Is fighting for a religion right? - General

Is fighting for your right to eat a $2 pudding every other Thursday evening right? No it is not, as using a facet to justify violence or war is wrong. Religion especially so because they advocate the unification of people and peace.

-snip-

depends on if you mean physically fighting or "fighting" in the general sense, as in, wanting something really bad and trying to attain it.

It's ironic that the religious diversity in ethical and moral rules of conduct still results in conflicts if the religion includes divinity. Spirituality and even secular morality is based on personal beliefs, religion by tradition is separate simply in indoctrination. Physically engaging in harming other individuals based on personal beliefs is decadent redundant behavior.

well most religions say fighting in its name is bad in the first place, so it goes back to interpretation, which becomes semantics and dogma, ie, the argument over whether the bible encouraged slavery or barred it, and then the fighting breaks out so it really doesn't matter what religion says about fighting, because we always will come up with a way to work around its words [editline]16th March 2013[/editline] I'm not sure about Judaism or Islam, but I do know the new testament of the bible advocates people unifying and not eradicating each other, I think Islam has something about not killing other religions, but I'm not 100% sure [editline]16th March 2013[/editline] the op doesn't really seem to understand the Israel Palestine conflict in any sense, its not a religious war at all, Israel today is not the Israel of the bible, its a nation of europe's Jews and exiles who left after the atrocities of ww2 and because of the decent of Stalin and communism on eastern Europe, if you were Jewish under communism you had no garenteed protections or rights, go watch a fiddler on the rooftop, they are not fighting for the land in a religious sense, it just so happens that there are Arabs and Jews who want the same land, the Arabs have lived there for centuries, the European Jews and displaced refugees moved in and started making changes, what happened next was the outbreak of war in an attempt to crush them which created the massive hate in the region that exists today, [editline]16th March 2013[/editline] I make the point because most wars today, espeacilly the middle east, are not fought because of religion, religion is just a convenient recruiting tool to use, the middle east is full of grudges and unresolved disputes because nobody ever talks over there, they just instantly jump to the guns and tanks and the bombs which causes more grief, Iraq is practicly falling apart again because the repressed suni majority has come to power and strikes back at the shia minority that held power for 30 years

Religion is probably the absolute worst reason to fight for something. I mean other causes aren't fantastic either but at least most of them are [I]tangible[/I], faith however is not tangible at all and should not be used to justify killing or destroying things that actually exist.

Well if you really want to get technically most religious fighters don't even follow there own book.

Is fighting for anything right? That is the great question and it is a choice in life that must be eventually made by every single person.

it depends on the religion and the circumstances. But there's always a time for love and a time for war. A time for peace and a time for French kissing in all of its connotations.

It depends... Fighting just because you want your religion to dominate is wrong. Fighting to make sure only your religion exists is wrong. But fighting for your right to believe in your religion is fine. Hell, say a law comes in that say, Protestants can't worship anymore, they have to become Catholics. You fucking bet I'm going to fight that. That's fucking noble.

im a real live and let live kinda guy... but there are righteous wars and things worth fight for. (Just not too often) Most of America's wars have turned out to be B.S.

Do people fight for their religion? Israel/palestine is about land. If the palestinians were atheists the same thing would probably happen. (except less organisation from jihad/ceasefire calls) The sacking of jerusalem by medieval crusaders. The crusaders got loot, sent back treasure to rome, leaders got land/glory and money. They killed jews and christians inside the city. Thats not about religion. Northern ireland. Catholics vs protestants. Its about land, industry, entitlement and discrimination. People don't fight for religion but it does help them group up. If not religion then people would use race, football team, politics, tribe etc as a reason. Chimps fight other "tribes" of chimps over land and resources. So do we.

While I find it rather amusing to watch two plebians argue with each other for hours on end over such trivial matters, debating fictional matters is hardly productive.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;39979023]Do people fight for their religion? [/QUOTE] When they declare "God wills it" I'm sure alot of them meant it. Alot of the crusaders were peasants and lower nobles who had little to gain but salvation. There was some freedom to be gained and a little land. We also have tons of crusading orders who had members who had nothing to gain at all, but salvation.

No

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;39984703]When they declare "God will's it" I'm sure alot of them mean't it. Alot of the crusaders were peasants and lower nobles who had little to gain but salvation. There was some freedom to be gained and a little land. We also have tons of crusading orders who had members who had nothing to gain at all, but salvation.[/QUOTE] The gain wasn't theirs, but there was gain to be had by others. They were just sold a lie as a reason to fight. I mean, the Knights Hospitallier (I believe that was the order that was based on Malta), for example, were placed there to act as a buffer to retributory attacks by the Arabs, but... well... history shows how that worked out. Is it right to fight for a religion? No, inasmuch as it is wrong to fight for any cause which is easy to pervert. But really, the base cause of all conflict is greed. Religion is just a way to pretty it up, as are things like Patriotism. The guy up above who talks about "tribes" of Chimps pretty much nails it. And really, the question this comes down to is: Is it right to fight? If so, WHEN is it right to fight? And if we can justify fighting in some circumstances, to ourselves, does that make us any better or worse than the people who justify fighting for their religion? And before anyone asks, I don't know the answers to those questions. I know MY answer - I'll fight if I or the people I hold dear are threatened, as would any animal. But that answer might not work for you.

