[Dec 15, 2014]
Well, good for her. I’ve often thought what Karen Armstrong states in her new book, “Fields of Blood”: that people don’t go to war for religious reasons, but for property. If there’s no property to be seized from another people, there’s no motive to fight. (I’ve read James Fallows’s review in the New York Times, not the book itself.)
That’s long been a general hunch of mine, but Armstrong does a much better job with the theory by exploring it historically in many, many lights. Religious people fight bitterly, and call on their faith to justify their actions; but the motivation is always seizing control of land, or recovering land that was lost in an earlier conflict. Religious identity binds people together and tells them who to trust, but even intense religious faith doesn’t spark killing unless there is something the enemy has that you want. It sounds like Armstrong makes this point and supports it thoroughly, and I’m grateful for that.
It’s worth noting that when Christians kill their enemies they are violating our founder’s command, but when people of other faiths kill, all to often they are obeying their founder’s command. Jesus himself lived in a land that had been conquered, and was under the control of Rome; yet he did not tell his followers to fight for freedom, he didn’t say “Give me liberty or give me death,” but told them to love their enemies. Christianity is unique in finding humiliation, loss, and oppression to be paths of spiritual transformation. It’s as seemingly-impossible now as it ever was, but it’s the only way to deal with the inherent problem of power. As GK Chesterton said, “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult, and not tried.”
People talk as if the Crusades were the most heinous thing to happen in human history, when the Muslim conquest of those lands—it was a Crusade to recover lands that had been taken in war—was just as bloody and terrible. But what shall we say about the previous history of those lands? Christians took them from Jews, and Jews took them from previous inhabitants in wars celebrated and praised in the Old Testament. It’s a horrifying history for a Holy Land—undeniable, unpreventable, unendable, and the least we can do is ponder it sometimes. Nina Paley’s video makes the point brilliantly; the ending gives me chills every time.
Wow. This book is now on my Christmas want-list. I hadn't heard of it until now, so thanks very much for this.
One question: Was that last paragraph shorthand, or Christians take the land directly from the Jews?
I seem to recall that the Greeks under Alexander took the land (but left the Jews some autonomy), then the Romans took it from the Greeks and made it a direct province, and then the Romans were Christianized. (I think maybe the Parthians were in there, somewhere?) I don't recall a direct military conflict between Christian and Jewish armies, though.
In re Crusades, the Allied fight to liberate occupied Western Europe in 1944-45 was called a Crusade, which is in my opinion an accurate parallel. I wonder if one day we'll hear academic guilty lamentation for dropping the Red Army on Berlin?
Oh, good point, Rob. I was hurrying and not paying attention. Yes, the Jews were conquered by Greeks, and then occupied by Romans, and then Romans became Christians; Christians did not directly take the land from the Jews.
Feeling guilty about past successful battles sure is a luxury only winners can afford.
You might also be interested in The Myth of Religious Violence by William Cavanaugh. http://www.amazon.ca/Religous-Violence-Secular-Ideology-Conflict/dp/0195385047
He goes a little further into why the idea of religion's "inherent violence" serves as a convenient legitimation of Western modes of power, including violence against non-Western entities (e.g. Iran, Iraq, Syria, Palestine). In other words, secularism functioning exactly as you describe above – another pretext under which to acquire property.
You should definitely read the book in its entirety. It clarifies a whole lot of misconceptions. Armstrong does an excellent job placing all conflicts, including the Crusades, in their proper context.