Promoting Violence: Religion or Economics?

[IRG CommandoJoe]

When answering an online quiz I came across an interesting question:

On a global scale, which do you believe provides the greater hindrance to world peace and unity?
A. Economics.
B. Religion.

Of course I fully realize this forum's position, but when compared with economics, which is more damaging? Certainly in the recent past economics prompted much violence, the Cold War and WWII being the best examples I can think of. And yet, throughout history religion has sparked an abundance of violence as well (the Crusades, various inquisitions, anti-Semitism, etc.). But the question addresses the here and now, not of the past.

When one thinks of religion hindering world peace today, one usually thinks of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the War on Terror. But when it comes to economics, are there any major wars right now motivated by economic gains or conflicting economic paradigms more harmful than those sparked by religion?

Also, how easy is it really to separate the two factors motivating conflict and determine which is the more decisive one? Certainly, both religion and economic concerns were motivating factors in many wars, such as the conquistadors and later Western imperialists.

And lastly, "hindrance to world peace and unity" is fairly vague and could probably include more abstract concepts of economical and religious views negatively affecting the world.

I would love to see relevant, modern examples of each promoting violence and disunity in our world.

[OsirisLord]

Make trade not war has always been my saying for world peace. When you trade with someone it immediately implies there's something they have that you want, and that you're respectful enough that you wish to embark on a transaction that will benefit the both of you. Over time it's not just goods that get traded but also ideas, cultural barriers break down and people respect each other a lot more. War breeds violence, and trade breeds peace, because only in peace is trade truly profitable.

Religion can cause wars, especially these modern desert religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) since not only do they promote a sort of universal god that everyone must believe in, the more radical sects vilify and demonize people of different cultures and beliefs. Most fundamentalist Muslims consider everything from Western culture to be an affront to Islam and thus evil. The whole incident with the Muhammad teddy bear wasn't about the bear, it was an excuse to scapegoat the Western teacher who had come to Sudan. These kinds of religions build up cultural barriers and the fundamentalists create a brush heap of paranoia and fear of anything different. In this scenario war becomes inevitable, and the Crusades are always the best example of this.

[NetKnight]

Economic activity, at the very least at the sustenance level, is necessary for life. Religion is not. Furthermore, modern, complex, economic networks and activities are necessary for a modern First World way of life, which, even with its arguable excesses, is still preferable to a meager sustenance-scrounging existance.
In short, conflict may well be inherent in economic activity, but that activity is nevertheless necessary. Being a completely unnecessary parasite on society, religion is thus more egregiously harmful.

Now, if you want to quantify violence caused from an objective standpoint rather then make a value judgment, sorting out causes can be problematic. Pervasive as economics are, economic motivations go along with religious ones in conflict: witness the Crusades, for example.

In answer to the question, then, economic-motivated conflict is certainly a greater hindrance to world peace, by virtue of being inherent in the world situation. This, of course, implies that complete 'world peace' is imposable. However, in trying for the closest thing to complete peace, I'd argue that religion is a bigger hindrance, simply because it and its attendant harmful effects are completely unnecessary, and 'closest possible' means the closest that economics will allow us. Religious violence is "tacked on" from there. Sorry, it's late. I hope that reads more coherently then it types.

EDIT:

When one thinks of religion hindering world peace today, one usually thinks of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the War on Terror. But when it comes to economics, are there any major wars right now motivated by economic gains or conflicting economic paradigms more harmful than those sparked by religion?

Demonstrating the intertwined nature of religious and economic conflict, you just named two of them, at least in part. The land-desiring policies by both sides in the former, and the provocative stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia to protect oil production in the later case, are both economic motivations, and both at least in part causes of the current conflicts.

[Samuel]

Certainly in the recent past economics prompted much violence, the Cold War and WWII being the best examples I can think of. And yet, throughout history religion has sparked an abundance of violence as well (the Crusades, various inquisitions, anti-Semitism, etc.). But the question addresses the here and now, not of the past.

You are comparing all secular wars to all religious ones

Anyway, the Cold War was ideological and over power, not resources.

But when it comes to economics, are there any major wars right now motivated by economic gains or conflicting economic paradigms more harmful than those sparked by religion?

Iraq's invasion of Iran and Kuwait were entirely motivated by the desire to seize their respective oil supplies. Modern way trade wars are rare though.

Also, how easy is it really to separate the two factors motivating conflict and determine which is the more decisive one?

Well, finding the justification is easy- seeing what is in a persons mind? Not so much.

Certainly, both religion and economic concerns were motivating factors in many wars, such as the conquistadors and later Western imperialists.

