[YB*]

Originally Posted by Ester

See how religion is still implicated?

First Ester, it seems we need to define religion, to me thats not religion, juxtapose that (am feeling lakesidish today) with the settlements in EA. When the Ameru were 'led' by Murungu their Godto present day spot, is that religion? When Gikuyu, kisii, luo, kalenjin - each with their own communal belief, is that religion?? (I mean this in modern day terms, where we see a religion tranversing societies and cultures)

Even at that time there existed worshippers of baal and other Gods, so there was a jewish community, samaritan community, Roman community etc etc each with its uniting belief or common God, so at this point in time, religion as we know it did not exist, a single religion did not transverse societies and communities willingly, though it was imposed by ruler who concurred lands, unlike today, religion is joined by free will apart from of course the middle east.

[Ester]

Originally Posted by YB*

First Ester, it seems we need to define religion, to me thats not religion, juxtapose that (am feeling lakesidish today) with the settlements in EA. When the Ameru were 'led' by Murungu their Godto present day spot, is that religion? When Gikuyu, kisii, luo, kalenjin - each with their own communal belief, is that religion?? (I mean this in modern day terms, where we see a religion tranversing societies and cultures)

re·li·gion
-noun

• a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

On that note, perhaps some settlement in EA was motivated by religion. Consider the Kikuyus:

" For the Kikuyus, Mount Kenya, known as Kirinyaga, or Place of Brightness, and the second-highest peak in Africa, was a sacred place. Everything good came from it: abundant rains, rivers, streams, clean drinking water. Whether they were praying, burying their dead, or performing sacrifices, Kikuyus faced Mount Kenya, and when they built their houses, they made sure the doors looked toward it. As long as the mountain stood, people believed that God was with them and that they would want for nothing. Clouds that regularly shrouded Mount Kenya were often followed by rain. As long as the rains fell, people had more than enough food for themselves, plentiful livestock, and peace. "
Source- 'http://greenbeltmovement.org/w.php?id=50

Originally Posted by YB*

Even at that time there existed worshippers of baal and other Gods, so there was a jewish community, samaritan community, Roman community etc etc each with its uniting belief or common God, so at this point in time, religion as we know it did not exist, a single religion did not transverse societies and communities willingly, though it was imposed by ruler who concurred lands, unlike today, religion is joined by free will apart from of course the middle east.

I see your point here... although I was basically responding to al-zalzalah's comment that wars in the OT were purely for the acquisition of land. My take on it was that (for example the Israelites), most of their battles against non-Israelites were commissioned by their God, as proof of their dependence on Him or due to a covenant made to their forefathers.

[YB*]

@Ester - managed to tie myself in knots on religion description but can see you got my point eventually, each community believes its own God and believes in its own seers and prophets and this was the only way to move the groups as one (having an external, invisible, all powerful force), so at that micro point, I would not like to evoke 'religion' rather the community. That was the spirit of the earlier post

[ATLian]

ATLian: The scramble for Africa was driven by religon.

Ndigila: How so?

During the scramble for Africa, Europe was undergoing the industrial revolution, and they needed resources to fuel that revolution. Africa was the one place where they could just march in and grab the resources without too much revolt from the natives. After working so hard to free African slaves, it would have been hard for the same European nations to convince their citizens that re-enslaving Africans (which is essentially what colonialism is) so as to get their natural resources was the way to fuel the industrial revolution. An excuse like "spreading the word of god amongst the savages" was a more palatable excuse that was readily acceptable to the masses. The natural resources they then stole from us were just a by-product, or a form of payment, for them helping us rid ourselves of our savage gods and cultures.

Note that I'm not saying that religion was the only reason behind the scramble. Obviously the number one reason was so they could get their hands on our resources. But religion is the thing they used to justify the scramble, and the European masses bought those excuses hook, line and sinker.

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by ATLian

Note that I'm not saying that religion was the only reason behind the scramble. Obviously the number one reason was so they could get their hands on our resources. But religion is the thing they used to justify the scramble, and the European masses bought those excuses hook, line and sinker.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Ester]

I don't know if this topic has been discussed already, but a few years ago Meg Gibson was arrested by police for drunk-driving. Apparently during his arrest, he launched into a tirade where he said that "the Jews are responsible for all war in the world."

Do you think what he said was accurate?

