Years ago I saw a poster showing the Twin Towers still standing, with the caption "Imagine a world without religion." I still think about that because of the jaw-droppingly naive perspective it conveys, dismissing all the cultural, political, economic, and historical factors that contribute to world conflicts. We can never hope to stop the violence with such a simplistic outlook.
@@SoleaGalilei oh we might try ...and there have been far less wars in Europe with secularism dominating over religion ... Id like to continue this experiment, and if France hasn't had anything like the Huguenot wars in a couple of centuries then we might conclude religion had a little to do with centuries of blood baths that saw 1 in 10 people die each year because incessant warfare when churches were dominate
As a Shinto practitioner and a Social Studies teacher I'm glad that you are really breaking down these myths. Religion doesn't cause war, it tends to be human greed.
@@MetaKnight964 what's up with you? You made four comments in the last hour, and all of them are rude, ill-informed, and low effort. If you don't mind me asking, what religion do you follow?
@@deanryanmartin I'm not a Christian, or monotheist, so I can't rightfully answer for their holy book. I just know that human greed, and the desire for power and the core driving forces for conflict.
Also the myth that Buddhist do not did not have or participate in war/violence etc! And they say that celebrating warrior monks who were standing armies!😎
Just wanted to congratulate you on the success of this channel, I remember finding you on RUclips back when you were still Br. Casey and your subscriber count has really ballooned since then!
When I took a class on the Crusades in college, the first thing the professor taught us was "These were not wars between Christians and Muslims. They were wars between different _alliances_ of Christians and Muslims."
*Ahem* We shouldn't erase the Crusades that happened within Europe: The Albegensian Crusade against the Cathars in France. The Wendish Crusade. The three Swedish Crusades The Livonian Crusade. The Prussian Crusade The Lithuanian Crusade The Reconquista.
@@davidcheater4239 I'm sadly unable to comment on the other wars you've mentioned, but the reconquista was pretty darn close to the archetype of a justifiable war. The sultanates invaded from the south and conquered Christian lands with no justification other than a desire for land and periodically raided the kingdoms which would become Castile and Arragon along with their neighbours for centuries. Religion played a role in motivating the Spanish kingdoms to take their land back but the main reason was having it stolen from their ancestors in the first place.
@@davidcheater4239 2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 2Co 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
@@johnmccrossan9376 a) there was no place called Spain. b) the various kingdoms in the Iberian Peninsula had been warring against each other for centuries, c) the Moors had lived there for many centuries - it was their land.
@@russellmiles2861 a. I didn't claim there was a country called Spain, when I say the Spanish kingdoms I mean the kingdoms that would later form Spain. This isn't unique to me and what it has to do with the rightness or wrongness of these wars I have no idea. B. Yes, as had virtually every small kingdom in Europe and around the world. These were almost exclusively small wars over the right to tax some river or another so again this doesn't impact the virtue of taking back stolen land. C. The time they lived there is irrelevant. This was a violent conquest that took place without provocation, and the Iberian kingdoms had every right to undo it and take their land back. Saying the moors had some kind of claim on the land is like saying England should still be running India because they were there for a long time. No. The land was stolen and the people wanted it back, as you no doubt would it someone stole your house.
I hear this one so often. The "Troubles" in Northern ireland are always blamed on Catholic vs Protestant conflict. The truth is far more complex. It was more about the traditionally second class Irish residents not having the same rights as the (mostly Scottish and coincidentally protestant) Loyalists who wnted NI to stay part of the UK. These protestants were deliberately settled there by the British government during the 17th century "Plantation of Ulster" to bolster support for the crown. The 20th century Popes all condemned the violent members of the IRA. People will always find a tribalist or nationalistic excuse to find an enemy in "the Other".
Religion is usually a post-hoc justification for wars rather than the instigating motivation. Especially in the days when religion was fully entangled in temporal affairs in Europe, something nominally "In the Name of God" could never completely be divorced from matters of state and general politicking. Even the religious wars of the Reformation are difficult to attribute solely or even primarily to religion, given the socio-political goings-on
I really like the point you made that Kings told their army it was about religion when in fact it was ultimately about expanding and power. Great video!
It’s also so many don’t understand the difference in “caused by religion” & “invoking religion.” Just because someone says it’s for religion doesn’t mean it is or even close to being about religion.
True. In the Holy Roman Empire the saxons were a people of their own that stood in the way of Charlemagne’s dominion over Saxony, so his solution was to justify it as a holy war to gather the support he needed; Christian saxons even sided with him and the converts didn’t oppose
As someone who loves history, the statement that "most wars are religious ones" is completely ridiculous. Even just the wars that the US was involved in. Revolution - no War of 1812 - no Mexican American war - no Civil war - no Spanish American war - no World war 1 - not even remotely World war 2 - not really, though some could argue that the axis were. Korean War - no Vietnam war - no Cold War - no Gulf war - no War on terrorism: Operation enduring freedom - nope Operation freedom's sentinel - no Most wars are fought for land, money, or political differences. Religion has caused wars, but not that many.
@@MetaKnight964 The Japanese empire had something called "State Shinto", which was the government controlling the traditional Japanese religion. The state controlled finances and training regimes for priests. The state strongly encouraged practices that viewed the emperor as a divine being. Thus making the emperor's will, divine in the eyes of the people. That would include the war. I said it was arguable because there were many countries involved, it would be difficult to blanket "religious war" over it. And on the topic that Islam sees war as good, what are you smoking chief? The only thing I could find is that the Quran views war as acceptable if done in self-defense, ie: oppressed people revolt. So not only do they not see war as "good", but also even if they did, they would be FAR from the only one. How many polytheistic religions had gods of WAR again? Who was ARES again? And let's not forget that pagan religions exist. There are probably countless pagan religions out there that think war is good.
Violence caused by religion would be a totally different story! I agree though this is a very misleading and wrong video! The Ireland troubles were seeded and started by religious wars, chances are it never would have continued without religion, it separates people still today! This is a totally wrong opinion in this video, makes me very angry!
As someone who was just recently saved I didn’t realize how many misconceptions I held about Christ and the Gospel until I really dove into it myself. The issue particularly with younger generations isn’t so much not knowing Christ- but knowing so much that isn’t so.
Except most are correct 1. No list of 10 Commandments anywhere in the Bible 2. The original Greek gospels don't say Jesus was crucified 3. Jospeh is described as a carpenter 4. The last lines of Mark were added later: chp 14 9-20 5. Chapt of John was not in the original manuscriptd 6. Genesis 18 22 was reversed in 10th century CE 7. The beginning of the Bible is more correctly translated as "When God began..." Inferring there was something not nothing 8. The Ethiopian Orthodox cannon has 81 books including Enoch 9. The Roman Catholic church rejects Hebrews as an Epistles, which the Oriental church recognise. 10. There is no mention of the resurrection in Mark Yes, many things are made up - often by Christians
@@komnennoswell, perhaps. We are a culture of myths and legends - if we hear things that support our ideology we believe them. I was recently teaching a class to fledgling community workers. I was striving to show them that the incidence of family violence towards women and children is the lowest ever recorded - so they could see what things worked, what doesn't - in their workplace they will be told the opposite. Oh I mentioned - showing the data - that more men are kill (3 times as many) than women. They are killed by other men (fathers, sons, uncles, housemates, etc) We have folk who just removed all these case from their data to show their point. Oh I add that I don't care about the men - women and children are far more vulnerable
You may have missed the point of this video, which is that sometimes it's a religion but most times it's not so when you make a statement like you did… Sometimes sometimes sometimes you are the point of the video… Why don't you just come right out and say you don't agree?
