gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) (02/07/85)
> Jay Ramanathan > ....Religions have separated people for so long. How come, even > with all this progress that man has made in many other areas (and thereby > becoming enlightened, presumably) has he not been able to reconcile > on this one point? Wars are fought, people kill each other, all due to > this man-made difference (I repeat, man-made). People swear by one holy > book or the other, often times reducing the act to a mere ritual. > > MAYBE IT'S TIME WE ALL LOOKED CAREFULLY AT WHAT THIS WHOLE BUSINESS IS > ABOUT, RAISING OURSELVES ABOVE THE ARTIFICIAL (another word for "man-made") > BARRIERS OF RELIGION. People fight wars because of political beliefs, as a defensive strategy, for trade and economic reasons, or because they have nothing better to do. Disposing of religion will not change this situation. The major wars of this century were all politically and economically motivated. Religion played a minor part in these, if it were a factor at all. Why must religion be the whipping-boy for these problems? -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam
fetrow@entropy.UUCP (David Fetrow) (02/08/85)
[Gimme that ol time religion...] > People fight wars because of political beliefs, as a defensive > strategy, for trade and economic reasons, or because they have > nothing better to do. Disposing of religion will not change > this situation. The major wars of this century were all politically > and economically motivated. Religion played a minor part in these, > if it were a factor at all. Most <recent and major> wars may be primarily nonreligious but people die in "minor" wars too. I'd venture a guess MORE people die in "minor" wars than "major" wars. [That is a GUESS] In any case to the persons killed the label on the war doesn't really matter much. -Dave Fetrow Kludgemaster of CQS {ihnp4, tektronix, fluke, microsof}!uw-beaver!entropy!fetrow
jay@cadre.UUCP (02/08/85)
In article <1102@amdahl.UUCP> Gordon Moffett <gam@amdahl.UUCP> writes: > People fight wars because of political beliefs, as a defensive strategy, > for trade and economic reasons, or because they have nothing better to do. > Disposing of religion will not change this situation. The major wars of > this century were all politically and economically motivated. Religion > played a minor part in these, if it were a factor at all. > > Why must religion be the whipping-boy for these problems? I wonder how "minor" a part religion is playing in the middle east and Northern Ireland? Or maybe these are not "major" wars according to you. In this context, I'm reminded of someone's observation: If the third (nuclear) war were to come about, there is a high chance its origins would be in the middle east. And I guess the nuclear war wouldn't be "major" at all!! Granted, wars do have a lot of political, economic factors in them. But I suspect they often start off with religious differences. (Didn't even the first world war have religious beginnings? Or am I wrong?) Of course, once the war has been started, the politicians have to carry it on. They have beliefs too, you see! Jay Ramanathan "You all follow different religions!" "Yes," shouts the crowd "No, please no, let me be a human", pleads the lonely creature.
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (02/20/85)
In article <255@cadre.ARPA> jay@cadre.ARPA (Jay Ramanathan) writes: >In article <1102@amdahl.UUCP> Gordon Moffett <gam@amdahl.UUCP> writes: >> People fight wars because of political beliefs, as a defensive strategy, >> for trade and economic reasons, or because they have nothing better to do. >> Disposing of religion will not change this situation. The major wars of >> this century were all politically and economically motivated. Religion >> played a minor part in these, if it were a factor at all. >> >> Why must religion be the whipping-boy for these problems? > >I wonder how "minor" a part religion is playing in the middle east and >Northern Ireland? Or maybe these are not "major" wars according to you. > >In this context, I'm reminded of someone's observation: > If the third (nuclear) war were to come about, there is a high chance its > origins would be in the middle east. >And I guess the nuclear war wouldn't be "major" at all!! >Granted, wars do have a lot of political, economic factors in them. But >I suspect they often start off with religious differences. (Didn't even >the first world war have religious beginnings? Or am I wrong?) >Of course, once the war has been started, the politicians have to carry >it on. They have beliefs too, you see! > But even in your examples the base causes of the conflict are politico-socio-economic not religious. In both N. Ireland and the Middle East the conflict is being caused by vast cultural differences more than any other factor. The religious differences are an *excuse* or a "rallying cry" which help gain support and whip up emotions rather than the actual cause. And talking about WW1, the only real cause was rival imperialist powers in Europe competing the same territory. The Assasination of Archduke Ferdinand, and the associated events merely provided the needed excuse to start shooting. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or quad1!psivax!friesen