Introduction
Nowadays, it became a commonplace practice among many people to assume that, when it comes to promoting the cause of peace and tolerance in the world, it is specifically religious leaders, who are more qualified than anyone else, in this respect. Such a situation, however, is utterly ironic, because it is namely the people’s endowment with the acute sense of religiosity, which creates objective preconditions for them to embrace intolerance, as the main driving force of their existential mode.
What it means is that, contrary to the dogmas of political correctness, nothing good can ever come out of religion – the very essence of a religious belief makes its affiliates experience the sense of thirst for the blood of ‘infidels’, which in turn leads to the outbreaks of religious violence. As Dawkins pointed out, “Imagine, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as ‘Christ-killers’, no Northern Ireland ‘troubles’…” (2006, p. 2).
Therefore, it will be thoroughly appropriate to suggest that it is not only that religion has always been one of the major causes of war, but also that this will continue to be the case in the future. In this paper, I will explore the validity of the above-stated at length, while promoting the idea that it is in the very nature of just about any monotheistic religion (such as Christianity and Islam) to act as the main incentive that motivates people to indulge in the armed hostilities against each other. I will also advance the idea that, in respect of what has been said earlier, the religion of Christianity is especially illustrative.
Main body
Unlike what happened to be the case with us (modern people), our early ancestors had to struggle daily, while trying to ensure their physical survival. Eventually, this led them to realize that their survival chances would be much higher if they address the challenges of life collectively – as the members of the hierarchically structured group (tribe). Therefore, the very fact that ever since the dawn of history, people used to preoccupy themselves with the issue of religion/spirituality, cannot be discussed outside of what accounts for the tribal mode of people’s existence. Apparently, the sense of religiosity, on the part of our early ancestors, served the role of helping them to relate to this existence’s actual virtues. The foremost of these ‘virtues’ were as follows:
- Intellectual inflexibility – In order for the group of people to be able to maintain its structural integrity, those group members that are not willing to conform to the tribal code of ethics, are being expelled/eliminated. This establishes certain prerequisites for the specifically mediocre people, in the intellectual sense of this word, to have a chance of a social advancement within the group. This is the reason why the essentially tribal religions of Christianity and Islam glorify the ‘virtue’ of people’s arrogance; as such, that brings them nearer to God.
- Disrespect to the value of one’s life – While living as the tribe’s fully integrated members, people are being encouraged to think that the tribe’s overall interests account for a much higher value, as compared to the interests of a particular tribe-member. This, of course, naturally prompts the tribally minded individuals to depreciate the value of one’s life, while thinking that under certain circumstances, people can indeed be sacrificed some ‘higher’ cause.
- Taste for violence – The main reason why people choose in favor of a socially integrated existence, is that, while remaining the members of a particular tribe/community, it makes it much easier for them to ensure their place within the environmental niche of interest so that they can enjoy the access to the limited natural resources. What it means is that the very specifics of communal living presuppose that it is namely the violently minded individuals, who have what it takes to be able to advance socially.
Therefore, there is nothing odd about the fact that monotheistic religions can be well defined, as such that does not only reflect the essentially tribal mindset of their affiliates but also as such that glorify an atrocious war, as being especially pleasing to God. For example, the Jewish God Jehovah used to take a particular delight in seeing the young children of ‘infidels’ murdered, “Thus saith the LORD of hosts… Go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass” (Samuel 15:2-3, New King James).
It is understood, of course, that for as long as they remain sober-minded, those people who face the prospect of being slain, will try not to let it happen, while preparing themselves to war instead. The ‘holy book’ of the Quran also contains a number of ‘divinely inspired’ provisions, as to how ‘infidels’ should be dealt with. The following one is probably the most illustrative, in this respect, “Slay them (infidels) wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out… Such is the reward of those who suppress faith” (2.191, The Holy Quran). In other words, the very paradigm of religion contains the ‘seed of war’, regardless of what the religion in question appears to be on the outside.