As a historian you would know that citing a couple of general references, as opposed to scholarly peer review articles would end up with a fail for an assignment.
@@russellmiles2861 As a historian we know it’s a silly argument to have. Every war has religious, ethnic, national, ideological, and economic motivations. The order of importance is swapped around for each conflict, but the driving force behind conquest is almost always the acquisition of wealth. The most acute primary cause of conflict is when one nation or ethnicity in a region grows significantly in population or prosperity, upending the balance of power in their region. I’ve studied hundreds of wars, and religion is always a component, but it is very rarely the motivating factor. Someone could just as easily argue that religion is the primary cause of peace, which would also be silly. The primary cause of peace historically is when there is a stable balance of powers in the region in question.
@@bennyv4444 as a way of approaching this issue, we might make distinction between wars. a) Wars instigated by church authorities such as investiture crisis involving Henry IV of Germany and Pope Gregory VII. This is where churches leaders have armies and engage wars of aggression. Such are extremely rare. b) Wars where there are State churches - essentially the state and church are the same. This would involve most wars in history of Christianity in Europe. They weren't clear caused by churches: churches are just part of state apparatus. In the Great Patriotic war, Stalin recreated the Orthodox church, return property, freed Bishops and priests and allowed public worship to help unify the country. The church hardly has a say in such wars. c) Wars where churches endorsed wars - it is very rare that churches oppose wars, but the do. Benedict XV stridently oppose the continuation of the Great war and was denigrated by political leaders. This is a rare occasions. I would that even such a divisions doesn't contribute much; as you observe wars have various and complex causes. Even where religions contribute to the cause it would rare that such was the casual factor: and not even a significant factor. What might be more interesting is the prevailing ideology in which wars of aggression occur and how church teaching contributes to such. To illustrate: the Roman Catholic church has always condemned the use of WMD such as nuclear devices and call for World powers to work for the end of such threat to humanity. This is the Western civilization view too. Equally, the Roman Catholic church does not teach unilateralism - that the West must abandoned it's nuclear deterrence. That is recognise as within Just War doctrine. If the Church ever condemned the development and threaten use, excummincating political leaders, it would caste itself into irrelevancy. Finally, I'd contend Christianity shares responsibility for the calamities humanity has created for itself. The church is not separate from the World. That isn't a myth
a. People with different ideas about religion have lived side-by-side without issue the vast majority of the time throughout history. b. Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, Mao, Fidel Castro, Ceaucescu, etc., were atheists.
Fr.Casey, I am a 13 year old boy who want to live I live dedicated to God. As a 13 year old how can I start my journey to become a priest? I love your video’s and you inspire me. God Bless your work, sharing the message of God. Thank you❤
Take bible classes maybe... Then after that read the catechism references. Know the reference bible verses of each line said by a Priest in a mass. Pray everyday to St Michael, guardian angel and patron saint. Daily rosary could help. As one enters 14-20 years old the tentacles of the godless world are most vicious. If one is not strong in education, he can easily be swayed by the media, atheist educators and surrounding friends. Solve these problems before they come to you: is evolution real, is western enlightenment freedom superior to Catholic mentality of obedience, should Catholics follow political discourse in condemning foreigners instead of loving, can your country be saved by human intellect and logic rather than the sacred heart of Jesus and Mary, is faith an illusion for the weak-hearted, are intercession of saints necessary... Finally, obedience to the pope and constructive criticism only for both our church and everything else outside. No bad habit of pointing out negative aspects of people or things. Control the mouth by practice so as not to let out the demon of discord. Lastly, have more love. Many clergymen are reported to be "barking" at people for various reasons. Something discouraged in the Epistles. And of course priests have leadership responsibility, especially in managing finances, deciding where to spend money to fix the broken part first, allocating budget for activities etc. Priests also need to deal with committee members who are partly normal people who are not filled with much grace, but their troublesome existence brings glory to the struggle of a priest's ministry. I am a 30 years old working adult who tremble at the possible notion of leading even a single committee, so I need to commend you for your ambition at such young age. For once you become a priest, you will have to labor ten times more than others, quoting a nun talking about this last week in a meeting I attended. You have duties towards your flock, have to drive around visiting, picking up phone calls at inconvenient hours, attending meetings and travelling back and forth. No much spare time to indulge in favorite activities. Phew! And all these labours come with no salary increments, no monetary reward, and little comfort. Huge respect to priests and friars and nuns! They are chosen not for their extraordinary talents, so that the power of God can be shown through them.
"Religious wars" are always political wars, a good reason to avoid politicsl parties, and think about the consequences of policies, not labels and party loyalty. It's hard though, because it requires difficult, careful thought and reasoning, not emotional impairment.
I actually fully agree with your point that religion some grand source source of war, but "The Great Big Book of Horrible Things" is an abysmal reference for getting the death totals of human atrocities.
@@xavierphillips2581 i will just give you my source because obviously I can’t name every single one: encyclopedia of wars by Phillips, Charles, Axelrod and Alan
Deuteronony 20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them, namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee 20:19 When thou besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees ... ect ect
It was not a religious war, it was a war to conquest what today is the holy land ( the real motivation was in fact steal land). God appears here as a dire excuse. The same happens with other supposed religious wars.
Father Casey, Thank you for this video to dispel the myth that ALL wars are caused by religion. I have often heard this statement "All wars are caused by religion" by many people and friends. It often seems the people who say this have used this as an excuse to not consider Christianity as a world view and to hold themselves accountable to God.
Father, I got a question. I'm a former lutheran who will convert to Catholicism. I already left the protestant church. My priest told me I should go to confession before I get received into the catholic church. And when I went to confession (it was another priest) the pater told me he wasn't sure if the absolution is valid because I wasn't received into the catholic church yet. As a Lutheran I of course am baptised. Now my question: for the sacrament of penance to be valid, do I have to be catholic or do I have to be baptised? Thank you very much for your work, it really helped me in my conversion
If you were baptized with the Trinitarian formula you don´t have to be baptized again. You already are part of Christ Church, so maybe that Priest was referring to taking the RCIA or being Confirmed. The absolution might not be valid if your intention was to remain protestant, since the Sacrament of Reconciliation is first, to reconcile with God, but second, to reconcile with the Church/Community, but you are already on your way back to the Catholic Church, so that is not the case. In any case, you could ask your local Bishop for more clarity.
The Crusades were about religion. Maybe most wars are not but some clearly are. Many of the kings and princes going on crusades we know from the historical record were pious and religious people in every sense.
I recommend looking in to the Taiping rebellion more, the leader of the rebels Hong Xiuquan was not a Christian. He claimed to be a new messiah, the brother of Jesus, and his teachings were hedonistic and very clearly his own religion.
In 2000 years, Casey, how many wars were actively opposed by the Vatican...versus how many were given tacit approval by the Pope or the Pope remained silent on them?
Perhaps read Preachers Present Arms by Ray Abrams 1933 - a study of the war-time attitudes and activities of the churches and the clergy in the United States, 1914-1918. The book shows how clergy went from isolationist and antiwar to fire-breathing advocates for war against Germany A later book edition in 1967 was a much expanded history of the role of the American Churches and Clergy in World War I and II with observations on the then War in Vietnam
Fr. Casey, the conflict between Israel and Palestine is the longest sibling rivalry known to Mankind ( i.e. between the sons of Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac.)
