The Antichristian Phenomenon

Debunking Christianity III — Of War and Manipulation

I deliberated quite a bit about whether or not to include this article under the Debunking Christianity series. I finally decided to include this with DC because it fits into my overall goal statement, which I will type up in the very near future, and should have posted before I even began the series. This is not your typical “Religion = war!1!! War iz teh evul! Stop relijuns = no more warz!111!!!” article that you might see elsewhere on this topic. It is less of a “debunking” and more of an awareness article, but it still fits.

Without further ado, here is the Debunking Christianity view of war and its ties with religion.

“…It is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them. And I shall dare to say this also, that to have them and always to observe them is injurious, and that to appear to have them is useful; to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright, and to be so, but with a mind so framed that should you require not to be so…” — Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

Before I get into the meat of what this article is, I wish to first clarify what it is not. I am not going to claim that religion is the cause of war. I am not going to argue and nitpick about historical wars and atrocities. I’m not going to debate whether or not the majority of war casualties were due to religious or atheistic “regimes”. I am not going to mess around with the question of whether or not Hitler or any other terrible despot was an Atheist (Hitler was a Christian by the way, he said it himself…read the all caps at the bottom… more than once and again. These are just his public speeches, I haven’t even gotten to Mein Kampf yet…). I am also not going to moan and complain about how horrible and tragic the Inquisition and the Witch Hunts were, or anything along these lines. I am also not going to decry Islam, Judaism, or Christianity in particular, as instead I will be dealing with deep, dogmatic religion in general, though I will be focusing primarily on western religion. What I will be arguing is that religion is an uncanny way to inspire a population to bloodlust, and that we must be wary of “religious” war and seek its root. Only by finding the root can we solve problems, not struggling in its branches. I will also examine the “why” of this.

Even in religious wars, there is usually little “religious” about the event. Most religions claim to be against killing, violence, and harming others in general. They claim to be peaceful and loving, more focused on salvation and a personal relationship with the deity and the universe than destruction towards others. Of course, we know these claims fall apart every time a Muslim detonates a suicide bomb, an Israeli counter-terrorist pulls the trigger, or a Christian murders a doctor that performs abortions. For sake of this article, we will ignore whether or not these are “true” religious acts for the present, this is irrelevant. We can safely assume that the acts themselves are aberrations or misinterpretations of these regularly “peaceful” religions, as they like to think themselves, and acknowledge that many of the instances of “religious” violence actually have little to do with “religion” at all, but have more base motives. Rather than whether or not violence and hate can “really” be justified by religion, our issue here lies primarily in the fact that religion is actually a very, very easy way to justify the horrors of war and renders those who use it near untouchable, even making them glorious martyrs upon their deaths simply because they claimed to be inspired by a deity, rather than openly admitting another, less glorifying motive.

The first problem with a “religious” war is that it contradicts itself and creates a self-fulfilling situation similar to that of Ed Van Pelt’s Christvertising (and prayer in general). Both sides are praying feverishly to “win”, and if one believes or least acknowledges the religious unification concepts, they’re technically both praying to the same God. Then, God takes a side and that side wins, so whoever won can thereby assume they have God’s favor, even if it was really a matter of owning and/or using an atomic bomb, using successful guerilla tactics, or having more powerful mortal allies. If we assume God takes a side in every war, sometimes he makes some pretty strange choices for the victor… and he clearly doesn’t always choose any one religion. Also similarly to Christvertising, the losing side can justify their loss as a “trial” or “lack of belief/prayer”, or “part of the great plan” (aka “we’ll win later”), so somehow they can still be in “favor” of their deity and still use religion as a driving force. While this system of thought may seem a bit circular and silly looking from the outside in, it is nearly impossible for the religious warrior to see the errors in it, just as they can’t see how incredibly circular and self-fulfilling the “Yes, No, Wait” answers of prayer are. From the inside, this system of thought is completely logical, but ultimately whether or not an army perceives itself to have “God’s favor” has little to do with the outcome of the skirmish or campaign (exempting the placebo factor), it primarily has to do with which army has some form of tactical advantage.