A bigger goal was prestige- competing with the other European powers or elevating your station in the nobility. Lets not forget sex and power- mestizos exist for a reason you know.

I would love to see relevant, modern examples of each promoting violence and disunity in our world.

Religion by its very nature promotes disunity. Economics is too vague to say- do they mean greed?

Make trade not war has always been my saying for world peace. When you trade with someone it immediately implies there's something they have that you want, and that you're respectful enough that you wish to embark on a transaction that will benefit the both of you. Over time it's not just goods that get traded but also ideas, cultural barriers break down and people respect each other a lot more. War breeds violence, and trade breeds peace, because only in peace is trade truly profitable.

The first world wars were trade wars. Having a monopoly on the spices was enough to make a nation fabulously wealthy and countries were spill large amount of blood to insure that. Modern trade is less bloody, but it has not always been so.

Religion can cause wars, especially these modern desert

You forget most state religions (the king is a god), ones with human sacrifice and the demand for flower wars and ones that consider warfare sacred (sects of Hinduism and Buddism).

These kinds of religions build up cultural barriers and the fundamentalists create a brush heap of paranoia and fear of anything different. In this scenario war becomes inevitable, and the Crusades are always the best example of this.

Not really. The Crusades were hardly inevitable. They wouldn't have happened without the Sejuck Turks plunging into the Byzantine Empire. A better example would be Muslim expansionism after the founding or Christian suppression of heretics, both made essential by the logic of the religion.

[NetKnight]

These kinds of religions build up cultural barriers and the fundamentalists create a brush heap of paranoia and fear of anything different. In this scenario war becomes inevitable, and the Crusades are always the best example of this.

The Crusades are one of the classic examples of an economically motivated war, at the core, clothed in a parent ideology, in this case religion. Non-eldest sons, unable to inherit land at home (and faced with a career path in the Church as one of their few options, interestingly enough), jumped on the opportunity to carve out their own landholdings at the expense of "the heathens". To be sure, religious motivations were intertwined in, with, for example, the consolation of martyrdom serving as an "insurance policy" in the event of death in battle. Nevertheless, secular power-holders in European society were not dumb religious fanatics. The very worldly game of politics would swiftly see them out of power if they were, assuming they hadn't already shown their piety by joining the Church. On the whole, it would take more then the urging of the Pope to really bestir them to something as troublesome as a foreign war, which the economic and political consideration of conquering new land to seat landless knights served to do.

[Samuel]

These kinds of religions build up cultural barriers and the fundamentalists create a brush heap of paranoia and fear of anything different. In this scenario war becomes inevitable, and the Crusades are always the best example of this.

The Crusades are one of the classic examples of an economically motivated war, at the core, clothed in a parent ideology, in this case religion. Non-eldest sons, unable to inherit land at home (and faced with a career path in the Church as one of their few options, interestingly enough), jumped on the opportunity to carve out their own landholdings at the expense of "the heathens". To be sure, religious motivations were intertwined in, with, for example, the consolation of martyrdom serving as an "insurance policy" in the event of death in battle. Nevertheless, secular power-holders in European society were not dumb religious fanatics. The very worldly game of politics would swiftly see them out of power if they were, assuming they hadn't already shown their piety by joining the Church. On the whole, it would take more then the urging of the Pope to really bestir them to something as troublesome as a foreign war, which the economic and political consideration of conquering new land to seat landless knights served to do.

The fighting by the elite certainly. The peasents crusade and children's crusade was entirely due to ideology however.

[B5B7]

You have narrowly confined the barrier to world unity and peace as war, but what happens internally in nations is as big a factor or bigger.
For instance, church opposition to abortion and birth control causes suffering and violence in societies. These and other religious issues create discord in societies.
Consider how much time and money is wasted debating abortion within parliaments (using this term in its broadest sense that includes US Congress) and courts.
Similarly, issues such as prayer, use of term God on money and elsewhere, creationism and ID and education.

Religion itself has a huge economic cost, directly via tax exemption, and indirectly due to the way its proselytisation and opposition to this, and cleaning up messes created by religion cost lives, time and money.
One may point to charitable works of religions, but a lot of the poverty is caused by existence of religions.

Without religion the past and present troubles in the Middle East, Ireland and many other places would not occur. Most of the current political instability in the world is religious in nature. Pakistan wouldn't exist as a separate nation from India without religion. The War on Terror exists because of religion.
Compare China and Iran - China is a nuclear power but there is little fear of it because it is recognised as an atheistic rational nation, whereas there is fear of Iran ever getting nukes because of its religious radicalism.

[Bellator]

Make trade not war has always been my saying for world peace.