But you missed the point… Yes, religions can be a force for good bad, but they are not the primary force behind wars. Your assignment is to watch the video again and this time take notes.
@@PoppoFitz most sane people know that it is not the primary cause. But 282 is still a lot. That's why I posted this. I never said that it was the primary cause. Your assigment is to read my comment again and this time take notes
@@rodriguezelfeliz4623but the video is not critiquing your take. It's critiquing the anti theist take that religion bad, destructive, causes and caused most wars and we would all be better off if religion disappeared.
I've had this discussion so many times and at the end people always go back to the crusades. It is interesting however that when you tell them about the geopolitical situation back when the first crusades happened, about how countless christian nations were conquered in the middle east and africa, about how the iberian peninsula got conquered, about how the eastern roman empire and in fact all of europe was at the brink of collapse that the first reaction is always "oh I did not know about that". Of course there were religious motivations to these wars but to think that a bunch of christians just decided one day to go to Jerusalem and kill a bunch of people is absurd.
Thank you, Father for an outstanding video. This myth is so pervasive that it seems "but, everyone says" and therefore, it must be true. And the "enlightenment scholars" real intent was to impress others with their knowledge; yet, a genuine scholar has no need for such behavior. Unfortunately, the poorly educated and misinformed cannot differentiate fact from fiction. Pax
Very interesting and useful piece, Father. Thank you. One note, though: although religion itself may not be responsible for most wars, the belief that one has the one true religion has led to a lot of bloodshed. Political and power structures were built around that belief and capitalized on that belief for centuries in Europe and the Americas. So it is not religion per se that is problem but the belief that only ONE religion has a lock on truth, Divine inspiration and moral authority. ( ahem)
Btw, Lincoln had this insight during the Civil.War: " Both sides believe that God is on their side. One of us, at least, is wrong." This illustrates an interesting point: religion may not be the cause of most wars but it certainly is enlisted in many wars.
I find this a bit of a straw man argument. It's important to draw a distinction between true atheists and what philosopers of religion call "innocents". Innocents are people who have no time for God and live their lives as if God (or Gods) didn't exist. They may know nothing about the arguments for and against God's existence and may never have had a religious experience. I have never heard any of my atheist friends say all wars are caused by religion. Atheists are well used to sifting evidence and Fr. Casey presents compelling reasons for wars which are not religious: we fight over land, wealth, power, oil and water, among other things. The people who say all wars are religious are unlikely to be thinking atheists but rather innocents who have an unspecified dislike of religion or find it an irritating encumbrance. They have their place.
Fr. Casey, if I'm interested in monastic life, but do not desire to be a Friar, what are my options? Open discussion for others as well :) , but I'm primarily seeking advice from Casey :)
Thank you, Father Casey, for this meticulously researched exoneration of religion's role in historical conflicts. It perfectly drives home the point that violence does not, especially in the case of Christianity, logically follow from religious precepts. Rather, religious affiliation is often exploited by political actors to create in groups and out groups to further sow the seeds of animosity between two warring factions. With all that said, it should be noted that this not the case with Islam. While there are many statements in the Quran and Hadith that enjoin followers to be peaceful and to demonstrate mercy, there are others that are ostensibly bellicose. While the peaceful exhortations of Jesus can be seen to nullify the violent commandments of the Old Testament, no clear method of abrogation exists in Islam. This is compounded by the fact that Muhammad himself, the founder of the religion and one who is looked upon as the model exemplar of a devout Muslim, conducted violent campaigns of conquest. This is something Jesus never did.. So it is far easier to justify violence in the name of Muhammad than in the name of Jesus.. Therefore, it is important not to view all religions, and their role in military conflict, in the same way.
I love these videos. Very controversial yet it answers questions that most of soceiry assumes they got it right the first time. 90% of people who are atheists always use this as why we need to get rid of religion. That "it's the cause of all violence in the world" and the last video you made on that catholic church "persecuting sceicne" Good stuff
And yet, nobody blames religion for every war that took place before Christianity and Islam came on the scene... EDIT: I wrote that comment before Brother Casey pointed it out.
The nuance may be that religion legitimizes wars, sometimes with both sides claiming to be on the side of the angels. Indeed, some British newspapers reported that real angels had fought alongside soldiers resisting the German advance at Mons in 1914. Saint Joan of Arc and the Archangel Michael had also been on hand to lend their support. In the next big war, even as the clergy of Poland were being systematically murdered in concentration camps, German priests were telling soldiers that they were agents of God sent to purge Europe of Soviet atheism. There’s nothing better in terms of propaganda than getting an endorsement from the Lord Himself. “God fought for us,” Henry V declares (with Shakespeare’s help) after the battle of Agincourt, echoing Joshua 10:42. The same spirit prevails in our time: for self-labelled Christian nationalists, the November election includes a candidate with divine authority, and, if he loses, already there is talk of armed rebellion. I agree that religion is not usually the primary cause of war, but it sure can be used to justify it.
I agree with the argument, people who are anti-religion paint with an oversimplistic brush. Having said that, However, if most war is about disputes over power and conquest, then religion can provide a relatively easy sell by propagandizing the pious into making the war 'righteous.' Religion can also diminish the value of the earthly life by emphasizing the afterlife. 72 virgins and all that. My point, is that while not necessarily true, religion can make people gullible. For example the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were imposed in large part by the religious right support of George W. Bush. There was and is a definite religious connection to 'freedom fries' and support for Israel's war on Gaza which has already claimed 15 x more lives than the terrorist attack perped by Hamas.
A war in the name of Christianity fundamentally anti Christian. I think that is one of the most beautiful things about the Christian faith. Our savior, teacher, and role model is the perfect man… and also God… which helps
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.
@@praveendsouze I have finished reading the whole bible. And I have read what SAINT Bernhard of Clairveaux wrote about the two swords. Peace was never a priority for catholics.
@@CafeteriaCatholic wow, then what about allying with the islamists in the war against the Catholics, this will be done again, " For ships of Kittim will come against him; therefore he will be disheartened, and will return and become enraged at the holy covenant and take action; so he will come back and show regard for those who forsake the holy covenant.," (Daniel 11:30) Holy Covenant= Eucharist "They went out from us, but they did not belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But their departure made it clear that none of them belonged to us." (1 John 2:19)
I agree with the conclusion that religion (defined as either institution or theology) isn’t a major contributor to war. Power and greed will never be outdone in this contest. How about violence, say domestic violence, is it a major contributor, again, probably not . economic and personal issues are tops. But let’s reframe the issue, why hasn’t religion been a force against violence. In Ireland, in Rawanda religious figures were present, but didn’t provide any effort to ensure peace. It took secular institutions to actually work for peace. No bone to pick here. But your conclusion about”religion having a lot to offer” begs the question, why doesn’t it.
I think we, as a society, bought into the religion and wars myth because we were fighting the War on Terror and had just witnessed 9/11, so it was easier to believe in the previous decades.
Месяц назад
This is true, until the rise of Christianity & Islam few wars were fought over religion. Rome didn't conquer its empire to convert their conquests to their religion. The Romans could care less about other people's religion. The European wars of religion were a series of wars waged in Europe during the 16th, 17th and early 18th centuries. Fought after the Protestant Reformation began in 1517, the wars disrupted the religious and political order in the Catholic countries of Europe, or Christendom. Other motives during the wars involved revolt, territorial ambitions and great power conflicts. By the end of the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648), Catholic France had allied with the Protestant forces against the Catholic Habsburg monarchy. The wars were largely ended by the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which established a new political order that is now known as Westphalian sovereignty.
