I guess all the raking over of the ashes of past conflicts serves to exercise the mind, as it certainly offers stark illumination of the fickleness of the human condition in its propensity for destructiveness and inhumanity, but, is there a possible solution to conflict embedded in all this conjecture?

Don't wish to throw cold water, but the attribution of causation for so many conflicts, save those currently in play, will remain merely historical unless we can learn something of value towards an end to conflict.

Some posts have asserted religious differences as a major cause of past and current conflicts, but only one broad religious group would appear currently to favour holy war, and that is of course Islam - no disrespect intended, as we know there are many more peaceful and tolerant followers of Islam than there would be aggressive and intolerant ones - as we also know that the cause of greatest discontent applicable is not religion based, but rather oppression based.

Some may try to assert that U.S. aggression is religion based, but we know this to be untrue and that the actual motivation operating is almost exclusively security of nation and lifestyle - complete with relevant capitalistic stability and supremacy ideology - and perhaps justifiably so, because the world would be a very different place without the dominance exercised by this world power, particularly during and after WW2.

This leaves us with only one possible conclusion - religion is no longer a major factor in world conflict, though it unfortunately continues to be a source of localised disagreement, occasionally resulting in internal conflict.

The remaining questions: i) Is a world without religion achievable, or preferable? My answer is no to both of these propositions.
ii) Can or should Atheism or Agnosticism be considered to be religions? I leave this to the choice of those involved, and I have no objection to either proposition.

Are we any closer to a solution to world conflict? Doesn't appear so.

Saltpetre,

But God told Georgie to invade Iraq - don't you know.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

Trav, any writer who insists that there is no religious angle to the conflict in Northern Ireland loses all credibility, instantly.

>>Read chapters 5 and 6 of Vox Day's book for some statistics of the number of religious wars.<<

The sleight-of-hand is most obvious when he sets out the criteria for "a religious war"

"1. It was publicly advocated by religious leaders.
2. Its appeal transcended national and political boundaries.
3. Large numbers of civilians voluntarily took part.
4. Individuals with neither military nor organizational authority held prominent leadership roles.
5. Professional soldiers volunteered to fight without demanding wages up front."

Without feeling the need to justify any of the five - let alone insist upon all of their being present, as he does - he manages quite neatly to re-define "religious wars" in such a narrow fashion that I am surprised any at all qualifies.

He mentions the partition of India, but only in passing. What are your thoughts, Trav, on a relatively recent event that - depending upon whom you ask - killed between one and one-and-a-half million people?

Did religion play a significant or insignificant role in these deaths. And has does it not still play a role, in 2011?

The Irish conflict was more about colonialism than religion but the stark religious differenes certainly added strong kindling to the fire. Many factors come into play in a war and any perceived difference adds impetus to the conflict and further serves to divide and differentiate 'them and us'.

Saltpetre askes a good question. Have we learned anything? We have I think in that the drive for secularism is a positive one and recognises differences are not always bad. Empathy is the most important factor, recognising the differences are not as important as the commonalities.

Other than on OLO discussions, Christians, atheists and agnostics rub together quite nicely.

Pericles,

[The sleight-of-hand is most obvious when he sets out the criteria for "a religious war"]

Do you have a better suggested methodology for distinguishing religious wars from other types? If so, please share it.

In Chapter 6 of Day's book, he refers to The Encyclopedia of Wars, an encyclopedia put together by a group of history professors which provides a summary of every major conflict, war and rebellion from the year 3,500 BCE to the present. The authors of the encyclopedia (Not Vox Day) categorise 123 wars as being religious, out of a total of 1,763 wars, giving us a grand total of 6.98% of wars being religious wars.

Fairly damning to your hypothesis, you would have to admit?

And no, I don't have a specific opinion on the one war you keep referring to, Pericles. Why do you continually refer to 1 war? Are you willing the spend the same amount of time discussing the other 1,762 wars since 3,500BCE, of which 1,639 were not categorised as religious by our history professors? With only 4 posts and 1,400 words a day, it could take a while

Nice body-swerve there, Trav. Are you available for the State of Origin, by any chance?

>>no, I don't have a specific opinion on the one war you keep referring to, Pericles. Why do you continually refer to 1 war?<<

Basically because wasn't actually a war.

The religious divisions (note: religious) in the sub-continent had reached a point where a "solution" was derived that separated the two major religions (note: religions) into two separate countries. During the process, over a million people were killed, as a result of their religious (that word again) affiliations.

To go back to the beginning for a moment, just to remind ourselves of the point of the discussion. I stated:

"That religion has been, for many hundreds of years, a primary cause of wars, police actions, skirmishes, assassinations, border disputes etc. etc. can surely not even be remotely debatable, let alone be a 'canard'?"

The evidence I have put forward has been simply to point out that to describe religion's major contribution to strife in the world as a "canard" is insupportable.

If you are able to put forward one single argument how the killing of over a million people, outside of a declared war, has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, you will be well on your way to a Pulitzer Prize.

Incidentally, the existence of 123 wars of "religion" doesn't actually support your "canard" theory, does it. And that is even without quarreling with the definition of "religious" wars, or examining their magnitude and impact.