AUGUST 14, 2010
The idea, which is popular, is expressed like this: while religions maintains real conflicts and wars it will be without remedy, and therefore, thebest thing to do is ban religions. It is not uncommon to hear that the idea of seeing faces of approval when listening.
First, that each religion say they are true. Each states and it is notsurprising: it would be ridiculous for any religion say that their religion it is not true, or the least better. Imagine that you tell a minister to the faithful, “to avoid war, tell them that my religion isnot true." This would be impossible; every religion confirms that their religion is the correct religion.
What matters is not really the claim to be true. What gets my attention is if a religionendorses the use of violence or not its central doctrine. If a religion does, then you may consider that the cause of war. But on the other hand, is she condemns the war, and then it may be to blame, butthe main idea that concludes that the day that religion will disappear will prevent wars, which can later commit an error of consideration. You can find the error in a simple, very basic analysis list.In the first list are the wars in which religion has been the central cause. This list recorded wars like the Islamic expansionism since the 6th century, the Crusades, the wars between Protestants,The war of 30 years and Catholics in Europe. They were clearly religious wars.
On the second list we find wars and killing that were caused by people trying to force their religion unto other people.For example the Inquisition of Spain, Papa Pio V ordered to kill Huguenots in France (20,000 were killed), in Century XVII Catholics killed Gaspard de Coligny.
The third list is the wars thatdefinitely did not have religion as central motifs, even secondary. In this list will be wars such as Alexander the Great, the Greeks and Persians, the Roman Empire, those of Napoleon, the two great wars...