Is committing war crimes in the name of religion justified?

Post Reply New Topic

Is declaring war in the name of religion a good representation of religion? Why do people still fall for this crap? Why do people rape, enslave and sell child brides in the middle East think that is ok?

Government does it all the time... Government IS a Religion after all.

Doesn't matter what name you commit war-crimes with, whether in the name of God, the name of Religion, the name of Christianity, the name of Islam, the name of Allah, the name of Democracy, the name of Patriotism, the name of Freedom, the name of Spreading More Democracy (i.e.: Forcing Police-State Imperialism Down Everyone's Throat), the name of Environmentalism, the name of Environmental-Protection, the name of The Constitution, the name of ANY Ideology for that matter, they are ALL RELIGIONS! !! Yes they are.

ANYBODY who engages in trying to FORCE their Ideologies upon others IS part of the war-mongering problem.

Bet if I looked into it I'd find that the Iraqis drove us to it.

That's called containment.


The insurgents liked to hide in amongst the civilian populace in an attempt to shield themselves. Didn't always work out so well for either party. Didn't fare so well in terms of world opinion of the US, either, when the gloves had to be taken off.


[/quote]
1. Willie Pete itself is not illegal to use. Whether its use is legal or not depends on the application.
2. Look it up and you’ll find that the US is by far the large$t contributor to the UN. This takes us back to the might makes right reality we live with. What this means is that the UN can’t afford to do more than go through the motions of trying to dictate international law to its senior partner, the US of A.

No, it is never right to commit murder in the name of religion. As for true Christianity, it is against such things. The Crusades were not legitimate Christian enterprises. The rich and powerful of that era entered into them as a means of gaining territories in the Holy Lands, along with wealth, and power, and were only using "liberation" of the Holy Lands for Christianity as an excuse. It also enabled them to send lower level people off to fight, and die in these Crusades, rather than have them stay at home, and be potential threats to the ruling classes. Low level people had hard, poor lives, and were likely to revolt if they weren't distracted. Better to foster a "popular" war overseas, than have unhappy fighting men sitting at home. Some of these lower level men were true believers, but were not wise enough to see that they were being used. Instead they bought into the story that they were being sent to free the Holy Lands from the Infidels. The irony was that there were already plenty of Christian Semites already living there--descendents of people who had been converted in the early days of Christianity. Unfortunately, they spoke the same languages as the other Semites there, and looked much the same, so when the Crusaders came, they lumped these Semite Christians in with the Muslims, and killed them, too.

It would have made more sense to send diplomatic missions there to ask for permission to visit and protect Christian holy sites, and the routes to these places, as well. That would have been the true Christian thing to do. But then there would have been no loot, and no chance to grab land and power. So although some of the participants were true believers, the Crusades as a whole were not done for true Christian purposes, but rather for the base, worldly, and even evil purposes of the ruling classes.

The Bible teaches people to love their neighbors and even their enemies. Unfortunately, the Koran teaches it's followers that non believers must be converted, or enslaved, or killed. There is no fourth choice--no peaceful alternative offered in it, so according the the Koran, it is right to kill people in the name of their faith. As for the Bible, you aren't supposed to start a war over it, but you do have the right to defend yourself and others if someone is trying to kill you, your family/friends, and/or your community/country.

This is a complex issue. Hope I was able to clear some of it up.

Time to overthrow the government then and show Anarchy as the true answer followed by pacifism! Anarchy can work if everyone is non violent and cooperative and peace loving.

So, that proves Anarchy would never work.

It is against human nature.

As a postmillennialist, you can easily sub "Christianity" for "Anarchy" there.

You mean after we illegally invaded their sovereign nation?



Having a word for it doesn't make it not an atrocity.



The facts don't support the narrative that the people defending fallujah were using the civilians as human shields. The truth is that very few of the smallest and least popular militias engaged in that kind of behavior.



1: You mean like where there might be a whole lot of civilians contained?

2: So that makes it moral?

You are mistaken about human-nature. Just because a handful of loud-mouths are making the most noise does NOT make them the majority. Just because a dozen men wrote a document which claimed that all 400K+ people amongst the whole entire population agreed & ordained said document does NOT mean that the rest of the 400K+ people were even f*****g AWARE of what that handful of dozen of men even wrote NOR did those OTHER 400K+ people necessarily even ACTUALLY agree to nor ordain said document (such as that of a Constitution). Human-nature ? Human-nature is to treat text-on-paper as-if though it were some sort of God. Change that text & don't have dumb-asses put dumb-ass text into the papers & you will see that it WILL work IF the « text » itself happens to be WISE (but it IS up to you to help pass along the wisdom as part of the community effort rather than waiting for some God or godot to save you).

P.S.: What is text on paper ? When you treat it as a « everybody MUST follow » its writings then it's a DOCTRINE, and thus a DOGMA, and therefore, also makes it a RELIGION, and IF the TEXT ITSELF promotes PEACEFULNESS...