Enlightenment thinkers were pro slavery and believed woman suffrage would end society. Slavery was abolished by Christians and women suffrage came thanks to the end of millitary culture thanks to the first World war.
That darned Enlightenment! All that free thinking claptrap about science, democracy and human rights. Bring back the monarchies. They respected the Church and kept the riff raff under control. They also really knew how to party.
I love that you use data, father. Although I never thought that religion was the main cause for wars. My view also hasn't changed that religion is still one of the reason that ignite men to wars. Not all religions are peaceful, even though their followers actively believe and preach that their religion is the peaceful one, as for me they just very oblivious 😢
You are correct about Christianity not causing violence, but there are violent religions like Islam whose texts clearly state the need of military conquest to spread the faith and thereby enhancing your fortune.
Its usually only the baby-atheists that are deconstructing that say things like this i think there is just so much evidence tgat wars are almost always politics and resources with religion used as justification. Heck we even see that in the OT....
Wouldn't help as we can read - two references that are very bias is hardly credible evidence. I suggest read Preachers Present Arms by Ray Abrams 1933 is a study of the war-time attitudes and activities of the churches and the clergy in the United States, 1914-1918. I also consider the Conquistadors and Northern crusade - two of the most destructive endeavours in human history. Along with King Phillips war in colonial Massachusetts - which saw one of the highest death rate of any war in the Americas
@@russellmiles2861 You realize that when information is included in an argument, it makes a weak counterpoint, right? King Phillips war was not a religious conflict. The northern crusades pale in comparison to the conquests of The Huns, Mongols, Romans, Alexander, the Assyrians, the modern nation states conflicts like the world wars. Now, the Arab conquests certainly compete, and the 30 years war was terrible. There are religious wars, but the idea that it is the primary motivator of conflict is silly. The famous and openly irreligious general Von Clausewitz said it best in his book The Art of War, “Leaders prefer to speak of God when they want a new mine, or the wealth of their neighbor, because the true motivation is an ugly thing.”
@@bennyv4444 I think the Northern crusade were a little bit religiously motivated: they were crusades. And what brought settlers to Massachusetts that brought them into the conflict with First Nation peoples. Be I notice you skipped the Conquistadors where entire peoples were wipped out under invocations of the church to convert by force. Sure, if you like, there was no religious motivation in wars ... It doesn't bother me; it is not like young people are going to listen to you.
Religions said to be from God are always to be judged, as is the God Who gave the faith to the people, by the *bad* deeds of the followers; due to His supreme authority having even *once* been attributed to Him.
Actually I thinks religion, a religion that values human life, has saved more lives than any political view or social construct. Most religions have a basic belief that it is wrong to kill an innocent human life. Contrast that to most people who are not religious that have no such belief.
What disappoints me about this video is not that it makes the point that religion isn't ultimately the cause of war - certainly not any mature understanding of religion - but the dismissive and revisionist view of the enlightenment. Because religious identity can be manipulated in times of war; because science needs to be beholden to empirical confirmation and not dogma - religious or otherwise; because people's faith takes different people in different directions - secularization of government and some other spheres of life is appropriate. People can - should, in my opinion - have faith; their hope and actions should not be limited to what they can absolutely prove. But too often people used the levers of government to promote their own religious ideologies. This aspect of the Enlightenment - to fight for free expression - was entirely appropriate. This did not come from the religious sphere.
I don’t believe it will ever stop, Fr Casey. The father of lies is behind all of it and will not stop twisting the truth to suit his own end. The loss of souls.
The Taiping rebellion had nothing to do with christianity, their leader was insane and claimed to be Jesus brother, but that doesn't make it christian.
Well said especially on the so called "enlightenment part" (8:17). I can't agree more if we look at today's world from an objective prospective. One thing is not correct about the Taiping Rebellion(3:12 and 5:05). It is never a case of Christianity cause. The leader claimed that he was the "brother of Jesus" as a new movement against the Qing empire (foreign Mongul conquerors). The Qing was never Christians and actually "anti-Western" including "anti-Western religion". At first, the Western powers supported the Taiping Rebellion for their own colonial gains but later realized it was nothing but a cult and was losing ground, they supported the Qing instead. Just to recap, it is nothing about religion but simply empire ambitions.
I understand the point of this video, but do wish you had taken some more time to talk about the role the Catholic Church as an organization has played in the propagation of war. Perhaps that is better suited as a video for another day. The mission of Christ is peaceful, but it is often misappropriated for horrible ends.
2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 2Co 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
Caused by religion probably not, but territorial conquests were oftentimes justified to the people through a religious lense, because it's a much more effective way of creating an "us vs. them" mentality than "the king needs more land and cheap labour"
Good point. If it is claimed that Christianity was the cause of the 30 years war, so would be the war in Afghanistan during soviet times be motivated by atheism.
Years ago I saw a poster showing the Twin Towers still standing, with the caption "Imagine a world without religion." I still think about that because of the jaw-droppingly naive perspective it conveys, dismissing all the cultural, political, economic, and historical factors that contribute to world conflicts. We can never hope to stop the violence with such a simplistic outlook.
911 is clearly a religious war. Don't try to make into something else like poverty, marginalization blah blah blah.
A world without religion would be incredibly desolate
@@SoleaGalilei oh we might try ...and there have been far less wars in Europe with secularism dominating over religion ... Id like to continue this experiment, and if France hasn't had anything like the Huguenot wars in a couple of centuries then we might conclude religion had a little to do with centuries of blood baths that saw 1 in 10 people die each year because incessant warfare when churches were dominate
As a Shinto practitioner and a Social Studies teacher I'm glad that you are really breaking down these myths. Religion doesn't cause war, it tends to be human greed.
Back when shinto was popular Japan was a hellhole.
@@MetaKnight964 what's up with you? You made four comments in the last hour, and all of them are rude, ill-informed, and low effort. If you don't mind me asking, what religion do you follow?
Yes. It is, indeed, human greed. Yet, how would you explain the war in Book of Joshua in the Old Testament?
@@deanryanmartin I'm not a Christian, or monotheist, so I can't rightfully answer for their holy book. I just know that human greed, and the desire for power and the core driving forces for conflict.
@@tavmminqat Agreed.
Also the myth that Buddhist do not did not have or participate in war/violence etc!
And they say that celebrating warrior monks who were standing armies!😎
True, just look at what is happening in Myanmar today. Is this Buddhism against Islam or control of a breakaway province?
Just wanted to congratulate you on the success of this channel, I remember finding you on RUclips back when you were still Br. Casey and your subscriber count has really ballooned since then!
When I took a class on the Crusades in college, the first thing the professor taught us was "These were not wars between Christians and Muslims. They were wars between different _alliances_ of Christians and Muslims."
*Ahem*
We shouldn't erase the Crusades that happened within Europe:
The Albegensian Crusade against the Cathars in France.
The Wendish Crusade.
The three Swedish Crusades
The Livonian Crusade.
The Prussian Crusade
The Lithuanian Crusade
The Reconquista.
@@davidcheater4239 I'm sadly unable to comment on the other wars you've mentioned, but the reconquista was pretty darn close to the archetype of a justifiable war. The sultanates invaded from the south and conquered Christian lands with no justification other than a desire for land and periodically raided the kingdoms which would become Castile and Arragon along with their neighbours for centuries. Religion played a role in motivating the Spanish kingdoms to take their land back but the main reason was having it stolen from their ancestors in the first place.
