War and Religion after Westphalia, 1648–1713

Onnekink, David

doi:10.4324/9781315547732

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… On the continuing relevance of Catholic and Protestant national identity after 1648, and a critique of the idea that 1648 marked the beginning of a decisive reaction against religious war, see Onnekink .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Francisco de Vitoria and Francisco Suárez on Religious Authority and Cause for Justified War: The Centrality of Religious War in the Christian Just War Tradition

Endy¹

2018

Journal of Religious Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contrary to the received understanding that Francisco de Vitoria and Francisco Suárez ruled out religious war by grounding just cause in natural law, they supported a robust view of papal authority for war when necessary for the defense of the church against heretics, schismatics, and pagans as well as for the spread of Christianity and Christendom throughout the world. They believed that religious wars were in accord with natural law as a means to its fulfillment in Christianity, as a justification for the defense of the church as the one true faith, and as a moral obligation to provide all of humanity with the opportunity to receive Christian truth and grace. The neo‐Thomists' vigorous support for religious war was in the mainstream of the Christian just war tradition from the time of the wars against pagans in the early middle ages through their own time. This finding and the continuation into the modern era of sanctified patriotism stemming from the mixing of church and state especially during war that began in early Middle Ages, along with the historic roots of the recently prominent presumption against war, argue for a more complex understanding of the normative Christian just war tradition than that found among supporters of the classic interpretation of that tradition.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Francisco de Vitoria and Francisco Suárez on Religious Authority and Cause for Justified War: The Centrality of Religious War in the Christian Just War Tradition

Endy¹

2018

Journal of Religious Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many scholars reject religion’s importance and argue that religion is simply a mask that hides the real motives behind states’ and other actors’ behavior, which are generally wealth or political power (Dalacoura, 2000; Gurr, 1996; Hasenclever and Rittberger, 2000: 645–646; Kaufman, 1996; Ross, 2008; Smith, 1993). For example, Fearon and Laitin (2003: 75) argue that ‘the main factors … are not ethnic or religious differences or broadly held grievances, but … financially, organizationally, and politically weak central governments [that] render insurgency more feasible and attractive.’ In contrast, many scholars ask whether the actual ideas and beliefs of particular religions affect the political behavior of actors (Barnett, 2011; Licklider, 1995; Onnekink, 2009; Philpott, 2007). For example, Daniel Nexon (2009) argues that religious networks and religious conflict during the Reformation influenced the scale of war and state formation in early modern Europe, while Ron Hassner (2003) shows how relevant religious beliefs about territory can increase the frequency and intensity of conflicts.…”

Section: Theories Of Religious Warmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why was there no religious war in premodern East Asia?

Kang

2014

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In premodern East Asia, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and China rarely experienced anything like the type of religious violence that existed for centuries in historical Europe, despite having vibrant religious traditions such as Confucianism, Buddhism, Daoism, and numerous folk religions. How do we explain a region in which religion was generally not a part of the explanation for war and rebellion? A unique data set of over 950 entries of Chinese and Korean violence over a 473-year span allows granular measurement of religious violence. I argue that the inclusivist religions of historical East Asia did not easily lend themselves to appropriation by political leaders as a means of differentiating groups or justifying violence. Addressing the paucity of religious war in historical East Asia is theoretically important because it challenges a large body of scholarly literature that finds a universal causal relationship between religion and war that is empirically derived mainly from the experience of only Christianity and Islam. In contrast, it may be that certain types of religious traditions are less amenable to mass mobilization for violence. Moving beyond Christianity and Islam to include East Asian religious traditions promises both to address a potentially serious issue of selection bias and also to be a rich field for theorizing about the relationship between religion and war.

show abstract

The Sovereignty Cartel

Barkin

2021

The Sovereignty Cartel

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

War and Religion after Westphalia, 1648–1713

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Francisco de Vitoria and Francisco Suárez on Religious Authority and Cause for Justified War: The Centrality of Religious War in the Christian Just War Tradition

Francisco de Vitoria and Francisco Suárez on Religious Authority and Cause for Justified War: The Centrality of Religious War in the Christian Just War Tradition

Why was there no religious war in premodern East Asia?

The Sovereignty Cartel

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About