This list is highly selective. They're all wars the US fought in, except Darfur. The US isn't going to fight relgious wars because we have a secular government.

but is it true that religion "didn't play a role in any of these wars". I mean come on they had to have some religious influence!

Frankly, I think that military leaders have more important things to do and better causes than the naivity of most people. Most wars were started on interest (territory, gold, oil, strategic points) than on delusions of lower-than-average masses.

wwii is mentioned in there, but did he think of the holocaust? or was it just coincidential they all happened to be jews

Religion can be tied to the American civil war as well.

The 30 years war (between Catholics and Protestants in the 17th Century)

Centuries of near Civil war in N Ireland (Catholics and protestants)

The former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s (Eastern Orthodox Serbs vs Moselems and Croatian Catholics)

Sudan (besides Darfur) (Moslems vs Christians and indiginous beliefs.)

Read my tagline (for those of us who can't see taglines, it says "Religious war is people killing each other over who has the best invisible friend.)

i have trouble pretending that wasn't a moronic statement. first of all, there were over 2 billion people in the world in 1950

and why are you subtracting the holocaust? because that was the religous part?

hitler wasn't an atheist, if i wasn't too lazy to find it right now id redirect you to that topic.

Gaining power over people and land is exactly what religion does. Or did you think it was cooincidence that the catholic church is the biggest land owner on the planet? You think they just bought it all? The vast majority of those wars over land and people you talk about were religious. WWII's holocaust was a perfect example of the religious overtones to the entire war. WWI wasn't so religious to my knowledge, but the laws of probability suggest there should be at least a few secular wars.

Please tell me what you think constitutes a religious war. People that simply have a religious belief that declare war is not a good enough answer. See unlike science or religion, History is not left to interpretation and it doesnt change, it is only whether you can accept facts without injecting your personal feelings.

and going along with hitler, he banned atheism and despised it. him being a religious nut like that, and the fact that he had one of the biggest roles in that war, alone suggests something.

According to some he made Mind Kempf the "Bible" of the Nazi party.  there is no historical proof that  suggest his religious beliefs were the reason for the war.

Dont question my knowledge of WWII or any other war for that matter when it is obvious you are searching to advance an agenda. I will give you a simple link to follow, if you insist I will give overwhelimg evidence, like every historical account that proves you wrong. Here is the link to wiki, it is pretty good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_IIand dont give me lazy theist link poster, Here are facts, this is what all of you cry about when it comes to religion vs science so stick to it and stop trying to twist history to fit your ideals.

OK. I am not going to say anything about Nazi Germany and whether Hitler was an atheist, because I have studied WWII intensively, and have concluded that while Hitler used the church to control Germany, whether or not he actually believed is a matter of intense dispute. Both sides fail in their insistence.

However, JAPAN, the most barbaric nation in WWII, was certianly quasi religious. It was essentially a quasi-religious cult and an armed camp. Read the essay which I posted in one of the above posts on this thread. 

But would you agree that the causes of WWII were not religious and that there is no historical data to support such a claim. Further more attempting to place religious overtones on the war is only to promote ones ideology.

I would argue that WWII was a battle of ideology. Fascism, communism, imperialism, and the defeat of these.

All of these ideologies were based on dogmatism, unquestioning, nonsense and fear. The leaders were often worshipped like demigods. In fact, in countries that were once religions (Germany and Russia) Stalin and Hitler were worshipped far more fervently then God. The only difference is that Hitler used the church to control people, while Stalin saw it as a threat and destroyed it.

The problem I have with monotheism specifically, is that it is dogmatic therefore quite dangerous. This is the same problem I have with the ideology of WWII.

Dogmatic ideology is a terrible force. Monotheism is a dogmatic ideology. Atheist communism is also a dogmatic ideology (Note: Atheism and communism are not interchangeable. Laos, Cuba and Vietnam are deeply religious). 

This debate is pointless. Whether or not religion was the cause of WWII is irrelevant (I still think the Pacific War had extreme cultist religious undertones from Japan). The fact is, history has taught us the evil of dogmatism, whether religious or not. The problem with monotheism is that it is inherently dogmatic. 

I will agree with about Ideology being a key component in the war but there is no historical evidence that suggests the ideology was religion

I never argued that it was. I merely pointed out religion is a dogmatic ideology, and all dogmatic ideologies are bad. furthermore, I still think (as I am very well versed in this) that the Pacific War had deep cult-like religious causes that are partially explained if you read that short chunk of my essay that I posted on this thread earlier.

 There is no doubt that any ideology that is followed to fanatacism is very dangerous and the cause of all war.

Monotheism has always been such an ideology. It has softened considerably in the West, but certianly not in Islam, and dangerous fundamentalism is on the rise. 