@@davidcheater4239 2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 2Co 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
@@johnmccrossan9376 a) there was no place called Spain. b) the various kingdoms in the Iberian Peninsula had been warring against each other for centuries, c) the Moors had lived there for many centuries - it was their land.
@@russellmiles2861 a. I didn't claim there was a country called Spain, when I say the Spanish kingdoms I mean the kingdoms that would later form Spain. This isn't unique to me and what it has to do with the rightness or wrongness of these wars I have no idea. B. Yes, as had virtually every small kingdom in Europe and around the world. These were almost exclusively small wars over the right to tax some river or another so again this doesn't impact the virtue of taking back stolen land. C. The time they lived there is irrelevant. This was a violent conquest that took place without provocation, and the Iberian kingdoms had every right to undo it and take their land back. Saying the moors had some kind of claim on the land is like saying England should still be running India because they were there for a long time. No. The land was stolen and the people wanted it back, as you no doubt would it someone stole your house.
I hear this one so often. The "Troubles" in Northern ireland are always blamed on Catholic vs Protestant conflict. The truth is far more complex. It was more about the traditionally second class Irish residents not having the same rights as the (mostly Scottish and coincidentally protestant) Loyalists who wnted NI to stay part of the UK. These protestants were deliberately settled there by the British government during the 17th century "Plantation of Ulster" to bolster support for the crown. The 20th century Popes all condemned the violent members of the IRA. People will always find a tribalist or nationalistic excuse to find an enemy in "the Other".
Religion is usually a post-hoc justification for wars rather than the instigating motivation. Especially in the days when religion was fully entangled in temporal affairs in Europe, something nominally "In the Name of God" could never completely be divorced from matters of state and general politicking.
Even the religious wars of the Reformation are difficult to attribute solely or even primarily to religion, given the socio-political goings-on
@@myguitardidyermom212 a better question might be how many wars did the church condemn
Thank you Father, I love learning and at 75 I am still learning. God bless you
I agree. Most people who follow God want peace. It’s people that want to destroy that peace is what causes the wars.
I really like the point you made that Kings told their army it was about religion when in fact it was ultimately about expanding and power. Great video!
It’s also so many don’t understand the difference in “caused by religion” & “invoking religion.” Just because someone says it’s for religion doesn’t mean it is or even close to being about religion.
True. In the Holy Roman Empire the saxons were a people of their own that stood in the way of Charlemagne’s dominion over Saxony, so his solution was to justify it as a holy war to gather the support he needed; Christian saxons even sided with him and the converts didn’t oppose
As someone who loves history, the statement that "most wars are religious ones" is completely ridiculous. Even just the wars that the US was involved in.
Revolution - no
War of 1812 - no
Mexican American war - no
Civil war - no
Spanish American war - no
World war 1 - not even remotely
World war 2 - not really, though some could argue that the axis were.
Korean War - no
Vietnam war - no
Cold War - no
Gulf war - no
War on terrorism:
Operation enduring freedom - nope
Operation freedom's sentinel - no
Most wars are fought for land, money, or political differences. Religion has caused wars, but not that many.
Religion was not the main factor for the axis. And the only religion that considers war good is islam.
@@MetaKnight964 The Japanese empire had something called "State Shinto", which was the government controlling the traditional Japanese religion. The state controlled finances and training regimes for priests. The state strongly encouraged practices that viewed the emperor as a divine being.
Thus making the emperor's will, divine in the eyes of the people. That would include the war.
I said it was arguable because there were many countries involved, it would be difficult to blanket "religious war" over it.
And on the topic that Islam sees war as good, what are you smoking chief? The only thing I could find is that the Quran views war as acceptable if done in self-defense, ie: oppressed people revolt. So not only do they not see war as "good", but also even if they did, they would be FAR from the only one. How many polytheistic religions had gods of WAR again? Who was ARES again?
And let's not forget that pagan religions exist. There are probably countless pagan religions out there that think war is good.
I'm an atheist, but i really dislike when people make this claim because it's just not true
Violence caused by religion would be a totally different story! I agree though this is a very misleading and wrong video! The Ireland troubles were seeded and started by religious wars, chances are it never would have continued without religion, it separates people still today! This is a totally wrong opinion in this video, makes me very angry!
As someone who was just recently saved I didn’t realize how many misconceptions I held about Christ and the Gospel until I really dove into it myself.
The issue particularly with younger generations isn’t so much not knowing Christ- but knowing so much that isn’t so.
it's not the younger generation that propagated the myths. And we older generation dropped the ball by using religion to control and subjugate.
Except most are correct
1. No list of 10 Commandments anywhere in the Bible
2. The original Greek gospels don't say Jesus was crucified
3. Jospeh is described as a carpenter
4. The last lines of Mark were added later: chp 14 9-20
5. Chapt of John was not in the original manuscriptd
6. Genesis 18 22 was reversed in 10th century CE
7. The beginning of the Bible is more correctly translated as "When God began..." Inferring there was something not nothing
8. The Ethiopian Orthodox cannon has 81 books including Enoch
9. The Roman Catholic church rejects Hebrews as an Epistles, which the Oriental church recognise.
10. There is no mention of the resurrection in Mark
Yes, many things are made up - often by Christians
@@russellmiles2861 The cool thing about random claims with no evidence is that we can just ignore them, specially when they're easily disprovable
@@komnennoswell, perhaps. We are a culture of myths and legends - if we hear things that support our ideology we believe them. I was recently teaching a class to fledgling community workers. I was striving to show them that the incidence of family violence towards women and children is the lowest ever recorded - so they could see what things worked, what doesn't - in their workplace they will be told the opposite. Oh I mentioned - showing the data - that more men are kill (3 times as many) than women. They are killed by other men (fathers, sons, uncles, housemates, etc) We have folk who just removed all these case from their data to show their point. Oh I add that I don't care about the men - women and children are far more vulnerable
@@russellmiles2861 What is your source for all of that?
Fanaticism about ideology or nation leads to war. Sometimes it religion, sometimes facism, sometimes irredentistism
You may have missed the point of this video, which is that sometimes it's a religion but most times it's not so when you make a statement like you did… Sometimes sometimes sometimes you are the point of the video… Why don't you just come right out and say you don't agree?
@@PoppoFitz I agree with the video. You don't understand my point.
I agree
THANK YOU for calling out many members of the self-proclaimed "Enlightenment." You and others could do a series on that, seriously.
Well argued Father Casey. Now I want a copy of that three-volume encyclopaedia on wars.
Fr. Casey, this is one of your best. Thank you.
You have a lot of very good videos but, I feel you did a wonderful job on this one specifically. TY.
As a historian and a Christian i love it when myths like these get debunked.
I think the 6.5 million jews that died would disagree with you that religion had nothing to do with religion
As a historian you would know that citing a couple of general references, as opposed to scholarly peer review articles would end up with a fail for an assignment.
@@russellmiles2861
As a historian we know it’s a silly argument to have. Every war has religious, ethnic, national, ideological, and economic motivations. The order of importance is swapped around for each conflict, but the driving force behind conquest is almost always the acquisition of wealth. The most acute primary cause of conflict is when one nation or ethnicity in a region grows significantly in population or prosperity, upending the balance of power in their region.
I’ve studied hundreds of wars, and religion is always a component, but it is very rarely the motivating factor. Someone could just as easily argue that religion is the primary cause of peace, which would also be silly. The primary cause of peace historically is when there is a stable balance of powers in the region in question.