Thank God I'm an Atheist.

The question of this thread begs the question of whether A religion is right. I'm sure they aren't 100% bull-crap, but there is a lot of books of men that are just that: Books of Men.

[QUOTE=Jarate Lover;41137123]Thank God I'm an Atheist.[/QUOTE] What an intelligent, well-thought-out reply to the issue at hand If I ever need someone to back me up in a debate, I've got you on my PM speed dial But pretty much the problem is that religion is being abused as a justification for warring. Nobody's actually fighting FOR religion, they're fighting for themselves and using religion as a conveniently placed reason.

Seen as there is no supernatural beings, the answer is self explanatory. History as thought us that fighting for a higher power only brings about endless wars and mass terror. i chose atheism.

[QUOTE=Gar92;41248315]Seen as there is no supernatural beings, the answer is self explanatory. History as thought us that fighting for a higher power only brings about endless wars and mass terror. i chose atheism.[/QUOTE] But atheism should be included in this too Was it right for Stalin to hold his campaigns against the religious? Its practically fighting for a religion, only in this "religion" they don't worship a god So clearly Stalin thought that fighting for his beliefs was right, although he was the aggressor in this situation, and he's an atheist. Which means that the answer is not self explanatory because Stalin did not worship any supernatural beings but nevertheless caused a religious conflict.

Stalin was a power hungry warmonger. stalin got rid of worship in russia during the 1920s and thirties, but nearly everyone ignored him, the soviet party was officially atheist,but in truth it was all propaganda. power was the only thought.

Good news folks, contrary to mostly everyone's statement, it has been proven, over and over again that atheists are the ones who start the most conflicts, anyone remember Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong? Killed over 100 million people collectively. If you want sources, please don't hesitate to use Google to find it yourself, no need for me to do your research for you. Lastly, this doesn't mean that Christians have started wars. [editline]30th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Gar92;41248454]Stalin was a power hungry warmonger. stalin got rid of worship in russia during the 1920s and thirties, but nearly everyone ignored him, the soviet party was officially atheist,but in truth it was all propaganda. power was the only thought.[/QUOTE] Oh, okay...so his atheistic views didn't play a roll whatsoever, I gotcha....I'm glad you could read his mind and say that was his only intention.

[QUOTE=theoneman;41249799]Good news folks, contrary to mostly everyone's statement, it has been proven, over and over again that atheists are the ones who start the most conflicts, anyone remember Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong? Killed over 100 million people collectively. If you want sources, please don't hesitate to use Google to find it yourself, no need for me to do your research for you. Lastly, this doesn't mean that Christians have started wars. [editline]30th June 2013[/editline] Oh, okay...so his atheistic views didn't play a roll whatsoever, I gotcha....I'm glad you could read his mind and say that was his only intention.[/QUOTE] Wait Hitler was Christian though And I dunno about Mao Point still stands that atheists should be included in this discussion

Atheists opinions are as welcome to this discussions as religious people so I don't see any issues here. It's really dumb when people come here and shout out their opinion with one simple phrase like it's a black and white question. It's also pretty dumb to derail this thread with "Worse of atheists VS Better of Religious" and vice versa. I'm a Christian by the way and this is what I think: This is a relative issue and since it represents what people believe deep inside and since religion was or is the base stone of many country's moral views, yeah, it's legit to fight for your moral and cultural heritage since it's part of your identity. Of course that if you're fighting for forcing your religion on other religion's it's not a good thing, but I think we're on the same page on this matter. and I don't really need to go there for obvious reasons. However, nowadays people seem to try to separate themselves from religion like it's a bad thing. I think religion gives people insight of other things that the "seeing is believing thesis" doesn't cover up, and I think people are giving more and more value to material things rather than spiritual insight, hence fighting for money, power and earthly hedonist pleasures rather than enriching themselves spiritually.

Fighting for a a religion is most certainly right if it is self defense. There are many wars which are unjust, but if one is attacked, then one has the right to counter attack. If someone is threatening the existence of your ideology with violence, then would you really argue that you have no right to fight back? Of course, this brings up many "he started it" arguments which are frequently used to rationalize wars, but I think that the most important point to be made here is that while sparking a violent conflict due to religion is obviously immoral (and prohibited by many religions themselves), participating in one isn't necessarily wrong.

I'm not religious so I can't speak as a religious person, but I believe that fighting for a religion is a right as which free-speech is a right. I don't see a problem unless it's taken to extremes (See Also: West Boro Baptist Church).

Why kill for GOD if GOD gives and takes life? You'd be denying the existence of GOD if you did.

[QUOTE=MCCCXXXIII;41365261]Why kill for GOD if GOD gives and takes life? You'd be denying the existence of GOD if you did.[/QUOTE] What?

I think it's not right but you should be able to defend your beliefs peacefully.