Religion
Related: About this forumIn Mideast, religious wars often a front for political rivalries
Regional opponents are finding sectarianism to be a useful tool, but experts warn of unintended consequences
Supporters of the Shiite Houthi movement shout anti-Saudi slogans during a demonstration in Sanaa on April 10, 2015 (Photo credit: Mohammed Huwais/AFP)
By Sara Hussein
April 11, 2015, 10:28 am
BEIRUT, Lebanon (AFP) Across the Middle East, fierce rivalry between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran is heightening sectarian tensions, even in conflicts that analysts say are primarily political.
Riyadh and Tehran adhere to different branches of Islam and have often backed members of their own sect in regional conflicts.
But analysts say their rivalry is driven largely by politics, with sectarian sentiment more a useful if dangerous tool.
Sectarian rhetoric is on display most explicitly in the language used by militant groups.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-middle-east-religious-wars-a-front-for-political-rivalries/
safeinOhio
(32,736 posts)to take your stuff and women.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)even is some people will adamantly deny it.
This has been going on as long as there have been humans, imo.
Cartoonist
(7,323 posts)Another example of: Its not religion's fault!
rug
(82,333 posts)Leontius
(2,270 posts)impossible to find a difference.
rug
(82,333 posts)But calling an attempt to unravel the strands a "shameful deflection" suggests someone prefers not to understand what's going on.
edhopper
(33,639 posts)are subject to religious control.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)which is the tune you are stuck on.
edhopper
(33,639 posts)but if they are "using religion" to motivate their followers, doesn't that mean religion is the main reason the followers are pursuing these conflicts?
Could they pursue these conflicts on a purely political agenda without evoking religion?
Could they get the people who actually do the fighting and destruction to act if they were not doing it for their religion?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)politics is the main reason the followers are pursuing the conflicts?
There is no need to make this one or the other. Both politics and religion are powerful forces and when they combine, their power can become extreme.
By holding religion primarily responsible, one may miss the opportunity to understand the complexity of the situation and may attempt to address it with only half the picture.
Could they pursue these conflicts on a purely religious agenda without evoking politics?
Could they get the people who actually do the fighting and destruction to act as if they were not doing it for their politics?
Would that make it better?
edhopper
(33,639 posts)But analysts say their rivalry is driven largely by politics
To dismiss religion as a minor roll is a mistake.
Do you think the ISIS destruction of ancient sites is mainly political or religious?
As I agreed earlier they are intertwined, especially in countries where the politics is controlled by religion.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The truth is likely that it is both and neither should be dismissed.
I think ISIS is both political and religious. What do you think?
I also agree that they are intertwined, particularly in countries where religion is controlled by politics.
edhopper
(33,639 posts)is political?
Or mainly religious?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)They destroyed Saddam Hussein's tomb. Political or religious?
Trying to make this primarily religious misses the point, and that's a dangerous thing to do.
edhopper
(33,639 posts)it serves little political purpose.
Saddam's tomb is a red herring to my question.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)and terrorize people.
On what basis can you distinguish the political from the religious motivation?
Saddam's tomb is not a red herring. It's the clue to the puzzle.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Call it a perversion of or perfection of religion it still forms the basis of who and what they are.
edhopper
(33,639 posts)and I think religious is more of the motivation.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Not very free thinking.
edhopper
(33,639 posts)who does have a handle on the truth? Petty jibes at my thinking are poor argument.
When the actors constantly refer to Islam as their motivation, can we not accept that that is a large motivated factor?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)the other. I readily acknowledge that religion is a factor. I also acknowledge that politics is a factor.
You want it to be primarily one way.
edhopper
(33,639 posts)But we absolutely see they are intertwined in many counties. Political decisions made by a Theocracy.
The author states it is a small factor, I disagree.
Do you?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The article addresses Sunni and Shiite conflicts and I think there is a lot of evidence that this is a longstanding and highly political conflict.
Does religion play a role? Of course it does.
Is religion used as a reason to fight all kinds of wars that have to do with power and land and resources and control? Of course it does.
I don't think it's easy to tease out what is religious and what is political, but I do think it's important to acknowledge that both are at play.
Religious decisions made by a the political group in power and political decisions made by the theocrats.
There is no need make this one or the other or to even make it one more than the other. But if both are not taken into consideration, one will certainly miss the whole picture.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Do you dismiss all political motivation?
Response to cbayer (Reply #12)
edhopper This message was self-deleted by its author.
The main reason would be whatever cause is harnessing religion, and other ideologies, to advance it. Whether supporters act on religious propaganda, or some other propaganda, doesn't change the nature of the political acts.
Yes. See the Spanish-American War, for but one example.
Yes. Same answer.
The thing is, religion is one of the best ideologies through which to exert political control. That's why it comes up so often. But there are other equally powerful ideologies that are contenders for the title.
edhopper
(33,639 posts)considering God as one of the main motivations. That is religious IMO
rug
(82,333 posts)That's politics, nationalism and a half dozen other ideologies at work.
edhopper
(33,639 posts)Or do you think tat has nothing to do with it at all.
Is Al Queda not motivated by religion at all? The Taliban? ISIS?
Fnding a instance she it is less a factor didn't negte it elsewhere?
rug
(82,333 posts)Religion is one of at least half a dozen ideologies at play.
What you don't get is that religion is commonly used for nonreligious, purely secular purposes. You then compound that error by asserting that use is the essence of religion and the intractable result of religion. Aka, "religion poisons everything." I reject that simplistic thinking.
Sorry, your last sentence is garbled. If you're saying this poltical use of religion is inherent in religion, I say this use is for political, not religious purposes. Put out your best example to the contrary.
pinto
(106,886 posts)All play a role in this madness, imo.
edhopper
(33,639 posts)as the author says? And it is not a motivation of the leaders at all?
pinto
(106,886 posts)Either / Or, one or the other, etc. There's few such polar situations I can think of in real life.
edhopper
(33,639 posts)I see a lot more post saying it's not religious at all than ones that say politics and other things aren't involved.
I think "it's only religion and nothing else" is a straw man.
pinto
(106,886 posts)Agree, the either/or, one or the other is a straw man. The reality is more varied than that from what I can discern. My point is that posing the situation as "it's only one thing and nothing else" is missing it. Regardless of what that "one thing" is.
(aside) We may be parsing phrases and ascribing intents here to little constructive purpose. To take step back, it's an interesting topic. The who, what, where and why of it all. Much of it remains a conundrum to me.