@@bennyv4444 as a way of approaching this issue, we might make distinction between wars.
a) Wars instigated by church authorities such as investiture crisis involving Henry IV of Germany and Pope Gregory VII. This is where churches leaders have armies and engage wars of aggression. Such are extremely rare.
b) Wars where there are State churches - essentially the state and church are the same. This would involve most wars in history of Christianity in Europe. They weren't clear caused by churches: churches are just part of state apparatus. In the Great Patriotic war, Stalin recreated the Orthodox church, return property, freed Bishops and priests and allowed public worship to help unify the country. The church hardly has a say in such wars.
c) Wars where churches endorsed wars - it is very rare that churches oppose wars, but the do. Benedict XV stridently oppose the continuation of the Great war and was denigrated by political leaders. This is a rare occasions.
I would that even such a divisions doesn't contribute much; as you observe wars have various and complex causes. Even where religions contribute to the cause it would rare that such was the casual factor: and not even a significant factor.
What might be more interesting is the prevailing ideology in which wars of aggression occur and how church teaching contributes to such.
To illustrate: the Roman Catholic church has always condemned the use of WMD such as nuclear devices and call for World powers to work for the end of such threat to humanity. This is the Western civilization view too. Equally, the Roman Catholic church does not teach unilateralism - that the West must abandoned it's nuclear deterrence. That is recognise as within Just War doctrine. If the Church ever condemned the development and threaten use, excummincating political leaders, it would caste itself into irrelevancy.
Finally, I'd contend Christianity shares responsibility for the calamities humanity has created for itself. The church is not separate from the World. That isn't a myth
@@russellmiles2861 You're not a historian so be quiet.
a. People with different ideas about religion have lived side-by-side without issue the vast majority of the time throughout history.
b. Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, Mao, Fidel Castro, Ceaucescu, etc., were atheists.
Thank you Fr Casey for another excellent video. God bless ✝️
it's crazy to think about so called "intellectuals" claim that religion is the primary reason for war but it's literally our own differences
That was very clarifying. Thank you.
This is something important to know. Thank you for hour explanation! And God belas you!
Wars are mainly over money and power
Fr.Casey, I am a 13 year old boy who want to live I live dedicated to God. As a 13 year old how can I start my journey to become a priest? I love your video’s and you inspire me. God Bless your work, sharing the message of God. Thank you❤
Go ask a Seminary. It is literally the place where aspiring priests go to study
Take bible classes maybe... Then after that read the catechism references. Know the reference bible verses of each line said by a Priest in a mass. Pray everyday to St Michael, guardian angel and patron saint. Daily rosary could help. As one enters 14-20 years old the tentacles of the godless world are most vicious. If one is not strong in education, he can easily be swayed by the media, atheist educators and surrounding friends. Solve these problems before they come to you: is evolution real, is western enlightenment freedom superior to Catholic mentality of obedience, should Catholics follow political discourse in condemning foreigners instead of loving, can your country be saved by human intellect and logic rather than the sacred heart of Jesus and Mary, is faith an illusion for the weak-hearted, are intercession of saints necessary... Finally, obedience to the pope and constructive criticism only for both our church and everything else outside. No bad habit of pointing out negative aspects of people or things. Control the mouth by practice so as not to let out the demon of discord. Lastly, have more love. Many clergymen are reported to be "barking" at people for various reasons. Something discouraged in the Epistles. And of course priests have leadership responsibility, especially in managing finances, deciding where to spend money to fix the broken part first, allocating budget for activities etc. Priests also need to deal with committee members who are partly normal people who are not filled with much grace, but their troublesome existence brings glory to the struggle of a priest's ministry. I am a 30 years old working adult who tremble at the possible notion of leading even a single committee, so I need to commend you for your ambition at such young age. For once you become a priest, you will have to labor ten times more than others, quoting a nun talking about this last week in a meeting I attended. You have duties towards your flock, have to drive around visiting, picking up phone calls at inconvenient hours, attending meetings and travelling back and forth. No much spare time to indulge in favorite activities. Phew! And all these labours come with no salary increments, no monetary reward, and little comfort. Huge respect to priests and friars and nuns! They are chosen not for their extraordinary talents, so that the power of God can be shown through them.
Your parents are so blessed to have you as their child. May God bless you , brother.
War is economics at it's worst
"Religious wars" are always political wars, a good reason to avoid politicsl parties, and think about the consequences of policies, not labels and party loyalty. It's hard though, because it requires difficult, careful thought and reasoning, not emotional impairment.
Hence why religion and politics should stay separate. Or if they meddle it should only be to stop conflict.
Thank you father Casey. This is a true eye opener, and makes me think differently about the Enlightenment.
Thank you fr. Cassey for this very important video
I pray that I may sleep again.
Amen 🙏
I actually fully agree with your point that religion some grand source source of war, but "The Great Big Book of Horrible Things" is an abysmal reference for getting the death totals of human atrocities.
Well said!
Religion doesnt cause most wars
Religion causes a lot of wars
7% of them at most
@@ttterg6152 that's still a lot
@@cubefromblender among over 2.000 wars for over than 5.000 years?
@@ttterg6152 Okay, name those 2,000 wars and then name the 5,000 wars that you mentioned. No vague nonsense neither!
@@xavierphillips2581 i will just give you my source because obviously I can’t name every single one: encyclopedia of wars by Phillips, Charles, Axelrod and Alan
Amazing research, and more so the way you delivered the message, Father!
There's a famous italian book "Was the reason wrong? " about enlightment
Please. Who is the author?
The Muslims grew their initial Caliphs by the sword and so Christmen defended they’re lands in kind
It shouldn't be involved in even one war if it worthy of its claims.
Great video!
Deuteronony 20:17
But thou shalt utterly destroy them, namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee
20:19
When thou besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees ... ect ect
And?
It was not a religious war, it was a war to conquest what today is the holy land ( the real motivation was in fact steal land). God appears here as a dire excuse. The same happens with other supposed religious wars.
Father Casey, Thank you for this video to dispel the myth that ALL wars are caused by religion. I have often heard this statement "All wars are caused by religion" by many people and friends. It often seems the people who say this have used this as an excuse to not consider Christianity as a world view and to hold themselves accountable to God.
This video is sophism at its best
Father, I got a question.
I'm a former lutheran who will convert to Catholicism. I already left the protestant church.
My priest told me I should go to confession before I get received into the catholic church. And when I went to confession (it was another priest) the pater told me he wasn't sure if the absolution is valid because I wasn't received into the catholic church yet.
As a Lutheran I of course am baptised.
Now my question: for the sacrament of penance to be valid, do I have to be catholic or do I have to be baptised?
Thank you very much for your work, it really helped me in my conversion
If you were baptized with the Trinitarian formula you don´t have to be baptized again. You already are part of Christ Church, so maybe that Priest was referring to taking the RCIA or being Confirmed. The absolution might not be valid if your intention was to remain protestant, since the Sacrament of Reconciliation is first, to reconcile with God, but second, to reconcile with the Church/Community, but you are already on your way back to the Catholic Church, so that is not the case. In any case, you could ask your local Bishop for more clarity.
@richardmh1987 thank you, that's also what I thought because in this sacrament baptismal grace is restored, so I "just" have to be baptised.
The "enlightenment" is perhaps the single worst blow to thought as a whole in the past 2000 years.
The Crusades were about religion. Maybe most wars are not but some clearly are. Many of the kings and princes going on crusades we know from the historical record were pious and religious people in every sense.
I recommend looking in to the Taiping rebellion more, the leader of the rebels Hong Xiuquan was not a Christian. He claimed to be a new messiah, the brother of Jesus, and his teachings were hedonistic and very clearly his own religion.