World War 1 refutes that claim. After all, just prior to the outbreak of that war, trade between the powers was at an all time high. In fact, those levels wouldn't be matched until the 1990s.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Anyway, the Cold War was ideological and over power, not resources.

Erm, power and resources are pretty intertwined with each other. Ideology I say was the excuse, the rallying cry more like. Much like religion.

Without religion the past and present troubles in the Middle East, Ireland and many other places would not occur. Most of the current political instability in the world is religious in nature. Pakistan wouldn't exist as a separate nation from India without religion. The War on Terror exists because of religion.

I wouldn't say "most". For a case like Africa, much of the instability there is due to tribal warfare, where religion is just an icing on the cake. Happens that tribal warfare often involves war for resources.

[Imperial Overlord]

The Crusades were a large number of different wars, supposedly conducted in the name of the Christian faith. You can't talk about the religious and economic motivations behind them as a whole with sweeping generalizations, because they were different. For example, the years before the First Crusade had several bad harvests. The economic conditions for a mass migration were more favorable than during other times. This isn't the case with, for example, the Sixth Crusade which was an entirely different beast.

[Rye]

If your tribe is in an area with other tribes, and this area can only support one tribe, you're going to massacre them, probably including women and children. Religion is a useful social means to justify such actions and to get people to act in accordance with your will. Mindless obedience is drilled into people from religious sources, and this is still the case even in times of plenty. I would expect material resources to be involved with most wars, but religion and ideology go with the flow and are extremely useful weapons in creating futile, embittered, ongoing violence.

[salm]

The United Fruit Company debacle, partially the Iraq war, the war in Congo are only a couple of examples in which economics are at least a major reason for the war.

Rich old men start wars in their armchairs for economic reasons. The young men who do the real fighting do it for religious reasons.

[Natorgator]

I have to disagree with the prevailing sentiment in this thread. I think it's economics, but not in the way many people are thinking. I think economics in the form of extreme poverty tends to breed violence, because people who are wealthy (relatively speaking) and happy generally have no reason to go and kill one another. A lot of terrorism comes out of the middle east because people are so dirt fucking poor and it seems like religion becomes the excuse for their hate.

[Kanastrous]

As people are fond of pointing out, the planners and ringleaders of 9-11 were educated, middle-class privileged people within their societies. Muhammad Atta was not born in a dirt-floored hovel.

[Darth Wong]

As people are fond of pointing out, the planners and ringleaders of 9-11 were educated, middle-class privileged people within their societies. Muhammad Atta was not born in a dirt-floored hovel.

However, Al-Qaeda motivation is heavily economic, as well as religious. Al-Qaeda videos show scenes of Muslim poverty contrasted with American wealth, as a recruiting tool. If not for the economic poverty in those countries, I doubt the Muslim extremist ideology would be nearly as successful. Even those who are not personally afflicted with poverty can see that their countrymen are suffering, and it can inspire them to great or terrible deeds.

[Coyote]

Economics, by far and away, are more destructive than religion.

The desire of the strong to get more stuff from the weak has driven conquest; even the Crusades were religious wars that were joined at the hip to the idea of conquering more land and to give those pesky second sons and pettit nobles something to do that was glorious. Frequently, wars of economics were wrapped up in the cloak of religion and used to justify getting the downtrodden masses a reason to fight beyond pay.

Religion is used as a blanket to cover economic imperialism's excesses. "We brought Christianity to the Heathens! and we took their stuff, too, well, whaddaya know?"

I'm not saying religious wars haven't happened or that they haven't been destructive, but I think that economic motivations have driven most of it and been far more prevelant and subversive/destructive.

BTW, would a war fought over political or social ideology count as "religious"? Especially if the war was fought without regard for common sense moves and strategies? I was thinking of the titanic struggle between Nazis and Communists in the Eastern Front of World War 2. While technically Germany wanted Russia's land, their motivations were ideological and racial, if not "exactly" religious by dictionary definition (ie, belief in deities).

[Darth Wong]

Economics, by far and away, are more destructive than religion.

It is also far more constructive than religion. We have to look at net effect. Religion doesn't really do anything constructive at all; the benefits normally associated with it are simply produced by society in its absence.

[Darth Wong]

Let's take an example of an economic activity: agriculture. Agriculture has driven wars many times in the past: seizing farmland was an important goal of military activity. And yet, without agriculture we would all be dead, so it's pretty hard to call it a net-negative proposition.

[salm]

I have to disagree with the prevailing sentiment in this thread. I think it's economics, but not in the way many people are thinking. I think economics in the form of extreme poverty tends to breed violence,

I just gave a couple of examples where the rich guys started in the post directly before yours. Extreme poverty might breed violence but fact is that dirt poor societies can not afford the machinery and infrastructure nor do they have the required influence to cause the level of distruction that can be caused by a rich nation.