Most scholars consider the ancient Chinese writer Sun Tzu to be one of (if not THE) leading authorities on how to conduct and win a war. His famous 6th century text The Art of War has been read by generals and tacticians for centuries, is in wider circulation than ever before, and has become a requirement for most businessmen to study before heading into the corporate battlefield. It has been studied and commentated, and adapted and updated into new editions for many applications in modern life–law, sports, business, strategy games, social interaction, political campaigns, and so on. Sun Tzu clearly knew what it took to engage an enemy and come out victorious, and his methods are tried and true, otherwise The Art of War would not have proliferated so deeply into society today and referred to specifically by nearly every successful CEO, politician, general, and even by pop culture such as Star Trek the Next Generation and Survivor. Many religious people make the same argument in favor of their religious text–”it has been around for centuries uncorrupted (…) and is popular than ever today, people still believe it and follow it and its precepts are still strikingly timely! Thereby how can you doubt its truth?” The difference with my argument for a military philosopher like Sun Tzu is that not only has his book stood the test of time, but it has stood the test of application as well. Interestingly, not once in his text will you find the words god, prayer, or religion. Don’t believe me? Check yourself. Clearly, one does not actually need to have or ask the favor of a deity to win a battle, or to successfully strategize and conquer. So why declare a war “religious” in the first place, especially if it isn’t? The answer lies in the very first first chapter of the Art of War: “All warfare is based on deception.”

Still exempting those incredibly rare circumstances where the war is genuinely 100% religious in nature, Niccolo Machiavelli has the reasoning in chapter 18 of his book, The Prince. The people can be manipulated by it and it keeps the ruler in good favor. What is a good way for a prince to appear? “Merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright…” What happens when a prince lets slip from his lips something not replete with the above-named qualities? It will make him “despised and hated”. It is interesting to note that in Machiavelli’s chapters on this subject he uses the word “appear” instead of “be”. A ruler need not actually possess any of these desired qualities to find himself loved and victorious. Humans can be incredibly gullible and blind, especially in subjects they hold close to their hearts instead of their minds. When the prince is loved by his subjects, he can do anything, and what better way to be admired than to appear the pinnacle of something his subjects hold close to their hearts? And what better way then to manipulate his subjects but by taking that thing and deceiving them with it. All warfare is based on deception…

It is also worth mentioning that Machiavelli’s writings often tend to crop up alongside Sun Tzu’s on the bookshelves of successful CEO’s, politicians, and so on. You may know him better by his maxim, “The ends justify the means”.

Also, the religious warrior tends to be blinded by his faith, and fails to see the bigger picture. When the general says “God grants us this victory”, he cheers and gets ready for the next one, for god’s glory of course, instead of asking why are we really questing again? If a leader is operating under the guise of holy war or at least partial religiosity as Machiavelli recommends, the warrior will have no reason to question him. The general will also hold greater power over his troops by citing religion. If a warrior acts against the Cause or the general, he can be threatened not only with mortal punishment, but damnation as well, and likewise promised treasures beyond this world for successful victory and valiant combat, such as Valhalla. In his own Art of War, Machiavelli illuminates how successfully this strategy of managing troops worked in the past:

“Religion was (also) of much value in keeping the ancient soldiers well disposed and an oath was given to (taken by) them when they came into the army; for whenever they made a mistake, they were threatened not only by those evils that can be feared by men, but also by those that can be expected from the Deity. This practice, mixed with other religious means, often made an entire enterprise easy for the ancient Captains, and WOULD ALWAYS BE SO whenever religion was feared and observed.” –Niccolo Machiavelli, Art of War.

Machiavelli also extols Ferdinand of Aragon for “always using religion as a plea, so as to undertake greater schemes, he devoted himself with a pious cruelty to driving out and clearing his kingdom of the Moors; nor could there be a more admirable example, nor one more rare. Under this same cloak he assailed Africa, he came down on Italy, he has finally attacked France; and thus his achievements and designs have always been great, and have kept the minds of his people in suspense and admiration and occupied with the issue of them. And his actions have arisen in such a way, one out of the other, that men have never been given time to work steadily against him. So why would any general, specifically in the West, give up this advantage?