War is a pretty complicated human event. Usually you have years of build up and alot of societial factors playing in on both sides.
In 2000 years, Casey, how many wars were actively opposed by the Vatican...versus how many were given tacit approval by the Pope or the Pope remained silent on them?
Perhaps read Preachers Present Arms by Ray Abrams 1933 - a study of the war-time attitudes and activities of the churches and the clergy in the United States, 1914-1918. The book shows how clergy went from isolationist and antiwar to fire-breathing advocates for war against Germany
A later book edition in 1967 was a much expanded history of the role of the American Churches and Clergy in World War I and II with observations on the then War in Vietnam
Fr. Casey, the conflict between Israel and Palestine is the longest sibling rivalry known to Mankind ( i.e. between the sons of Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac.)
282 wars is still a lot bro. Religions, like any other cultural movement or ideology that unites people, can be a force for good and bad just the same
But you missed the point… Yes, religions can be a force for good bad, but they are not the primary force behind wars. Your assignment is to watch the video again and this time take notes.
@@PoppoFitz most sane people know that it is not the primary cause. But 282 is still a lot. That's why I posted this. I never said that it was the primary cause. Your assigment is to read my comment again and this time take notes
@@rodriguezelfeliz4623but the video is not critiquing your take. It's critiquing the anti theist take that religion bad, destructive, causes and caused most wars and we would all be better off if religion disappeared.
I've had this discussion so many times and at the end people always go back to the crusades. It is interesting however that when you tell them about the geopolitical situation back when the first crusades happened, about how countless christian nations were conquered in the middle east and africa, about how the iberian peninsula got conquered, about how the eastern roman empire and in fact all of europe was at the brink of collapse that the first reaction is always "oh I did not know about that". Of course there were religious motivations to these wars but to think that a bunch of christians just decided one day to go to Jerusalem and kill a bunch of people is absurd.
Thank you, Father for an outstanding video. This myth is so pervasive that it seems "but, everyone says" and therefore, it must be true. And the "enlightenment scholars" real intent was to impress others with their knowledge; yet, a genuine scholar has no need for such behavior. Unfortunately, the poorly educated and misinformed cannot differentiate fact from fiction. Pax
Very interesting and useful piece, Father. Thank you. One note, though: although religion itself may not be responsible for most wars, the belief that one has the one true religion has led to a lot of bloodshed. Political and power structures were built around that belief and capitalized on that belief for centuries in Europe and the Americas. So it is not religion per se that is problem but the belief that only ONE religion has a lock on truth, Divine inspiration and moral authority. ( ahem)
Btw, Lincoln had this insight during the Civil.War: " Both sides believe that God is on their side. One of us, at least, is wrong."
This illustrates an interesting point: religion may not be the cause of most wars but it certainly is enlisted in many wars.
Thank you for debunking this myth.
Your best video ever. 💯.
❤❤❤
I find this a bit of a straw man argument. It's important to draw a distinction between true atheists and what philosopers of religion call "innocents". Innocents are people who have no time for God and live their lives as if God (or Gods) didn't exist. They may know nothing about the arguments for and against God's existence and may never have had a religious experience. I have never heard any of my atheist friends say all wars are caused by religion. Atheists are well used to sifting evidence and Fr. Casey presents compelling reasons for wars which are not religious: we fight over land, wealth, power, oil and water, among other things. The people who say all wars are religious are unlikely to be thinking atheists but rather innocents who have an unspecified dislike of religion or find it an irritating encumbrance. They have their place.
Fr. Casey, if I'm interested in monastic life, but do not desire to be a Friar, what are my options? Open discussion for others as well :) , but I'm primarily seeking advice from Casey :)
Where's Upon Friar Review?
Look into Fr Patrick, not good
What happened?
Well said.
Even st francis of assisi was sent to war with perugia...(before he became a religious )
Nice video. God bless you Father Casey 🙏🙏
Thank you, Father Casey, for this meticulously researched exoneration of religion's role in historical conflicts. It perfectly drives home the point that violence does not, especially in the case of Christianity, logically follow from religious precepts. Rather, religious affiliation is often exploited by political actors to create in groups and out groups to further sow the seeds of animosity between two warring factions.
With all that said, it should be noted that this not the case with Islam. While there are many statements in the Quran and Hadith that enjoin followers to be peaceful and to demonstrate mercy, there are others that are ostensibly bellicose. While the peaceful exhortations of Jesus can be seen to nullify the violent commandments of the Old Testament, no clear method of abrogation exists in Islam. This is compounded by the fact that Muhammad himself, the founder of the religion and one who is looked upon as the model exemplar of a devout Muslim, conducted violent campaigns of conquest. This is something Jesus never did.. So it is far easier to justify violence in the name of Muhammad than in the name of Jesus.. Therefore, it is important not to view all religions, and their role in military conflict, in the same way.
It was crazy with Europeans fighting Europeans who were all of faith! Where Nationalism is apparent! Which the Bible strongly points out peacefulness!
I love these videos. Very controversial yet it answers questions that most of soceiry assumes they got it right the first time. 90% of people who are atheists always use this as why we need to get rid of religion. That "it's the cause of all violence in the world" and the last video you made on that catholic church "persecuting sceicne"
Good stuff
Amen!
And yet, nobody blames religion for every war that took place before Christianity and Islam came on the scene...
EDIT: I wrote that comment before Brother Casey pointed it out.
The nuance may be that religion legitimizes wars, sometimes with both sides claiming to be on the side of the angels. Indeed, some British newspapers reported that real angels had fought alongside soldiers resisting the German advance at Mons in 1914. Saint Joan of Arc and the Archangel Michael had also been on hand to lend their support.
In the next big war, even as the clergy of Poland were being systematically murdered in concentration camps, German priests were telling soldiers that they were agents of God sent to purge Europe of Soviet atheism.
There’s nothing better in terms of propaganda than getting an endorsement from the Lord Himself. “God fought for us,” Henry V declares (with Shakespeare’s help) after the battle of Agincourt, echoing Joshua 10:42. The same spirit prevails in our time: for self-labelled Christian nationalists, the November election includes a candidate with divine authority, and, if he loses, already there is talk of armed rebellion.
I agree that religion is not usually the primary cause of war, but it sure can be used to justify it.
I agree with the argument, people who are anti-religion paint with an oversimplistic brush. Having said that, However, if most war is about disputes over power and conquest, then religion can provide a relatively easy sell by propagandizing the pious into making the war 'righteous.' Religion can also diminish the value of the earthly life by emphasizing the afterlife. 72 virgins and all that. My point, is that while not necessarily true, religion can make people gullible. For example the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were imposed in large part by the religious right support of George W. Bush. There was and is a definite religious connection to 'freedom fries' and support for Israel's war on Gaza which has already claimed 15 x more lives than the terrorist attack perped by Hamas.
A war in the name of Christianity fundamentally anti Christian. I think that is one of the most beautiful things about the Christian faith. Our savior, teacher, and role model is the perfect man… and also God… which helps
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.
@@CafeteriaCatholic Kid, once you finish off reading the Bible completely, then come here again!
@@praveendsouze I have finished reading the whole bible. And I have read what SAINT Bernhard of Clairveaux wrote about the two swords. Peace was never a priority for catholics.