Even if Swasiland, which rather fits the definition of dirt fucking poor rather well wanted to invade, say, Sweden, they´d simply lack the means to do so.

because people who are wealthy (relatively speaking) and happy generally have no reason to go and kill one another. A lot of terrorism comes out of the middle east because people are so dirt fucking poor and it seems like religion becomes the excuse for their hate.

Of course rich people have reasons to kill other people. We, the rich people, want to keep and improve our living standards. Part of this is done by starting wars or by enforcing or at least neglecting local conflicts and bribing and overthrowing foreign governments.

[Coyote]

Also, economic imperialism leaves an impoverished populkation in its wake-- and they may then turn to religion (and religious violence) to deal witht he inequity, as DW used in the Al-Quaeda example.

[Covenant]

The question posed, and the greater context, isn't what is the ultimate motivator for global violence but what is the greatest barrier to global unity and cooperation. While more wars may have been fought, at the heart of it, for economics than for ideology, if it were not for ideology and the cultural barriers of religion you would find it much harder to motivate people to war.

Simply put, while issues of economics can lead to war, the cultural divisions required before war becomes economical are offered most often by the divisions of religion. How many of the European wars of religion were honestly about religion? But how much harder would it have been to fight those wars if religion had not divided the people?

In this sense, it is hard to choose economics over religion as the greatest barrier. There is nothing inherent in the differing economic theories we see out there right now that makes America unable to peacefully coexist with Canada or Europe, or even for a Communist nation to exist alongside a Capitalist one. Meanwhile we see nations of relatively equal economic level, or even subdivisions of a single nation, which are unable to coexist simply because of the religious and cultural differences they have.

As stated earlier, while economics are an inherent aspect of life, and there will always be food production, natural resources, and information that one faction may want to take from another, the factionalization that makes it so easy to get violence started has often had a helping hand in the cutural wedge of religion. If it were an option, I'd choose culture over religion as the greatest barrier to unity, but it's not, so I'll pick religion.

Remove all economic disparity from the world and religious battles over the vast resource of worshippers and souls to save would still drive bitter disunity, if not violence. Remove all religion from the world and you'd surely still have conflicts, but I would see a lot less reason for groups of shared interest to stay disunified, for the middle east to fight a purposeless war with the west, and for cultural divides across the world to drive nations further and further away from each other both diplomatically and economically. Religion is not the root cause of all world strife by any measure, but it is a barrier between people that makes it easy for nations to pursue wars of economic interest instead of trade, commit genocide, and maintain eager standing armies.

[salm]

I think it´s comparing apples and oranges because religion and economics are reasons why wars exist on different levels. Economics are often the reason to start wars in first place whereas religion is often a motivator for the fighting masses. I know this has been mentioned a couple of times before but i want to point out that this is the reason why they´re not all that suitable for a comparison.

Instead of asking what is worse, religion or economics, we should better ask, what are the reasons, motivators and propellants for wars and on which social levels are which reasons, motivators and propellants important.
Besides religion and economics i can think of several other causes for wars like geostrategic position, racism, nationalism, personal pride, greed for more territory (Lebensraum) and many more.

Of course the question if religion or economics are worse could be asked, too, but it seems rather black and white when there are so many other factors and serves no other purpose than saying LOLR31igion is EB0l or EXon0mix Suxorz.

[Covenant]

Not to spin my wheels, but the question posed isn't about wars. It really never even asked which was worse, or which started the most wars, or why wars were fought:

On a global scale, which do you believe provides the greater hindrance to world peace and unity?
A. Economics.
B. Religion.

In a literal sense it's just asking what is larger barrier to global cooperation, with war just being one of the many forms of disunity that arises from a divided world. The question may still be absurd, but not because it asks what starts more wars. The real issue with religion with regard to global politics is that it is divisive without being productive, and it has mechanisms in place which stress the need for believers to hold onto grievances in the past and look for ways to repay them in violence. Not even Nationalism, which is as unproductive as religion, has quite the motivating factor of keeping people bitter to the point of violence and war for so long after something happened to them, especially when you consider that such a thing may have been entirely fictional anyway.

[salm]

You´re right. Nevertheless, i find it too narrow to approach the whole topic solely on the two points economics and religion. There´s far more to it than only these two items. In fact so much more that the whole thread becomes irrelevant if the problems are narrowed down so much.

[Kanastrous]

Perhaps you could say that economics drive the leaderships' choice to go to war, and religion (and its web-toed cousins racism and nationalism) drive the rank-and-file's desire to go fight that war for them.

If you wanted to paint with a wide brush.