[bible_reader]

Originally Posted by ndigila

Is religion the main cause of wars, or is it religious differences?
Would eliminating religions eliminate wars or just reduce them?
Wouldn't humans simply find another difference that would cause wars, considering that the 20th century was the bloodiest century in history?

I think war is just part of life because people compete,people divide,people rebel.That is precisely why the world will have to be cleaned up and refurbished with good people willing to obey and do good.

[al-zalzalah]

Originally Posted by ester

were they? what was the main motivation for the children of israel; why did they fight so many battles for canaan? after all, i believe there was lots of other fertile ground where they could have settled. Were the israelites on basic survival mode or were they driven to fulfill a promise made to them by god? see how religion is still implicated?

the land on which israel and the palestinian territories stand today contains some very choice fertile land and water sources. Compared to the surrounding regions, some of which are harsh, arid or semi arid, and don't have permanent sources of water. Those issues are so significant as to have impacted the relationship btwn israel, jordan and syria in recent history.
defense update news analysis: syria's price tag: israel's water resources - by david eshel

so, assuming the old testament stories are absolutely accurate, i think that this wandering tribe of nomads called the hebrews or israelites saw the fertile land and water, and wanted them, and fought for them. The god bit came into the picture afterwards, when they wanted to justify their actions. The other possibility is that those battles didn't actually happen, but were written by people in later centuries who wanted to demonstrate the greatness of their nation.

The european kings who led the crusades into the middle east were seeking empire, land, power. Religion is implicated, sure. But there's always or almost always a very worldly reason for these wars.

To my knowledge politicians and military strategists don't put their energy into drawing up battle plans unless they know for sure they're going to get something out of it. And by something i don't mean a place in heaven at god's right hand. Maybe the rank and file soldiers believe what they're told about doing it for god, but the leaders usually don't. Unless they're delusional (eg joseph kony).

Originally Posted by yb*

i will agree with you here, i actually read a good poem here on mashada about differences, something to do with me, us, them. Many a sociologist knows that to unite a people, a single outside source of threat must be in existence, failure to which, those within confines of a union will find something to bicker about and probably kill each other. And that has been how the 'bush' america has managed to keep america united while stealing from them by having americans united fighting terrorism, all rationale flies out the window. Being a history buff, you quickly note the trend of humans in conflict over the years if you have watched 300 when the greek came together and a small force of spartans met and almost routed xerxes, after everything, the greeks turned on each other, with the athenians being suppressed for some time by the spartans
when alexander died, without an outward looking commander, the empire imploded
irish, protestant and catholic wars etc, man will always be at conflict

i'm not as good with history as you are, but i do agree with this idea of trends. I keep on saying that we're all the same. If you want to understand another people's history look at your own.

I haven't seen 300, but now i have motivation to. Thanks. Lakini it looks bloody and gory. Nitaweza kweli?

and with reference to the irish protestant and catholic wars, there's a basis for that war in colonialism and colonial grievances. I think the protestantism and catholicism became rallying points for 2 groups of people that were on different sides of the political divide. Far as i know they're not fighting over a doctrinal issue. And if im wrong on that, i will welcome any due corrections.

Yeah, conflict is here to stay.

[ATLian]

Originally Posted by Ester

I don't know if this topic has been discussed already, but a few years ago Meg Gibson was arrested by police for drunk-driving. Apparently during his arrest, he launched into a tirade where he said that "the Jews are responsible for all war in the world."

Do you think what he said was accurate?

Of course not. What do Jews have to do with the Hutu vs Tutsi chaos? Of Darfur? Or Somalia? Or Yugoslavia? Or the Tamil Tigers? The only current war involving a Jewish element is the war in Palestine.

[al-zalzalah]

Originally Posted by Ester

I don't know if this topic has been discussed already, but a few years ago Meg Gibson was arrested by police for drunk-driving. Apparently during his arrest, he launched into a tirade where he said that "the Jews are responsible for all war in the world."
Do you think what he said was accurate?

nah. jews are people, not superhuman. they can't be responsible for everything.
lakini the british managed to colonize entire continents (most of north america, australia, parts of africa and asia) and to establish footholds there. had greater power and influence and caused greater damage than the jews in my humble opinion.
mel gibson is part of a white australian majority of british descent that was implicated in the death of australian aborigines. why isn't he getting drunk and bawling his eyes out over the sins committed by his people?