I read you essay and it is good. Icant disagree with it in the sense that the Japanese were fueled by their religious and national fanatacism. The one thing I would say is that their nationalism was more of the reason they fought the way they did rather than their religion. It wasnt their religious views that kept some fighting after Japan surrendered it was their nationalism and wanting to fight until the death to saeve honor for their family and country. But you make a good point.

So in other words you don't deny any thing I said, and agree that WWII had religious overtones. Thanks.

No I don't agree with you if you read anymore of the posts I have made you would know that. I do believe you know nothing about this issue and cant produce any PROOF to support your empty claims.

I am very familiar with what communism is and I think it would be a great way to live if it it wasn't for inherent greed in humans. Any type of government that is not Democracy is viewed as a threat to Democracy. Read up on it you could start right after WWII, its called cold war and then you could look at Korea or any other war that America has fought to an extent.

 I sent your communism comment to a friend of mine who immigrated from the Soviet Union and graduated from Rutgers with a minor in political science, this is what he said:

Sound bites. Capitalism and communism are both economic and political systems. In both cases the philosophies have to be enforced through government and laws and constitution.

Complete communism has never been achieved but the model was attempted in countries such as Soviet Union, no doubt about it.

Some academics say complete Democracy has never been achieved either.

In other words he agrees with me.

In other words you agree with everything I said, and that WWII had religious overtones. AGAIN.

Not really... you can pass this on to him.

Um... excuse me.... Why not ask the Jews if religious persecution played a role in WWII?

Wow. Talk about brain lock.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/hitler_and_martin_luther 

Um... are you so sure religion doesn't play a role in Darfur?

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week837/cover.html

Religious, racial and political motives have been identified in the conflict. 

No, actually you're wrong. 

Except that it did, in several cases.

Actually, there isn't a 'huge difference' - religion is in fact a danger, where it allows people to justify their hatreds as the hatreds of  a god . People tend to be dogmatic, they tend to believe that they are right, and they have tendencies to be violent towards those who disagree. Religion is a danger because it allows people to imagine that these tendencies are rightous anger. 19 muslims thought this way back around some time in september 2001. Plenty of others have thought the same way, before, and since.

Todangst,

I have to laugh when you disagree with someone who has actualy lived in Communist Soviet Union. Thats like questioning what a guy ate for breakfast after he told you what he ate, its obsurd.

True communism will never be achieved simply because of the greed and envy in people. But to say it has not been attemted or implamented is wrong. Again lets look at the historical account of the Soviet Union which will tell you it was a communist country.

The fact remains that Hitler called upon pre existent christian hatred of jews, so as to have a nice scapegoat to arouse the hatred and anger of Germans. And this hatred goes back to Martin Luther.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/hitler_and_martin_luther

Were there other motives in the war? Absolutely. But this does not change the reality that christian sanctioned and fueled hatred was  a very helpful weapon for the nazis.

"The fact" I like how you guys keep using that term when you have no fact to back up your claim. The actual fact is that Hitler did not invade other countries to destroy the Jews. THe fact is the allied nation had little or no knowledge of the death camps until after WWII started. The fact is Hitler used nationalism to influence people to his cause and then after he had them he preached his hate for other races. These are facts and they are readily available to you at the library. I am not going to accept links to essays on this site written by some of you as evidence or fact of anything, nice try though. This is the craziest thing I have seen, all of you want proof og God and evidence or facts about Jesus. Yet when it comes to History you make up your own facts to support your cause, thats not very scientific.

i will say that communism has been put into effect, i dont see how that is false

but something i would like to add, am i the only one to notice the ongoing conflict between sunni and shiite muslims? thats been one of the biggest conflicts recently.

Actually, your friend's words are not all that disimilar from my own claim. He says:

"Complete communism has never been achieved but the model was attempted in countries such as Soviet Union, no doubt about it"

So he agrees it was never 'achieved", he merely says that the model was 'attempted" ....

So what really matters here is what he means, precisely, by 'attemped"

No, it is not wrong to say that the Soviet Union never implemented communism. The Soviet Union was a socialist nation, it never even attempted true communism. True communism was the long range goal, but it was hardly the modus operandi of Lennin, Stalin, et al. These men simply did not implement communism. This is a matter of record.

Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production. It can be considered a branch of the broader socialist movement. Communism as a political goal is generally a conjectured form of future social organization, although Marxists have described early forms of human social organization as 'primitive communism'.

Commuism is stateless... ergo the Soviet Union could never undertake true communism. All that could be achieved were 'primitive communist' states... or pseudo communism. Real communism was a long range goal.....  in other words, it was always imagined that it would happen in a distant future.

Again? You've never actually looked at a historical account of the Soviet Union in the first place. All you've done is ask some unnamed friend, and then went off on a wild tangent.

If you actually looked at the history, you'd see that even the first paragraph of a Wiki entry on communism refutes your claim. So your post prove that you haven't actually read much of anything at all on soviet history... 

Excuse me, but I posted you a link about Martin Luther and his anti semitism, that cites a christian source for my claim!

