Dear Editor,
In light of the recent attacks conducted by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)
and the brief reminder of the coup in Trinidad and Tobago led by Yasin Abu Bakr in 1990, many have cited these as proof that religion is the root of most of the major conflicts throughout human history. They argue that religion is the #1 cause of war, and hence we would be better off without religion and faith. Facts state otherwise.
While it's true that 9/11, the Trinidad coup (and, in the case of Christianity, the Crusades and the Thirty Years' War) -- had religious motivations, it is wrong to assert that religion is the #1 cause of war.
According to the Encyclopaedia of Wars (Phillips and Axelrod), of the 1,763 major conflicts in recorded history, only 123 of them were religious in nature. That's just below seven per cent. Moreover, it also explains that the number of people killed in these conflicts amounts to only two per cent! Non-religious motivations and naturalistic philosophies bear the blame for majority of the wars; over 93 per cent.
The major wars in the last century (World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War) were not fought for religious reasons. In fact, World War II was responsible for over 65 million deaths. It was and still is the most deadly conflict in human history.
Here are the numbers of deaths under non-religious dictators. What's more is that
they all happened in the 20th century. Joseph Stalin, 42,672,000; Mao Zedong, 7,828,000; Adolf Hitler, 20,946,000; Chiang Kai-shek, 10,214,000; Vladimir Lenin, 4,017,000; Hideki Tojo, 3,990,000; Pol Pot, 2,397,000.
In summary, the evidence shows that religion is not the #1 cause of war and violence.
Hal Lewis
mobiusraptor7@gmail.com
Is religion the #1 cause of war and violence?
-->
In light of the recent attacks conducted by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)
and the brief reminder of the coup in Trinidad and Tobago led by Yasin Abu Bakr in 1990, many have cited these as proof that religion is the root of most of the major conflicts throughout human history. They argue that religion is the #1 cause of war, and hence we would be better off without religion and faith. Facts state otherwise.
While it's true that 9/11, the Trinidad coup (and, in the case of Christianity, the Crusades and the Thirty Years' War) -- had religious motivations, it is wrong to assert that religion is the #1 cause of war.
According to the Encyclopaedia of Wars (Phillips and Axelrod), of the 1,763 major conflicts in recorded history, only 123 of them were religious in nature. That's just below seven per cent. Moreover, it also explains that the number of people killed in these conflicts amounts to only two per cent! Non-religious motivations and naturalistic philosophies bear the blame for majority of the wars; over 93 per cent.
The major wars in the last century (World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War) were not fought for religious reasons. In fact, World War II was responsible for over 65 million deaths. It was and still is the most deadly conflict in human history.
Here are the numbers of deaths under non-religious dictators. What's more is that
they all happened in the 20th century. Joseph Stalin, 42,672,000; Mao Zedong, 7,828,000; Adolf Hitler, 20,946,000; Chiang Kai-shek, 10,214,000; Vladimir Lenin, 4,017,000; Hideki Tojo, 3,990,000; Pol Pot, 2,397,000.
In summary, the evidence shows that religion is not the #1 cause of war and violence.
Hal Lewis
mobiusraptor7@gmail.com
Is religion the #1 cause of war and violence?
-->