Replies

Wish I had discovered this earlier. There's a provocate essay by William T. Cavanaugh, titled “A FIRE STRONG ENOUGH TO CONSUME THE HOUSE:" THE WARS OF RELIGION AND THE RISE OF THE STATE" arguing that the "wars of religion" serves as part of a foundation myth for modern liberalism. Well worth a read. A selection:

I will argue that this story puts the matter backwards. The "Wars of Religion" were not the events which necessitated the birth of the modern State; they were in fact themselves the birthpangs of the State. These wars were not simply a matter of conflict between "Protestantism" and "Catholicism," but were fought largely for the aggrandizement of the emerging State over the decaying remnants of the medieval ecclesial order. I do not wish merely to contend that political and economic factors played a central role in these wars, nor to make a facile reduction of religion to more mundane concerns. I will rather argue that to call these conflicts "Wars of Religion" is an anachronism, for what was at issue in these wars was the very creation of religion as a set of privately held beliefs without direct political relevance. The creation of religion was necessitated by the new State's need to secure absolute sovereignty over its subects. I hope to challenge the soteriology of the modem State as peacemaker, and show that Christian resistance to State violence depends on a recovery of the Church's disciplinary resources.

Excellent post!

Man, thanks for that essay. I have not read all of it yet, but I will today, Lord Willing.

But I was willing to concede that the Thirty Years War was a religious conflict and still not yeild the core contention that most 'Wars of Religion' were not actually instigated for religious reasons.

The religious affiliations were consinsidered only in so far as it aided the state in rallying the population or reinforcing its power structure in some other way. This essay supports that contention even for the Thirty Years War as well! Well, if that was not a 'Religious War' then nothing was. Heheh, and it would appear that indeed nothing was!

So, again, can one call a war that religion did not instigate a 'war of religion'?

I think it cannot be.

And if one was so inclined, could not the wars of the twentieth century, mostly wars of ideology, not be called 'Wars of Atheism?'