@@CafeteriaCatholic wow, then what about allying with the islamists in the war against the Catholics, this will be done again, " For ships of Kittim will come against him; therefore he will be disheartened, and will return and become enraged at the holy covenant and take action; so he will come back and show regard for those who forsake the holy covenant.," (Daniel 11:30)
Holy Covenant= Eucharist
"They went out from us, but they did not belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But their departure made it clear that none of them belonged to us." (1 John 2:19)
Nice vid thank you God bless 🙏
I agree with the conclusion that religion (defined as either institution or theology) isn’t a major contributor to war. Power and greed will never be outdone in this contest. How about violence, say domestic violence, is it a major contributor, again, probably not . economic and personal issues are tops. But let’s reframe the issue, why hasn’t religion been a force against violence. In Ireland, in Rawanda religious figures were present, but didn’t provide any effort to ensure peace. It took secular institutions to actually work for peace. No bone to pick here. But your conclusion about”religion having a lot to offer” begs the question, why doesn’t it.
Commenting to feed the algorithm
I think we, as a society, bought into the religion and wars myth because we were fighting the War on Terror and had just witnessed 9/11, so it was easier to believe in the previous decades.
This is true, until the rise of Christianity & Islam few wars were fought over religion. Rome didn't conquer its empire to convert their conquests to their religion. The Romans could care less about other people's religion. The European wars of religion were a series of wars waged in Europe during the 16th, 17th and early 18th centuries. Fought after the Protestant Reformation began in 1517, the wars disrupted the religious and political order in the Catholic countries of Europe, or Christendom. Other motives during the wars involved revolt, territorial ambitions and great power conflicts. By the end of the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648), Catholic France had allied with the Protestant forces against the Catholic Habsburg monarchy. The wars were largely ended by the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which established a new political order that is now known as Westphalian sovereignty.
Very interesting video, what are your thoughts on the enlightenment and it’s impact on the global abolishment of slavery? Or women’s suffrage?
Enlightenment thinkers were pro slavery and believed woman suffrage would end society. Slavery was abolished by Christians and women suffrage came thanks to the end of millitary culture thanks to the first World war.
That darned Enlightenment! All that free thinking claptrap about science, democracy and human rights. Bring back the monarchies. They respected the Church and kept the riff raff under control. They also really knew how to party.
Where do you think science and human rights came from? They came from the Church, not the enlightenment.
I love that you use data, father. Although I never thought that religion was the main cause for wars. My view also hasn't changed that religion is still one of the reason that ignite men to wars. Not all religions are peaceful, even though their followers actively believe and preach that their religion is the peaceful one, as for me they just very oblivious 😢
You are correct about Christianity not causing violence, but there are violent religions like Islam whose texts clearly state the need of military conquest to spread the faith and thereby enhancing your fortune.
State the Quran or Hadith section please?
When the mean square Internet atheist says "religion", however, he or she means "Christianity".
For the algorithm
Best thing for the algorithm is to watch the video all the way through and then click another video. But thanks!
@@BreakingInTheHabit But of course
@@BreakingInTheHabit good to know
Judaism caused dateline nbc to catch a predator
This video should be sent to every atheist who makes this statement
Wouldn't make any difference. They traffic in willful Ignorance in support of their dogmas.
Its usually only the baby-atheists that are deconstructing that say things like this i think there is just so much evidence tgat wars are almost always politics and resources with religion used as justification. Heck we even see that in the OT....
Wouldn't help as we can read - two references that are very bias is hardly credible evidence. I suggest read Preachers Present Arms by Ray Abrams 1933 is a study of the war-time attitudes and activities of the churches and the clergy in the United States, 1914-1918.
I also consider the Conquistadors and Northern crusade - two of the most destructive endeavours in human history. Along with King Phillips war in colonial Massachusetts - which saw one of the highest death rate of any war in the Americas
@@russellmiles2861
You realize that when information is included in an argument, it makes a weak counterpoint, right?
King Phillips war was not a religious conflict. The northern crusades pale in comparison to the conquests of The Huns, Mongols, Romans, Alexander, the Assyrians, the modern nation states conflicts like the world wars. Now, the Arab conquests certainly compete, and the 30 years war was terrible.
There are religious wars, but the idea that it is the primary motivator of conflict is silly.
The famous and openly irreligious general Von Clausewitz said it best in his book The Art of War, “Leaders prefer to speak of God when they want a new mine, or the wealth of their neighbor, because the true motivation is an ugly thing.”
@@bennyv4444 I think the Northern crusade were a little bit religiously motivated: they were crusades. And what brought settlers to Massachusetts that brought them into the conflict with First Nation peoples. Be I notice you skipped the Conquistadors where entire peoples were wipped out under invocations of the church to convert by force.
Sure, if you like, there was no religious motivation in wars ... It doesn't bother me; it is not like young people are going to listen to you.
Switch the focus from wars to genocide in the New World and tell me that the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world.
Religions said to be from God are always to be judged, as is the God Who gave the faith to the people, by the *bad* deeds of the followers; due to His supreme authority having even *once* been attributed to Him.
Actually I thinks religion, a religion that values human life, has saved more lives than any political view or social construct. Most religions have a basic belief that it is wrong to kill an innocent human life. Contrast that to most people who are not religious that have no such belief.
What disappoints me about this video is not that it makes the point that religion isn't ultimately the cause of war - certainly not any mature understanding of religion - but the dismissive and revisionist view of the enlightenment. Because religious identity can be manipulated in times of war; because science needs to be beholden to empirical confirmation and not dogma - religious or otherwise; because people's faith takes different people in different directions - secularization of government and some other spheres of life is appropriate. People can - should, in my opinion - have faith; their hope and actions should not be limited to what they can absolutely prove. But too often people used the levers of government to promote their own religious ideologies. This aspect of the Enlightenment - to fight for free expression - was entirely appropriate. This did not come from the religious sphere.
Finally, an opinion video by Fr. Casey that I can completely agree with. It ISN'T even close.
I don’t believe it will ever stop, Fr Casey. The father of lies is behind all of it and will not stop twisting the truth to suit his own end. The loss of souls.
The Taiping rebellion had nothing to do with christianity, their leader was insane and claimed to be Jesus brother, but that doesn't make it christian.
Well said especially on the so called "enlightenment part" (8:17). I can't agree more if we look at today's world from an objective prospective.
One thing is not correct about the Taiping Rebellion(3:12 and 5:05). It is never a case of Christianity cause. The leader claimed that he was the "brother of Jesus" as a new movement against the Qing empire (foreign Mongul conquerors). The Qing was never Christians and actually "anti-Western" including "anti-Western religion". At first, the Western powers supported the Taiping Rebellion for their own colonial gains but later realized it was nothing but a cult and was losing ground, they supported the Qing instead. Just to recap, it is nothing about religion but simply empire ambitions.
Ur so awesome catholic MatPat
I understand the point of this video, but do wish you had taken some more time to talk about the role the Catholic Church as an organization has played in the propagation of war. Perhaps that is better suited as a video for another day. The mission of Christ is peaceful, but it is often misappropriated for horrible ends.
2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 2Co 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
Caused by religion probably not, but territorial conquests were oftentimes justified to the people through a religious lense, because it's a much more effective way of creating an "us vs. them" mentality than "the king needs more land and cheap labour"
Since this is based on statistics....
Do part 2 on wars by atheists! Much worse
👍
War of the Vendee, La Cristiada, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 all come to mind.
Good point. If it is claimed that Christianity was the cause of the 30 years war, so would be the war in Afghanistan during soviet times be motivated by atheism.
To be shown in schools
First comment!!
Thank you for this, Father Casey.
I wouldn’t downplay religions ability to effect/ cause wars though