History and the use of religion by political powers

[Polaris]

If religion does not cause war then why does islam have such bloody borders

Because they were creating an empire. What do you think Rome or Great Britain did? Conquer lands by having tea parties?

[Ryantology]

The Khans of old also had "kut" the divine mandate of the Sky God.
Is it a bad thing? No, it somehow aided our expansion, as we Turks(and the Mongyul) believed we were on a "divine mission from God" to unite the world under a single Sky ever since our pre-muslim times.
With the coming of Islam, and the idea of shehadet, we have been ever more so motivated for conquest. And we have arcieved more than what we expected, establishing Dynasties throughout the Eurasian continent, spanning back to India, and previously, China aswell.

A truly fantastic achievement for a people with pitiful and ephemeral aspirations.

[Lek]

Mankind has been at war with each other as far back as we can study - christians, pagans, muslims, hindus, secularists, atheists and more. I don't believe religion causes war, but that people cause war. As long as people are greedy there will be wars.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

It depends on how one wants to perceive history/conflicts per se.

The instrumentalist in me agrees that religion is often a smokescreen or a cover for a greater issue behind the scenes (whatever it might be).

However, as a (de)-constructivist, often original causes for conflicts are lost as generation after generation become entrenched in their otherism, and the reasons why they dislike each other morph with them.

Religion in this instance is very much a cause for conflict, equal to any political or economical difference. Indeed, if I may take your own religion, the cultural and economic aspects of Islam are tied very much to the religious structures themselves, meaning it is often very hard to discern a difference when one wages war in the name of an extreme Islamic ideology or whether it's simply because they want more money for their tribe/state/clan etc.

Truth is, even if religion per se isn't the cause for conflict, removing it at the very least as an excuse for the myriad of reasons why someone might want to harm another is surely a task all should strive for?

Take the recent murder of a solider in the UK recently by two indoctrinated fundamentalists in east London. They said on camera after butchering the guy with a meat cleaver that their actions were retribution for the west's 'transgressions' in the Middle East and Afghanistan.

Prima facie that could be enough, but what motivated them to act beyond the simple cause? It was the Quran that gave them the justification that sought, at least in their minds. Whether one disagrees with their actions (which surely all same people would), the fact that in their mind the religious aspects of their cause gave them the legitimacy to act on their political grievances lends weight to the argument that religion as a cause cannot be dismissed so easily.

I 'll tell u something.. middle east governors are no more than puppets to a bigger organization.. and surely not an Islamic one.. they don't even follow simple islamic instruction .. they drink and practice fornication and lend money with interests .. they're unjust and dictators ..But still! They use religion as an excuse for their oppression against their people.

exactly like what is happening in KSA.

The instrumentalist would agree. The constructivist would say that's too parsimonious. That was the point of my reply.

You can't use a no-true Scotsman fallacy to absolve the links between religion and wars. I have given you an example of where you could be wrong, I expect more than fallacies as a retort.

A killer is a killer .. you can cut food with a knife as well as u can kill with it.

Many murderers were motivated by Hollywood movies ! Does that make actors or writers bad or aggressive?

False equivocation. You can't just retort by saying that Hollywood movies cause violence (assertion, no citation) as a reason as to why you're right and I'm wrong. If the writers in those films had a character turn to the camera and actively address the audience asking them to do something, then yes, they would be culpable for the actions of people. But films don't do that. Religious texts do, however. I'm sure you can think of several examples.

Do u see my point here?

We r fighting each other thinking that our differences including religions r the reason while the real murderers r walking free and enjoying their wealthy lives.

U can be a friend with someone who is so different ! But evil people can use that difference to let u 2 fight against each other.

I see your point, I just disagree. I don't have to respect a religion, indeed, no religion should be respected. Religion is just an idea, much like a political and social idea. It deserves and indeed requires critique and ridicule.

The issue is that followers of said religions tend to not like that and take it personally.

Nobody here is fighting anyone on a personal or even a collective level. Rather, we are 'fighting' (disagreeing) against an idea that is in a marketplace of ideas.

I don't know who these evil people are, what their wealth has to do with it, or why they are relevant. Can you elaborate?