Religion, Politics, and Conflict

Well, it would seem that the most obvious examples of the coexistence of religion and politics would theocracies and the least violent society I know of (actually I'm ignorant of its history) is theocratic (Bhuddist) Tibet.

Thanks for your response, JLN. Actually, I had meant to say coexist separately. Your example of Buddhist Tibet, however, is very interesting. I had not thought of religions that emphasize total peace. Is Buddhist Tibet an exception to most theocracies?

I don't know. Maybe Setanta can help us out there.

How many times in the last century has the US invaded another country?

In the history of religion - how many times have they gone on a religious conversion crusade?

And in the history of politics?


In starting wars, what have the warmongers used to justify the war? And what have they used to silence the opposition?


What drives conflict?

(by the way - my answer to the original questions is both yes, and no.)

Good point, vikorr. Politicians justify going to war for many reasons other than religion.

Profit in some form or another is most likely the reason.

Peaceful coexistence is achieved when governments provide equal rights to all religious groups and when religious groups respect religious and cultural pluralism.

I have been contemplating a thread entitled "Is patriotism a religion?"
There are similarities: reverence for objects, scripted ceremonies such as the flag salute, etc.

But it should be obvious after several thousand years, that whenever politicians find a need to declare war, they can count on the priests to deliver cannon fodder.

Religion in its pure form is relatively rare. More often than not religion is always conjoined with its own form of politics (for managing its followers).

Religion itself is probably benign. It's only the combined form or religio-political dogma which inevitably results in violence.

It's hard to see how further combining the politics of religion with the politics of government could possibly decrease the potential for bad behavior.

Neo, unfortuately history affirms your view.

I would point out that this runs contrary to human history (and the human nature that drives human history).

We (the generalised 'we') :
- are uncomfortable with people who are too different
- rarely want to take time to understand someone who is too different
- are easily misled into demonising people from cultures we are ignorant of
- are usually too lazy to do research (which relates to something that makes us us uncomfortable), and so easy to frighten should someone make up stories
..and combined - it's not hard to incite people to war when you orchastrate it properly (the pre-Iraq war campaign being a perfect example)

In fact, 'demonising the enemy' is one of the hallmarks of prewar propoganda, and as history shows, and incredibly successful tool. In similar vein, Machiavelli's advice regarding playing on peoples fears works as well in politics as it does in preparation for war.

But back to the original - it falls over on the 'how we react to other people who cause us discomfort' issue...and how easily that is manipulated (re the general populace)

The religious tolerance within the mongol empire of Genghis Khan would suggest otherwise.