It has been shown here by some of the greatest strategists themselves that the claimed intent does not really have to be genuine, and is much more likely the result of personal ambitions of a single man or group rather than a genuine effort for religion itself. Where the problem lies here is that these ambitious men and women can effectively use religion to twist the average, god-fearing citizen into whatever they desire. Admittedly, one can also use family or security for the same means, but (in this author’s humble opinion) those are legit reasons. When a corrupt ruler says in all or partial truth “Fight along side me or the man/woman/child/etc you love will die at the hands of the enemy” or “Fight alongside me or the land you cherish will be ravaged to the ground and the life you know and love will be torn to pieces”, it would be illogical to resist in most circumstances. Granted, there are times where philosophically it should be deemed necessary to resist and fight back, but those are generally not the norm, and most people tend to be pragmatists and not idealists anyway. However, when the corrupt ruler says “Fight alongside me for the glory of a folk tale!” or “Fight along side me or a character from this story will smite you”, this is just silly. However, it must be acknowledged and taken seriously that many religious people hold the myths and legends they believe to be true right alongside their friends, family, and other values, and this is how the corrupt ruler can dominate them, manipulate them, laugh, and reap the benefits in the process.

What needs to happen is for religious people to look outside their faiths in matters of conflict. In modern life in a developed nation, it is a fact that most people are not directly affected by real war and violence, meaning they don’t feel the need to pack their windows with sandbags to protect their children from getting shot by snipers. Most families have had a relative involved in a war, or even die in a war, but the majority experiences war through a television screen or console, not by physically ducking for cover from bombs, fleeing wild AK-47 fire, or fearing that the pounding on the door might be the local death squad come to pay a visit, not just a pesky Jehovah’s Witness or Girl Scout selling Thin Mints. Here, conflict is experienced more frequently in the political arena, or the workplace, or in social circles. Similarly to how Sun Tzu’s Art of War was modified to fit nearly every occupation, the abstract concepts of war and conflict can be molded to fit everything from a workday at McDonald’s, the presidential race, or interaction with your mother-in-law. What were soldiers in antiquity manifest themselves as voters or activists today. While we obviously still have a military, our wars are across the sea and out of sight. The average man is more likely to focus on the conflicts happening within his borders, those he sees everyday and experiences firsthand. While many people are actively focused on the current War effort, it won’t really be in the absolute forefront of their minds until a local town is erased from the map because of it. Until then, “that pothole down the street and why our taxes aren’t fixing it” is a bit more aggravating, as there is a constant reminder of an unresolved issue every single time it is run over. While religious manipulation has little to do with the fixing of a pothole, it has a lot to do with current “key” issues and hot topics. Many of the most controversial topics today involve religion in some form, whether it belongs there or not!

And even today, the new religious “warriors” of the voting booth, newspaper editorial, and picket line are deferring to manipulative authorities on basis of religion, not on knowledge of the topic or actual, thought out opinions. Repulsive bumper stickers such as “You can’t be Catholic and Pro-Choice” (as well as several others), and movies such as Expelled! are constant reminders of this. In America, for example, a candidate can’t even hope to win without the vote of the “Christian” demographic, which is a reminder that Machiavelli’s advice to appear virtuous and religious or be hated is still valid. There has also been an influx of “issue voters” — voters who will refuse to vote for a candidate based on their stance on a certain key issue such as abortion or same-sex marriage… usually for religious reasons. At this point it doesn’t even matter whether or not religion is “valid”, it is clearly an impairment to judgement and a detriment to the individual who follows it blindly. While a religious person can be reasonable in modern war and conflict, holding moderate views and judging candidates and laws based on their merit rather than their religious dogmas, there is a considerable demographic that can’t, and these are the dangerous ones. Most conflicts today and through history have ultimately been for the simple purpose of making a gain or preventing a loss. Sometimes this is territory, sometimes resources, sometimes a vote, or Freedom, or desirable result on the stock market. The End is ultimately immaterial compared to the Means in this case. The End can usually be reached without having to tap the religion card as exhibited by Sun Tzu, so WHY is it so popular and valuable? While we can try and point fingers at the politicians and leaders for manipulating and milking the population, honestly, are they really to blame for picking the fruit that is ripe? If more people would try to think outside the rules outlined in a little book and see the corrupt faces behind the smiling masks, there would be no ripe fruit to pick.

This entry was posted on Monday, June 16th, 2008 at 5:16 pm and is filed under Culture, Religion, SocioPolitical. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.