En réponse à la vidéo de @LeFred (soyez gentil avec lui les gens). Pour une fois, je ne vous cite pas de sources particulière sous la vidéo, car ce que je dis ici est le fruit d'une réflexion personnelle que je vous partage. #apprendresurtiktok #histoire #religion #religare #info

I'm nothing against religions, but I tell myself that it makes a lot of war for it to see that there is the best friend, imaginary. Ah, that's interesting because we hear it all the time. You already told me that religions will be eternal, source of war, but I'm not completely agree with that. I'm a doctor in history of religions and I propose to show you the time with me. In the antiquity, the Romans did not conquer vast territories, in the optics of imposing their God to others. They did it by imperialism and expansionism. Same with the Ithic, the Egyptians, the Persians, the kings fighting Chinese are not made the war for religious reasons. They share the same beliefs. No, it was politics. In the Middle Ages, the innumerable conflicts between Lord Christian faith. Well, he wanted it between Christian faith. There, it was still politics. The expansion of Arab Muslims? Okay, there were religious factors, but it was also an imperialism. And besides, in the immense majority of which, the conquest population was not converted to force. In the vast territory of Muslim domination, there was a long time left to Christian majority. Yes, there were the crusades, the giants, the wars against the erratic, but was it the majority of wars? Well, I do not know, you have a statistic on the subject. And even for these conflicts, the political reasons they were also present. In the crusades, there were muslims who fought against the Christian side. During the meeting, it seems that the opposition was not at all binary, the Christians were with muslims and vice versa. For the crusades against the al-Bijois, the king of France wanted to control the rich and prosperous lands of the south of France. They wanted a lot of noble, faithful to the pope and not of the erratic, but of the al-Bijois side. Because they were not stupid of the territorial dimension of the conflict. Colonial wars, imperialism, and mercantilism. The European wars, the same mercantilism, the Japanese war, territorial war, the American independence, the political war, and then the two conflicts were killed all the time. The first and the Second World War. Well, they had, for the main author, the nationalism and the expansionism. Not the religion. During the Second World War, the Jews were very good in genocide, but the network in Asia was much more racial than religious. And this is not the genocide that has declared war, it's the invasion of Poland. Today, the US against Ukraine is a conflict that opposes two peoples, the majority orthodox. It would be Palestine. Well, there are religious elements, okay? But there are also many territorial and political elements. So yes, there have been religious wars, it does not mean the contrary. And there are still, but frankly, humans don't need religions to put themselves on the street. And sometimes they use just religions as pretext for arguments, well, material basements. But I'm curious to see your opinion on the subject in the comments. And if you want more information about religions, don't hesitate to subscribe.