2000 only) tries to include indirect deaths of both the military and civilian populations. YES RELIGION IS Responsible for the Most Wars and Deaths in History"So please - if you are going to cite sources - I SUGGEST THAT YOU READ THEM FIRST - THEY MIGHT JUST CONTRADICT YOUR CLAIM ! he goal of the Taipings was the overthrow of the Manchu dynasty. Many have watched with horror as their compatriots and symbols of their country have been destroyed by people whom they do not know, from cultures they can scarcely identify on a global atlas, and for reasons that do not seem readily apparent.21, Nevertheless, Juergensmeyer is able to come up with four reasons from the frames of reference of Americas enemies. No, absolutely not. We live between two rivers in our hometown of New Roads Read more, Copyright 2021 - All Roads Lead to Rome - All rights reserved. About Me Has Religion Been a Chief Cause of Wars Throughout History? You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. You have permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited. We didn't stop there. Mark Juergensmeyer, for example, sets up a new Cold War pitting the resurgence of parochial identities over against the secular West. Like the old Cold War, the confrontation between these new forms of culture-based politics and the secular state is global in its scope, binary in its opposition, occasionally violent, and essentially a difference of ideologies. Although he tries to avoid demonizing religious nationalists, Juergensmeyer sees them as essentially anti-modern. The particular ferocity of religious nationalism comes from the special relationship between religion and violence. The question then becomes whether religious nationalism can be made compatible with secular nationalisms great virtues: tolerance, respect for human rights, and freedom of expression. Given the war between reason and religion, however, Juergensmeyer is not optimistic; there is ultimately no satisfactory compromise on an ideological level between religious and secular nationalism.20. The Wars of Religion. Those who make such an argument, after all, never seem to offer any hard data to support their claims. The point is that the distinction between secular and religious violence is unhelpful, misleading, and mystifying, and should be avoided altogether. As Wilfred Cantwell Smith showed in his landmark 1962 book, The Meaning and End of Religion, religion as a discrete category of human activity separable from culture, politics, and other areas of life is an invention of the modern West. But benignity is the keyand if it cannot emerge from within a state, it must be imposed from without. Non-state actors are those that demonstrate a degree of coordinated military organisation but whose identity falls short of statehood. The case for nationalism as a religion, for example, has been made repeatedly from Carlton Hayess 1960 classic Nationalism: A Religion to more recent works by Peter van der Veer, Talal Asad, Carolyn Marvin, and others.9 Carolyn Marvin argues that nationalism is the most powerful religion in the United States.10, At this point I can imagine an objection being raised that goes like this: So the concept of religion has some fuzzy edges.
Conference Presentation Travel Award Ucf,
O2 Academy Leeds Past Events,
Hartford Wolfpack Roster,
Jarrett Bay Boats For Sale,
Dumping Syndrome Causes Without Surgery,
Articles W