Why do people find religious wars to be uniquely evil compared to slaughtering people and burning down towns for money or land or personal feuds or anything else "secular"? Anyone else find it hilariously hypocritical? What's the difference? If anything religious wars are slightly "kinder" because there's at least some incentive to not massacre everyone outright - but to give them the chance to convert and repent for letting them assimilate or be some kind of serfs.

>>17800990 (OP)
Land and profits are real, Jewish fairy tales are not.

>>17800990 (OP)
This double standard is most pronounced with Enlightenment thinkers who talk about how they're so uniquely evil while still enthusiastically advocating for the replacement/extermination of native groups. So I guess killing people in aggressive wars is okay but don't say anything or do anything against their religion. Don't vandalize their holy sites or totems. Really?

>>17800993
Lithuanian forest tales aren't exactly real. Like the guys who wanted to fly up to the sun with hammers.

>>17800990 (OP)
>Why do people find religious wars to be uniquely evil
Do they?

>>17801001
Yeah the crusades are uniquely bad (lefties focus on the Muslim ones that killed brown people /pol/tards focus on the pagan ones that killed white people) - but does anyone do this bitching for the countless English vs French wars or all of the wars between petty feudal vassals? No they only care about wars with some religious flavor. If the Germans solely came to kill Balts for tribute and didn't worship Jesus then I guess they'd be okay.

>>17800990 (OP)
This hypocrisy was highly evident when George W. Bush was U.S. president. New Atheists like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchins were highly in favor of bombing and massacring Iraqis and Afghans in the name of Western liberalism

>>17800990 (OP)
>>17800994
I think this is subconsciously because of everyone since the 1600's having 30 Years War Derangement syndrome

>>17801007
>Yeah the crusades are uniquely bad
Compared to what, world war 2?

>>17800990 (OP)
In a world of scarce resources, sometimes people are gonna fight over them, that's sad but inevitable. On the other hand, wars fought over worshiping and imaginary sky daddy are completely avoidable if people would just be less stupid.

>>17801045
Religious thinking is a part of human psychology to rationalize their lived experiences the notion that there'd be fewer wars without religion is illogical - especially with how religion was used to try to minimize wars (like the pope being like "c'mon guys we're all Christians if you go to war I'll excommunicate you").

>>17801036
>but does anyone do this bitching for the countless English vs French wars or all of the wars between petty feudal vassals? No they only care about wars with some religious flavor.

>>17801058
>No they only care about wars with some religious flavor.
So you outright deny that people care about 'secular' wars like WW2, the invasion of Iraq or Russia's invasion of Ukraine?

>>17801061
The context is obviously in pre-modern societies.

>>17801062
Then the answer is that it's more sympathetic to fight wars with rational/political motivations. Religious wars claim divine sanction and absolute moral goodness, which goes against enlightenment ideals like tolerance and rationalism. Fighting over money, power and status are more tangible things that 21st century people can understand more than religious fanaticism.

>>17801087
>>17800994

Because secularists never pretend they're on the side of an absolute morally flawless being/holy text, whereas the religious do

>>17801161
They pretend that they are absolutely morally right as well. Also it's not an "absolute morally flawless being" who is doing anything in premodern religious wars and crusades - it is their followers who don't even see themselves as flawless.

>>17800990 (OP)
TV taught people the batman mentality. That killing is always wrong. But letting the wicked live is what's wrong. They think God has to be a lovable teddy bear instead of a rigtheous king to be feared. So they never justify God killing, batman wouldn't kill.

>>17801295
>They pretend that they are absolutely morally right as well.

They really don't. The best thing we have are values like liberty, equality and brotherhood, and those are barely comparable to the overwhelming, absolute values that religion says to embody. For one, enlightenment values like these are constantly questioned, whereas religious values are by definition lifted above any kind of scrutiny

>>17801322
What is the difference between slaughtering civilians and destroying towns for X religion vs X ideology? Does it make you more or less virtuous if you are the guy doing it? Does the person getting butchered or having his life ruined care either way?

>>17800990 (OP)
Because you're killing people and damming them to eternal non-existence over something that's most likely not even real

>>17801474
Religion and "material" are not mutually exclusive and never have been in every single war pre-1648.

>Why do people disapprove of killing others in the name of a foreskin eating sand demon?
Truly a mystery.