You refuse to even read it!

You can't use your refusal to read my evidence as meaning that I have no evidence!

Now, let's look at the record: It is a matter of record that anti semitism existed in Germany for centuries before Hitler.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_jews

In medieval Europe, many persecutions of Jews in the name of Christianity occurred, notably during the Crusades—when Jews all over Germany were massacred—and a series of expulsions from England, Germany, France, and, in the largest expulsion of all, Spain. Jews were frequently tried and put to death for a variety of imagined religious offenses against Christianity. On many occasions, Jews were accused of a blood libel, the supposed drinking of the blood of Christian children in mockery of the Christian Eucharist. Jews were also falsely accused of torturing consecrated host wafers in a reenactment of the Crucifixion; this was known as host desecration.

During the black plagues of the 14th century, jews were burned by the hundreds, as scapegoats. And Jews suffered from pogroms for centuries afterwards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Europe_%28Middle_Ages%29#The_demonizing_of_the_Jews

Much of this scapegoating went on in the areas of Europe that would become modern Germany.

I didn't discuss such an issue, but it turns out that you're wrong here too.

As George Bush once said: You forgot Poland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_World_War_II_atrocities_in_Poland

It's common knowledge that Hitler's goal in Poland, and Russia, were to underpopulate these nations by killing jews and other undesirables.

You really have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about.

None.

At. All.

So? This has nothing to do with any point I made here. It concerns how Hitler called on christian based anti semitism in germany.

Now you say 'fact' without any evidence. Funny how you have no problem doing what you falsely criticize others for...

The facts are that Hitler didn't create the idea of hating Jews. Christians did. Hitler called upon a pre existent hatred. Religion was a factor in WWII. Religious persecution led to the slaughter of millions of Jews.

Now it's my turn to laugh. No, you're claims are not facts at all, they are merely your opinions born of your ignorance. I've shown you what is really available at a library, and it refutes your ass.

In other words, you complain, falsely, that I don't present facts, and now you concede that I do cite sources, but you refuse to even look at the facts....

You're a joke.

PS I wrote the essay myself. The essay cites a christian source. Your refusal to even read it speaks volumes about you. You ignored it without even looking at it.

Here, now I'll post it here so you can't dodge it anymore:

Some theists attempt to argue that Hitler was an atheist. While this claim is untrue, focusing on Hitler's religious beliefs is actually irrelevant: what matters is that Hitler called upon pre-existent, christian inspired hatred and persecution of Jews, and for this reason, christianity is one of the culprits for the holocaust:

Luther's Racism

The magazine Christian History, Issue 39, 1993 (published by Christianity Today) devoted a whole issue to Martin Luther's life and legacy. Pages 38-39 quote his work On the Jews and Their Lies which gives us an idea about how moral Luther's views were:

"Set fire to their synagogues and schools. Jewish houses should be razed and destroyed, and Jewish prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, curing, and blasphemy are taught, [should] be taken from them." Their rabbis [should] be forbidden to teach on pain of loss of life and limb."

This is a man held to be a moral authority? Luther also urged that "safe conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews," and that "all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them." What Jews could do was to have "a flail, an ax, a hole, a spade" put into their hands so "young, strong Jews and Jewesses" could "earn their bread in the sweat of their brow." Do you think any Fuhrer you may have heard of might have gleaned an idea or two from that last passage alone? In fact, think of Hitler while reading the next paragraph.

Luther proposed seven measures of "sharp mercy" that German princes could take against Jews: (1) burn their schools and synagogues; (2) transfer Jews to community settlements; (3) confiscate all Jewish literature, which was blasphemous; (4) prohibit rabbis to teach, on pain of death; (5) deny Jews safe conduct, so as to prevent the spread of Judaism; (6) appropriate their wealth and use it to support converts and to prevent the Jews' practice of usury; (7) assign Jews to manual labor as a form of penance.

Is there no clearer blueprint for the Final Solution than the works of one of christianity's greatest reformers and moralists?

Worse yet, Luther was no paper philosopher - he advised clergy, their congregations, and all government officials to help carry out these measures. Since most Jews had been expelled from Germany before 1536, Luther's counsel was implemented by few officials. Yet a harsh anti-Jewish measure in 1543 mentioned Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies.

Both Luther's friends and his foes criticized him for proposing these measures. His best friends begged him to stop his anti-Jewish raving, but Luther continued his attacks in other treatises. He repeated as true the worst anti-Semitic charges from medieval literature: that Jews killed Christian babies; they murdered Christ over and over again by stabbing eucharistic hosts; they poised wells. As usual, he did not allow facts to deter him from his emotionally driven lies.

Luther now thought what he had accused Catholics of thinking in 1523: Jews were dogs. "We are at fault for not slaying them!" he fumed shortly before his death. Yet one more hypocricy for the master of hypocrisy.