The term ‘religious war’ describes wars with religion as the
primary motive. Wars in which religion is a secondary motivation are not classified
with ‘religious war’ but still have religion involved.
War, the unending question against faith, is a negative aspect
of our collective-reality. It provokes us all to believe in something more than
humanity and its idiosyncrasies.
Ironically, war makes us have faith in a ‘higher power’ but
provides a reason to question its level of power, care or benevolence.
Please be careful to not say that a solution is a cause; that
the cause of an issue can be its solution.
Sadly, war is a result of religious beliefs, more often than
not. Most wars, if not all, have religious foundations to some degree because
any perceived right to possess by a group is, in reality, supported by a faith.
Even civil wars are fuelled by faith-based optimism. It can even be supposed
that every fighting side in every large-scale conflict holds the belief that
their God wants them to fight. War, albeit resultant of non-religious friction,
is inherently fuelled by faith.
Let’s define religion as any shared ideology that allows for
detracting action in the belief of correctness by the standards of a man-made
personified entity. Religions are belief systems that exist as proudly
suboptimal, the fear-led respect of them disallows an all-serving,
all-pleasing, all-good and all-logical ideology. Breaking to fix, fixing by
calling broken un-fixable.
Take the civil wars in Asia, Europe and Africa –
Without religions and their reassurances, another system of mental governing
would have to be found to stop the bloodshed and anti-progression. History would be a list of
warnings, not scripts.
Take the Nazi movement that was born on anti-Jew
economics/politics - Without religion, genocide would be a secondary solution.
Take WW1 – Without religion, the fight for
empirical supremacy may have been managed through diplomatic negotiation.
In these suppositions, I hope to infer that religion - and the subsequently-forced absence of a functional system - acts as an excuse / reason for a lot of negativity and fighting.
Take the idea of a one world government,
something you might see value in if true-aliens were to attack ‘us’ – Without
religion, the idea becomes plausible.
Take the idea of ‘multiculturalism’ – Without religion,
the term would actually mean what it describes and there would be less forces
of division.
It may seem that a world without religion looks bleak, from a
distance. Good Saying: ”Things always
look better in the rear-view”.
Could it be that: Without God and his
religions, with our powerful humanity left under another system that would be
more unifying, we would have less reason to believe in such a concept?
What faith is in humanity to say that, without religion, we
would all be fighting for greed, until extinction? Is that less or more stupid
than believing religious teachings as gospel?
Is that to say that humanity
needs God?
Could it be that: Humanity’s idiosyncrasies dictate the need for
religious ideologies and that those resulting ideologies, due to humanity’s
idiosyncrasies, must incite division, conflict, be incompatible with each other
and ultimately result in war? Then, humanity’s idiosyncrasies prevent the
recognition and remedy of the problem, which is the result of humanity’s idiosyncrasies.
Confused… do nothing. The quaking in your boots causes you to not want to believe in a good world without the idea of a god.
“I am a Christian, because I lost my parents in 9-11.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
If you disagree, Comment Here. If you don't, Comment Here