The validity of this statement can be easily illustrated by the mean of making a brief excuse in the history of religious wars. Even though Christians and Muslims used to kill each other, ever since the religion of Islam came into being in the 6th century AD, it was namely throughout the time of the Crusades, that the notion of a ‘religious war’ has attained its classical sounding.
After all, the actual rationale behind the religious Westerners’ decision to embark upon the journey to Palestine, in order to ‘liberate’ Jerusalem from Muslims, had to do with the fact that in 1096, Pope Urban II proclaimed that it was exactly what God wanted ‘good Christians’ to do (Phillips 2009). This, of course, explains the sheer amount of atrocities, committed by both: Christians and Muslims, during the time of the Crusades – while acting on behalf of their gods, these people could not help becoming ever more hateful towards each other.
The above suggested might create the impression that, even though religion does contribute to the outbreaks of war, it is specifically the individuals that happened to belong to the mutually incompatible religions, who are the natural born ‘God’s soldiers’. This, however, is far from being the actual case. After, throughout the course of human history, there have been a number of incidents when the affiliates of essentially the same religion used to massacre each other on an industrial scale – all due to the fact that they could not reach an agreement, as to how some of the ‘holy scriptures’ should be interpreted.
The most illustrative example, in this respect, can serve the so-called Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648), which took place between Europe’s Catholics, on the one hand, and Protestants, on the other. Nowadays, it is being estimated that during the course of this war, the population of Europe was reduced in size by two. One of the reasons for this is that, ever since the time of its outbreak, the Thirty Years’ War never ceased remaining utterly genocidal. At the first glance, it appears that this could have hardly been justified. After all, it was named on the account of their non-belief in the existence of the ‘Purgatory’ that Protestants used to kill their Catholic ‘brothers in Christ’ – a rather laughable excuse. Yet, once we grasp the essence of just about any organized religion, the earlier mentioned situation will make perfectly good sense.
Monotheistic religions are based upon the assumption that a long time ago, God himself provided his ‘chosen people’ with the ‘shining truth’ about how the universe actually works. Nevertheless, as time goes on, the affiliates of these religions grow increasingly aware of the sheer outdatedness of many of the ‘commandments’, provided by God. Yet, religious people tend to regard it as not the indication that there is indeed very little truth in their faith, but rather as something, that implies the wrongful interpretation of God’s actual message.
Consequently, it prompts them to believe that it is they, who have what it takes to understand what God had in mind while passing down his ‘commandments’ for be implemented. This, of course, makes the self-proclaimed interpreters of God’s message regard other believers, who provide an alternative interpretation, as ‘heretics’. Therefore, contrary to how today’s clergymen would like us to think about it, such despicable deeds as the burning of witches or torturing people by the Inquisitors, committed in the name of God in the past, were not incidental.
Apparently, it is the very monotheistic paradigm, concerned with the categorization of individuals as the ‘chosen people, on the one hand, and ‘infidels’, on the other, which creates objective prerequisites for the outbreaks of religious wars. This, of course, implies that the likelihood for people to coexist peacefully, negatively relates to the measure of their religiosity. That is, the more religious they happened to be; the more likely it will be for them to experience the irrational desire to punish the presumed ‘unbelievers’. Therefore, it will be thoroughly appropriate, on our part, to suggest that the notion of religion is essentially synonymous with the notion of war, as both of these notions organically derive out of each other.
Conclusion
In light of the earlier provided line of argumentation, as to the fact that there is indeed a link between religion, on the one hand, and war, on the other, the paper’s initial thesis appears perfectly legitimate. Therefore, in order for people to be able to enjoy a peaceful existence, they should be willing to adopt an active stance, when it comes to protecting their secular rights and freedoms from the religiously minded ‘lambs of God’, who are best defined as the lambskin-wearing wolves.
References
Dawkins, R. (2006). The God delusion. London: Bantam Press.
Phillips, J. (2009). The call of the Crusades. History Today, 59 (11), 10-17.
New King James version: Scofield study Bible. (1982). Nashville: Thomas Nelson,1982.
The holy Quran. (1999). London: Society for Islamic Unity.